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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the AI computer program” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zdeblick et al. Pub. No.: US 2008/0306359).
Consider claim 1, Zdeblick discloses a system for cerebral blood flow measurement (paragraph [0217], blood flow sensors in or around the brain wherein the blood flow sensor can be implanted into a blood vessel for measuring data, see paragraph [0147]) comprising:
a flow sensor layer on a vascular stent or matrix placed inside a cerebral vessel (paragraph [0201], Fig. 19, stent-style blood flow sensor placed into a carotid artery), wherein the said flow sensor is for monitoring mental performance of a subject (paragraph [0217], blood flow sensors in or around the brain can be used to detect mental activity).
Consider claim 3, Zdeblick discloses wherein the said flow sensor measured mental performance is the mental state-of-being of the subject (paragraph [0217], blood flow sensors in or around the brain can be used to detect mental activity).
Consider claim 10, Zdeblick discloses wherein the said flow senor measures mental performance used to control function of machinery comprising robotic limbs, artificial limbs, construction machines, and tele-medicine equipment (paragraph [0073], employing nanoscale robotic systems as effectors).
Consider claim 19, Zdeblick discloses a system for blood flow measurement (paragraph [0217], blood flow sensors in or around the brain wherein the blood flow sensor can be implanted into a blood vessel for measuring data, see paragraph [0147]) comprising: a flow sensor layer of nano-structured layer (paragraph [0058], nanoscale flow sensor with a nanotube) of a vascular stent or matrix placed inside a vessel (paragraph [0201], Fig. 19, stent-style blood flow sensor placed into a carotid artery), said flow sensor detects micro-embolic signals passing through the vessel for effective thrombolysis (paragraph [0211], a flow sensor to monitor a blood vessel for blockages such as the detection of thrombosis).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zdeblick in view of Vitaliano et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0159873) and further in view of Chahal et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0003567).
Consider claim 2, Zdeblick discloses wherein the said flow sensor layer further comprising a nano-structured layer (paragraph [0058], nanoscale flow sensor with a nanotube).
Zdeblick does not specifically disclose the said flow sensor layer further comprising a nano-structured layer of ferrites.
Vitaliano discloses the said flow sensor layer further comprising a nano-structured layer of ferrites (paragraph [0452], nano-sensor to include flow sensors incorporating ferromagnetic materials, see paragraph [0496] which may be packaged with nanoparticles and stored on stents, see paragraph [0508]).
Therefore, in order to constitute a bio-molecular device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the same technique as suggested by Vitaliano flow sensor layer further comprising a nano-structured layer of microwave ferrites, see teaching found in Vitaliano, paragraph [0452].
The combination of Zdeblick and Vitaliano does not specifically disclose microwave ferrites.
Chahal discloses microwave ferrites (paragraph [0066], nanoparticles can be formed from microwave ferrite material).
Therefore, in order to provide for high dielectric constant nanoparticles, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the same technique as suggested by Chahal to include microwave ferrites, see teaching found in Chahal, paragraph [0066].
Claims 4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zdeblick in view of Njemanze (Pat. No.: US 6,390,979).
Consider claim 4, Zdeblick does not specifically disclose wherein the said flow sensor measured mental performance determines the neurocognitive strategy for intelligent decision-making.
Njemanze discloses wherein the said flow sensor measured mental performance determines the neurocognitive strategy for intelligent decision-making (col. 9, line 66 thru col. 11, line 2, connecting neurocognitive strategy to autonomy-decision making levels).
Therefore, in order to change the autonomy-decision making level between a pilot and an autopilot, or astronaut and mission control, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the same technique as suggested by Njemanze wherein the said flow sensor measured mental performance determines the neurocognitive strategy for intelligent decision-making, see teaching found in Njemanze, col. 9, line 66 thru col. 11, line 2.
Consider claim 6, Zdeblick does not specifically disclose wherein the said flow sensor measures mental performance simultaneously in a number of subjects on a computer network.
Njemanze discloses wherein the said flow sensor measures mental performance simultaneously in a number of subjects on a computer network (col. 4, line 48 thru col. 5, line 26, network of several individuals making mental inputs into a computer system).
Therefore, in order to provide a unique physiologic identity of the subject as much as is his/her fingerprint, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the same technique as suggested by Njemanze wherein the said flow sensor measures mental performance simultaneously in a number of subjects on a computer network, see teaching found in Njemanze, col. 4, line 48 thru col. 5, line 26.
Consider claim 7, Zdeblick does not specifically disclose wherein the said flow sensor measures mental performance used to control computers, machines and weapon systems, by communication through human-machine interface comprising wireless cellular phone network.
Njemanze discloses wherein the said flow sensor measures mental performance used to control computers, machines and weapon systems, by communication through human-machine interface comprising wireless cellular phone network (col. 9, line 66 thru col. 11, line 2, communicates via the system microprocessor and the cellular phone by wireless transmission to a host computer or a computer interfaced with the subject).
Therefore, in order to change the autonomy-decision making level between a pilot and an autopilot, or astronaut and mission control, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the same technique as suggested by Njemanze wherein the said flow sensor measures mental performance used to control computers, machines and weapon systems, by communication through human-machine interface comprising wireless cellular phone network, see teaching found in Njemanze, col. 9, line 66 thru col. 11, line 2.
Consider claim 8, Zdeblick does not specifically disclose wherein the said flow sensor measures mental performance and communicates with the AI computer program for regulation of autonomy decision-making level in a network comprising avionic computer system, high-security network and digital financial transaction network.
Njemanze discloses wherein the said flow sensor measures mental performance and communicates with the AI computer program for regulation of autonomy decision-making level in a network comprising avionic computer system, high-security network and digital financial transaction network (col. 9, line 66 thru col. 11, line 2, autonomy-decision making levels between the subject and mission control or an automated systems such as in computerized avionic systems and in modern aircrafts between autopilot and the human pilot).
Therefore, in order to change the autonomy-decision making level between a pilot and an autopilot, or astronaut and mission control, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the same technique as suggested by Njemanze wherein the said flow sensor measures mental performance and communicates with the AI computer program for regulation of autonomy decision-making level in a network comprising avionic computer system, high-security network and digital financial transaction network, see teaching found in Njemanze, col. 9, line 66 thru col. 11, line 2.
Consider claim 9, Zdeblick does not specifically disclose wherein the said flow sensor measures mental performance as the working memory in a patient with diseases comprising neurodegenerative disease, stroke, depression, and psychiatric disorders.
Njemanze discloses wherein the said flow sensor measures mental performance as the working memory in a patient with diseases comprising neurodegenerative disease, stroke, depression, and psychiatric disorders (col. 6, line 48-53, cerebral blood flow velocity index of performance on motor skill learning of increasing complexity in patients with a stroke brain lesion).
Therefore, in order to provide a cerebral blood flow velocity index of performance on motor skill learning of increasing complexity in normal subjects and patients with motor impairment, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the same technique as suggested by Njemanze wherein the said flow sensor measures mental performance as the working memory in a patient with diseases comprising neurodegenerative disease, stroke, depression, and psychiatric disorders, see teaching found in Njemanze, col. 6, line 48-53.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zdeblick in view of Njemanze (Pat. No.: US 6,468,219, hereinafter, Njemanze 2).
Consider claim 5, Zdeblick does not specifically disclose wherein the said flow sensor monitors cerebral blood flow in conditions comprising cerebral ischemia, sleep, syncope, effects of positive Gz-acceleration and seizures.
Njemanze 2 discloses wherein the said flow sensor monitors cerebral blood flow in conditions comprising cerebral ischemia (col. 7, line 56 thru col. 8, line 14), sleep (col. 5, line 47 thru col. 6, line 4), syncope (col. 8, line 44-64), effects of positive Gz-acceleration and seizures (col. 8, line 65 thru col. 9, line 27).
Therefore, in order to provide therapeutic measures, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the same technique as suggested by Njemanze wherein the said flow sensor monitors cerebral blood flow in conditions comprising cerebral ischemia, sleep, syncope, effects of positive Gz-acceleration and seizures, see teaching found in Njemanze, col. 8, line 65 thru col. 9, line 27.
Claims 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zdeblick in view of Vitaliano and Chahal and further in view of Hunter et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0310077).
Consider claim 11, Zdeblick discloses a system for cerebral blood flow measurement (paragraph [0217], blood flow sensors in or around the brain wherein the blood flow sensor can be implanted into a blood vessel for measuring data, see paragraph [0147]) comprising: a flow sensor layer of nano-structured (paragraph [0058], nanoscale flow sensor with a nanotube) on a vascular stent or matrix placed inside a cerebral vessel (paragraph [0201], Fig. 19, stent-style blood flow sensor placed into a carotid artery).
Zdeblick does not specifically disclose the said flow sensor layer further comprising a nano-structured layer of ferrites wherein signals from said ferrites are processed and transmitted by a microprocessor for monitoring mental performance of a subject.
Vitaliano discloses the said flow sensor layer further comprising a nano-structured layer of ferrites (paragraph [0452], nano-sensor to include flow sensors incorporating ferromagnetic materials, see paragraph [0496] which may be packaged with nanoparticles and stored on stents, see paragraph [0508]) wherein signals from said ferrites are processed and transmitted by a microprocessor for monitoring mental performance of a subject (paragraph [0143], one or more elements, in one platform embodiment, may also modify, process, manipulate, encode and decode, input, output, transmit, communicate, store and or read information).
Therefore, in order to constitute a bio-molecular device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the same technique as suggested by Vitaliano flow sensor layer further comprising a nano-structured layer of ferrites wherein signals from said ferrites are processed and transmitted by a microprocessor for monitoring mental performance of a subject, see teaching found in Vitaliano, paragraph [0452].
The combination of Zdeblick and Vitaliano does not specifically disclose microwave ferrites.
Chahal discloses microwave ferrites (paragraph [0066], nanoparticles can be formed from microwave ferrite material).
Therefore, in order to provide for high dielectric constant nanoparticles, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the same technique as suggested by Chahal to include microwave ferrites, see teaching found in Chahal, paragraph [0066].
The combination of Zdeblick, Vitaliano and Chahal does not specifically disclose a biodegradable vascular stent.
Hunter discloses a biodegradable vascular stent (paragraph [0217], placement of ISMs having sensors (to include blood flow sensors, see paragraph [0171]) on a biodegradable stent).
Therefore, in order to allow for a determination of degradation of the stent, as well as, optionally, the rate of biodegradation or resorption of the stent, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the same technique as suggested by Hunter in providing a biodegradable vascular stent, see teaching found in Hunter, paragraph [0217].
Consider claim 14, the combination of Zdeblick, Vitaliano, Chahal and hunter discloses wherein the said flow sensor measures mental performance synchronized with function of other devices comprising cardiac pacemaker (paragraph [0045], pacemaker), implantable cardioverter defibrillator (paragraph [0072], cardiac defibrillation), implantable drug delivery system, electroencephalograph, Doppler ultrasound (paragraph [0122], ultrasound), laser Doppler, brain electrical potential, and pain stimulator devices (paragraph [0071], an effector includes a chamber that is filled with a drug and a mechanism for releasing or ejecting the drug from the chamber into the patient's body where an effector may be implanted, see paragraph [0046]).
Consider claim 15, the combination of Zdeblick, Vitaliano, and Chahal does not specifically disclose wherein the said flow sensor measures mental performance used to determine changes in the hormonal fertility cycle.
Hunter discloses wherein the said flow sensor measures mental performance used to determine changes in the hormonal fertility cycle (paragraph [0201], stent is inserted into body a lumen to physically hold open structures and/or passageways which have become blocked or partially obstructed wherein symptoms of blockage include infertility).
Therefore, to benefit in monitoring to detect evidence of partial and/or complete obstruction, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the same technique as suggested by Hunter wherein the said flow sensor measures mental performance used to determine changes in the hormonal fertility cycle, see teaching found in Hunter, paragraph [0201].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zdeblick, Vitaliano, Chahal and Hunter and further in view of Njemanze (Pat. No.: US 5,121,744, hereinafter, Njemanze 3).
Consider claim 12, the combination of Zdeblick, Vitaliano, Chahal and Hunter does not specifically disclose wherein the said flow sensor monitors mental performance for control of devices comprising driver-less car, tele-surgery, construction equipment, anti-gravitational suit and extravehicular activity suit.
Njemanze 3 discloses wherein the said flow sensor monitors mental performance for control of devices comprising driver-less car, tele-surgery, construction equipment, anti-gravitational suit and extravehicular activity suit (col. 5, lines 8-64 and claim 1, physiologic control of anti-gravitational system (to include a crew member G-suit, see Abstract)).
Therefore, in order to prevent unconsciousness and related conditions, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the same technique as suggested by Njemanze 3 wherein the said flow sensor monitors mental performance for control of devices comprising driver-less car, tele-surgery, construction equipment, anti-gravitational suit and extravehicular activity suit, see teaching found in Njemanze 3, claim 1.
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zdeblick, Vitaliano, Chahal and Hunter in view of Njemanze (Pat. No.: US 6,390,979).
Consider claim 13, the combination of Zdeblick, Vitaliano, Chahal and Hunter does not specifically disclose wherein the said flow sensor measures mental performance used as mental signature during processing of stimuli comprising facial, color, odor, linguistic, non-linguistic stimuli, cognitive biometric stimuli and forensic stimulus analysis.
Njemanze discloses wherein the said flow sensor measures mental performance used as mental signature during processing of stimuli comprising facial, color, odor, linguistic, non-linguistic stimuli, cognitive biometric stimuli and forensic stimulus analysis (claims 8 and 10, linguistic and non-linguistic).
Therefore, in order to access to a restricted network, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the same technique as suggested by Njemanze wherein the said flow sensor measures mental performance used as mental signature during processing of stimuli comprising facial, color, odor, linguistic, non-linguistic stimuli, cognitive biometric stimuli and forensic stimulus analysis, see teaching found in Njemanze, col. 14, lines 60-67.
Consider claim 16, the combination of Zdeblick, Vitaliano, Chahal and Hunter does not specifically disclose wherein the said flow sensor measures mental performance used as mental signature for access to high security computer network comprising digital financial transactions, air-traffic control, nuclear plant, ammunition and advanced military weapons and avionic systems.
Njemanze discloses wherein the said flow sensor measures mental performance used as mental signature for access to high security computer network comprising digital financial transactions (col. 7, lines 49-52, computer network security including financial), air-traffic control (col. 9, line 66 thru col. 11, line 2, air-traffic ), nuclear plant, ammunition and advanced military weapons and avionic systems (col. 9, line 66 thru col. 11, line 2, computerized avionic systems).
Therefore, in order to provide regulation in critical situations, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the same technique as suggested by Njemanze wherein the said flow sensor measures mental performance used as mental signature for access to high security computer network comprising digital financial transactions, air-traffic control, nuclear plant, ammunition and advanced military weapons and avionic systems, see teaching found in Njemanze, see col. 9, line 66 thru col. 11, line 2.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zdeblick, Vitaliano, Chahal and Hunter in view of Burton (Pub. No.: US 2021/0169417).
Consider claim 17, the combination of Zdeblick, Vitaliano, Chahal and Hunter does not specifically disclose wherein the said flow sensor measures mental performance used to control activities comprising speech production, computer-aided speech and other speech impairments in subjects.
Burton discloses wherein the said flow sensor measures mental performance used to control activities comprising speech production, computer-aided speech and other speech impairments in subjects (paragraph [3590], speech production).
Therefore, in order to provide for brain mental status or processing contingent determination, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the same technique as suggested by Burton wherein the said flow sensor measures mental performance used to control activities comprising speech production, computer-aided speech and other speech impairments in subjects, see teaching found in Burton, paragraph [0582].
Consider claim 18, the combination of Zdeblick, Vitaliano, Chahal and Hunter does not specifically disclose wherein the said flow sensor measures mental performance for diagnosis and treatment of diseases comprising depression, sleep abnormality, autism, dyslexia, schizophrenia, stroke, dementia and other neurodegenerative diseases.
Burton discloses wherein the said flow sensor measures mental performance for diagnosis and treatment of diseases comprising depression (paragraph [3377], depression), sleep abnormality (paragraph [3377], sleep breathing disorder), autism (paragraph [3377], autism), dyslexia (paragraph [3464], dyslexia), schizophrenia (paragraph [3882], schizophrenia), stroke (paragraph [2260], stroke), dementia (paragraph [3377], dementia) and other neurodegenerative diseases (paragraph [3377], Parkinson's Huntington’s, Alzheimer's).
Therefore, in order to incorporate Non-Linear Dynamical Based (NLDB) Analysis with option of spontaneous automatic online analysis, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the same technique as suggested by Burton wherein the said flow sensor measures mental performance for diagnosis and treatment of diseases comprising depression, sleep abnormality, autism, dyslexia, schizophrenia, stroke, dementia and other neurodegenerative diseases, see teaching found in Burton, paragraph [3375].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zdeblick in view of Hunter.
Consider claim 20, Zdeblick does not specifically disclose wherein the said flow sensor detects in-stent re-stenosis of the vessel.
Hunter discloses wherein the said flow sensor detects in-stent re-stenosis of the vessel (paragraph [0203], Fig. 11, vascular stents (coronary, peripheral and cerebral) can have one or more sensors capable of detecting restenosis).
Therefore, in order to detect the presence and location of a stenosis due to the increased blood flow speed and increased blood (and pulse) pressure at the site of a stenosis, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the same technique as suggested by Hunter wherein the said flow sensor detects in-stent re-stenosis of the vessel, see teaching found in Hunter, paragraph [0203].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERALD JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm EST.
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, Ashley Buran can be reached on (571)270-5284. 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.
/Gerald Johnson/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797