Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/557,007

BRAIN MONITORING AND STIMULATION DEVICES AND METHODS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 20, 2021
Examiner
PREMRAJ, CATHERINE C
Art Unit
3794
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Genesis Intelligence LLC
OA Round
8 (Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
9-10
OA Rounds
4y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
112 granted / 200 resolved
-14.0% vs TC avg
Strong +49% interview lift
Without
With
+49.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 4m
Avg Prosecution
57 currently pending
Career history
257
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
57.0%
+17.0% vs TC avg
§102
19.8%
-20.2% vs TC avg
§112
15.7%
-24.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 200 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruffini et al., (US 20110190846; hereinafter Ruffini) in view of Ghaffari et al., (US 20100298895; hereinafter Ghaffari), Arumugam et al., (US 20150250421; hereinafter Arumugam), Roukes et al., (US 20160150963; hereinafter Roukes), Flaherty et al., (US 20050273890; hereinafter Flaherty), and Llinas (US 20040133118). Regarding claim 1, Ruffini (Figure 1) discloses a system to provide self-guided, self-directed diagnostics and treatment of neural conditions ([0024], [0049]) comprising: a processor (PDPU+SR), memory (storage of the processor) accessible by the processor (PDPU+SR), and program instructions and data (stimulation/monitoring application) stored in the memory; a plurality of stimulation devices (E1-En) comprising electrical stimulation devices connected to signal output circuitry (communications module) interfacing the processor (PDPU+SR) with the plurality of stimulation devices (E1-En), wherein the program instructions and data stored in the memory are configured so that the processor (PDPU+SR) generates and transmits stimulation signals to the plurality of stimulation devices (E1-En); and a plurality of sensing devices (S1-Sn) comprising electrical sensing devices connected to signal input circuitry (communications module) interfacing the processor (PDPU+SR) with the plurality of sensing devices (S1-Sn), the electrical sensing devices (S1-Sn) comprising electrical terminals ([0031]: the sensing devices may be the electrophysiological sensors described in patent application ES2289948, which include electrical terminals capable of sensing voltage and current between the electrical terminals), wherein the program instructions and data stored in the memory are further configured so that the processor (PDPU+SR) receives sensed signals from the plurality of sensing devices (S1-Sn), the sensed signals comprising voltage and current between the electrical terminals so as to determine flow of electrons and positive ions through the brain ([0031]: as explained above, the electrophysiological sensors described in patent application ES2289948 include electrical terminals capable of sensing voltage and current between the electrical terminals so as to determine flow of electrons and positive ions through the brain); wherein the program instructions and data stored in the memory are further configured so that the processor (PDPU+SR) performs real-time dynamic closed loop feedback of the stimulation signals comprising adjusting stimulation signal intensity, frequency, and location, based on the received sensed signals to provide self-guided, self-directed diagnostics and treatment of neural conditions using at least one recipe for a treatment strategy guided by artificial intelligence ([0034]-[0037], [0074]-[0085]). Ruffini fails to disclose that the plurality of stimulation devices comprises chemical and optical stimulation devices in addition to the electrical stimulation devices; and the plurality of sensing devices comprise chemical and optical sensing devices in addition to the electrical sensing devices, wherein the chemical sensing devices comprise carbon nanotubes. However, Ghaffari (Figures 1 and 7A) teaches a plurality of multifunction pixels (1010B) which may comprise stimulation devices and sensing devices. Each multifunction pixel (1010B) is a unit comprising electrical sensing devices (respective electrical sensors), chemical sensing devices (respective chemical sensors), optical sensing devices (respective optical sensors), electrical stimulation devices (respective electrical actuators), chemical stimulation devices (respective chemical actuators), and optical stimulation devices (respective optical actuators), ([0114], [0119]-[0128], [0131]-[0134]), wherein the chemical sensing devices comprise carbon nanotubes ([0107], [0233]: sensing devices may be based on semiconductor technology, which may include carbon nanotubes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ruffini to include the plurality of stimulation devices comprising chemical and optical stimulation devices in addition to the electrical stimulation devices, and the plurality of sensing devices comprising chemical and optical sensing devices in addition to the electrical sensing devices, as taught by Ghaffari, because the modification would provide a dynamically configurable system ([0012], [0043]) with multiple sensing and stimulation modalities for enhanced performance. Ruffini/Ghaffari fails to teach wherein the chemical sensing devices utilize fast-scan cyclic voltammetry. However, Arumugam teaches a chemical sensing device utilizing fast-scan cyclic voltammetry ([0063], [0124]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ruffini/Ghaffari to include chemical sensing devices utilizing fast-scan cyclic voltammetry because the modification would provide sensors which afford a superior combination of temporal and chemical resolution compared to other electro-analytical techniques (Arumugam; [0010]). Ruffini/Ghaffari/Arumugam fails to teach wherein the optical sensing devices are small enough to identify neurons involved in specific chemical interactions. However, Roukes teaches a sensing system in which the optical sensing devices (optical detectors) are small enough to identify neurons involved in specific chemical interactions ([0006], [0055], [0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ruffini/Ghaffari/Arumugam to include the optical sensing devices small enough to identify neurons involved in specific chemical interactions, as taught by Roukes, because the modification would permit simultaneous recording from millions of neurons, at arbitrary positions and depths in the brain, to unveil dynamics of complete neural networks—with single-cell resolution and cell-type specificity (Roukes; [0006]). Ruffini/Ghaffari/Arumugam/Roukes fails to teach wherein the plurality of stimulation devices utilize optic fibers coated with single wall carbon nanotubes to deliver at least one electrical signal and at least one optical signal to living brain tissue; wherein the plurality of sensing devices include the optic fibers coated with single wall carbon nanotubes to receive at least one second electrical signal and at least one second optical signal from the living brain tissue. However, Flaherty teaches an apparatus for interacting with brain tissue, comprising a plurality of optically conductive fibers comprising optic fibers as active elements ([0031], [0048], [0092]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ruffini/Ghaffari/Arumugam/Roukes to include a plurality of optic fibers, as taught by Flaherty, because the modification would provide other means of transmitting data and/or power, which may be used in combination with other active elements to transmit information between different components of the apparatus (Flaherty; [0048]). Furthermore, Llinas teaches an implant device adapted to be implanted within a body of a person for interacting with brain tissue comprising a plurality of fibers coated with carbon nanotubes as active elements ([0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a carbon nanotube coating, as taught by Llinas, because the modification would allow the interface to be removed without violating the integrity of the brain (Llinas; [0019]). Accordingly, in the modified device, the plurality of stimulation devices utilize optic fibers would be coated with single wall carbon nanotubes to deliver at least one electrical signal and at least one optical signal to living brain tissue; wherein the plurality of sensing devices would include the optic fibers coated with single wall carbon nanotubes to receive at least one second electrical signal and at least one second optical signal from the living brain tissue. Regarding claim 2, Ruffini (Figure 1) further discloses that the plurality of stimulation devices (E1-En) comprises at least one of a Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) device, a Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation (tACS), a Transcranial Photobiomodulation (tPBM), an implanted device providing electrical stimulation, an implanted device providing optical stimulation, and an implanted device providing both electrical and optical stimulation ([0026]). Regarding claim 3, Ruffini (Figure 1) further discloses that the plurality of sensing devices (S1-Sn) comprises at least one of an Electro Encephalogram (EEG) device, an implanted device providing electrical sensing, an implanted device providing optical sensing, and an implanted device providing both electrical and optical sensing ([0031], [0047]). Regarding claim 4, Ruffini (Figure 1) further discloses that the program instructions and data stored in the memory are configured so that the processor performs: applying stimulation based on a first version of stimulation parameters ([0036]); sensing results of the applied stimulation to form patient treatment results data; modifying the first version of stimulation parameters using the patient treatment results data to form a second version of stimulation parameters; and applying stimulation based on the second version of stimulation parameters ([0024], [0037], [0049]). Regarding claim 5, Ruffini (Figure 1) further discloses that the program instructions and data stored in the memory are configured so that the processor performs: applying stimulation based on a version of stimulation parameters ([0036]); sensing results of the applied stimulation to form patient treatment results data; modifying the version of stimulation parameters using the patient treatment results data to form a modified version of stimulation parameters; and repeating the applying, sensing, and modifying using each modified version of stimulation parameters ([0024], [0037], [0049]). Regarding claim 6, Ruffini (Figure 1) discloses a method of providing self-guided, self-directed diagnostics and treatment of neural conditions ([0024], [0049]) comprising: applying stimulation using a plurality of stimulation devices (E1-En) comprising electrical stimulation devices connected to signal output circuitry (communications module) interfacing a processor (PDPU+SR) with the plurality of stimulation devices (E1-En), wherein the processor (PDPU+SR), is communicably connected to accessible memory (storage of the processor), and the memory stores program instructions and data (stimulation/monitoring application), and wherein the program instructions and data stored in the memory are configured so that the processor (PDPU+SR) generates and transmits stimulation signals to the stimulation devices (E1-En); sensing results of the applied stimulation using a plurality of sensing devices (S1-Sn) comprising electrical sensing devices, the electrical sensing devices (S1-Sn) comprising electrical terminals ([0031]: the sensing devices may be the electrophysiological sensors described in patent application ES2289948, which include electrical terminals capable of sensing voltage and current between the electrical terminals) connected to signal input circuitry (communications module) interfacing the processor (PDPU+SR) with the sensing devices (S1-Sn) wherein the program instructions and data stored in the memory are further configured so that the processor (PDPU+SR) receives sensed signals from the sensing devices (S1-Sn) and uses the sensed signals, the sensed signals comprising voltage and current between the electrical terminals so as to determine flow of electrons and positive ions through the brain ([0031]: as explained above, the electrophysiological sensors described in patent application ES2289948 include electrical terminals capable of sensing voltage and current between the electrical terminals so as to determine flow of electrons and positive ions through the brain), to form patient treatment results data; and performing real-time dynamic closed loop feedback of the stimulation signals comprising adjusting stimulation signal intensity, frequency, and location, based on the received sensed signals to provide self-guided, self-directed diagnostics and treatment of neural conditions using at least one recipe for a treatment strategy guided by artificial intelligence ([0011]-[0015], [0028], [0103]-[0107], [0132]-[0133]). Ruffini fails to disclose that the plurality of stimulation devices comprise chemical and optical stimulation devices in addition to the electrical stimulation devices; and the plurality of sensing devices comprise chemical and optical sensing devices in addition to the electrical sensing devices, wherein the chemical sensing devices comprise carbon nanotubes. However, Ghaffari (Figures 1 and 7A) teaches a plurality of multifunction pixels (1010B) which may comprise stimulation devices and sensing devices. Each multifunction pixel (1010B) is a unit comprising electrical sensing devices (respective electrical sensors), chemical sensing devices (respective chemical sensors), optical sensing devices (respective optical sensors), electrical stimulation devices (respective electrical actuators), chemical stimulation devices (respective chemical actuators), and optical stimulation devices (respective optical actuators), ([0114], [0119]-[0128], [0131]-[0134]), wherein the chemical sensing devices comprise carbon nanotubes ([0107], [0233]: sensing devices may be based on semiconductor technology, which may include carbon nanotubes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ruffini to include the plurality of stimulation devices comprising chemical and optical stimulation devices in addition to the electrical stimulation devices, and the plurality of sensing devices comprising chemical and optical sensing devices in addition to the electrical sensing devices, as taught by Ghaffari, because the modification would provide a dynamically configurable system ([0012], [0043]) with multiple sensing and stimulation modalities for enhanced performance. Ruffini/Ghaffari fails to teach wherein the chemical sensing devices utilize fast-scan cyclic voltammetry. However, Arumugam teaches a chemical sensing device utilizing fast-scan cyclic voltammetry ([0063], [0124]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ruffini/Ghaffari to include chemical sensing devices utilizing fast-scan cyclic voltammetry because the modification would provide sensors which afford a superior combination of temporal and chemical resolution compared to other electro-analytical techniques (Arumugam; [0010]). Ruffini/Ghaffari/Arumugam fails to teach wherein the optical sensing devices are small enough to identify neurons involved in specific chemical interactions. However, Roukes teaches a sensing system in which the optical sensing devices (optical detectors) are small enough to identify neurons involved in specific chemical interactions ([0006], [0055], [0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ruffini/Ghaffari/Arumugam to include the optical sensing devices small enough to identify neurons involved in specific chemical interactions, as taught by Roukes, because the modification would permit simultaneous recording from millions of neurons, at arbitrary positions and depths in the brain, to unveil dynamics of complete neural networks—with single-cell resolution and cell-type specificity (Roukes; [0006]). Ruffini/Ghaffari/Arumugam/Roukes fails to teach wherein the plurality of stimulation devices utilize optic fibers coated with single wall carbon nanotubes to deliver at least one electrical signal and at least one optical signal to living brain tissue; wherein the plurality of sensing devices include the optic fibers coated with single wall carbon nanotubes to receive at least one second electrical signal and at least one second optical signal from the living brain tissue. However, Flaherty teaches an apparatus for interacting with brain tissue, comprising a plurality of optically conductive fibers comprising optic fibers as active elements ([0031], [0048], [0092]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ruffini/Ghaffari/Arumugam/Roukes to include a plurality of optic fibers, as taught by Flaherty, because the modification would provide other means of transmitting data and/or power, which may be used in combination with other active elements to transmit information between different components of the apparatus (Flaherty; [0048]). Furthermore, Llinas teaches an implant device adapted to be implanted within a body of a person for interacting with brain tissue comprising a plurality of fibers coated with carbon nanotubes as active elements ([0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a carbon nanotube coating, as taught by Llinas, because the modification would allow the interface to be removed without violating the integrity of the brain (Llinas; [0019]). Accordingly, in the modified device, the plurality of stimulation devices utilize optic fibers would be coated with single wall carbon nanotubes to deliver at least one electrical signal and at least one optical signal to living brain tissue; wherein the plurality of sensing devices would include the optic fibers coated with single wall carbon nanotubes to receive at least one second electrical signal and at least one second optical signal from the living brain tissue. Regarding claim 7, Ruffini (Figure 1) further discloses that the plurality of stimulation devices (effectors) comprises at least one of a Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) device, a Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation (tACS), a Transcranial Photobiomodulation (tPBM), an implanted device providing electrical stimulation, an implanted device providing optical stimulation, and an implanted device providing both electrical and optical stimulation ([0026]). Regarding claim 8, Ruffini (Figure 1) further discloses that the plurality of sensing devices (sensors) comprises at least one of an Electro Encephalogram (EEG) device, an implanted device providing electrical sensing, an implanted device providing optical sensing, and an implanted device providing both electrical and optical sensing ([0031]-[0047]). Regarding claim 9, Ruffini (Figure 1) further discloses applying stimulation based on a first version of stimulation parameters ([0036]); sensing results of the applied stimulation to form patient treatment results data; modifying the first version of stimulation parameters using the patient treatment results data to form a second version of stimulation parameters; and applying stimulation based on the second version of stimulation parameters ([0024], [0037], [0049]). Regarding claim 10, Ruffini (Figure 1) further discloses applying stimulation based on a version of stimulation parameters ([0036]); sensing results of the applied stimulation to form patient treatment results data; modifying the version of stimulation parameters using the patient treatment results data to form a modified version of stimulation parameters; and repeating the applying, sensing, and modifying using each modified version of stimulation parameters ([0024], [0037], [0049]). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/12/2025, with regard to the newly filed claim amendments, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art references Flaherty and Llinas, which in combination teach the plurality of stimulation devices utilize optic fibers being coated with single wall carbon nanotubes to deliver at least one electrical signal and at least one optical signal to living brain tissue; wherein the plurality of sensing devices include the optic fibers coated with single wall carbon nanotubes to receive at least one second electrical signal and at least one second optical signal from the living brain tissue. Therefore, the Ruffini/Ghaffari/Arumugam/Roukes/Flaherty/Llinas combination teaches the invention as recited in the newly amended set of claims. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE PREMRAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-8013. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at 571-272-1213. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /C.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3794 /EUN HWA KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 20, 2021
Application Filed
Mar 25, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 29, 2022
Response Filed
Aug 03, 2022
Final Rejection — §103
Nov 10, 2022
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 19, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 09, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 15, 2023
Response Filed
Apr 06, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Jul 16, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 17, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 27, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 01, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 07, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 08, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 23, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 12, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 21, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594035
ORAL APPLIANCE FOR THE TREATMENT OF SLEEP APNEA
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12564438
ENERGIZED CORERS WITH POWERED CONVEYING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558153
PULMONARY VEIN ISOLATION GAP FINDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12558154
BALLOON CATHETER HAVING ABLATION AND RETURN ELECTRODES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12544169
SURGICAL INSTRUMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

9-10
Expected OA Rounds
56%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+49.4%)
4y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 200 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month