Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/898,882

APPARATUS AND METHODS TO PROVIDE A SCALABLE AND FLEXIBLE HIGH CHANNEL DENSITY NEURAL INTERFACE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 30, 2022
Examiner
MALAMUD, DEBORAH LESLIE
Art Unit
3792
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
666 granted / 847 resolved
+8.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
891
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.7%
-29.3% vs TC avg
§103
27.0%
-13.0% vs TC avg
§102
43.5%
+3.5% vs TC avg
§112
15.4%
-24.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 847 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION The Examiner acknowledges the amendments received 30 January 2026. Claims 1-16 and 21-31 are cancelled; new claims 32-43 are entered; claims 17-30 and 32-43 are pending. 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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 30 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 17-20 under Mercanzini 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 John. Information Disclosure Statement Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDS have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). Applicant is requested to point out any particular references in the IDS which they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this office action. 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 17, 20 and 32-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by John et al (U.S. 2019/0038438). John discloses (Figures 39A-40B) providing an apparatus (101) in a first, folded configuration (par. 0233, “compress” the stent), the apparatus including a flexible substrate (par. 0230; 58) having an electrically conductive layer disposed between a flexible first electrically insulating layer and a flexible second electrically insulating layer (“Electrical insulation of electrodes is achieved by RF sputtering and deposition of a non-conductive layer (52) (e.g., SiO) onto the thin-film structure (54). Electrodes and electrode tracks (50) are sputter deposited onto the non-conductive layer (using conductive and biomedically acceptable materials including gold, Pt, Ti, NiTi, PtIr), with an additional non-conductive layer deposited over the conductive track for further electrical isolation and insulation.”), at least one of the first electrically insulating layer, the electrically conducting layer, or the second electrically insulating layer including a plurality of recesses defined therein, the plurality of recesses having a predefined pattern (“conducting path 50 is left exposed to form the electrode 138 (similarly, a contact pad area can remain exposed).”); and introducing the apparatus into a biological environment of a patient, thereby causing the apparatus to transition to a second, unfolded configuration, such that the apparatus substantially conforms to a non-planar surface within the biological environment of the patient (par. 0233, stent expands). Regarding claim 20, John discloses (par. 0224) the non-planar surface is a surface of the brain of the patient. Regarding claim 32, John discloses (par. 0230) the electrically conductive layer includes a plurality of electrodes configured to contact the non-planar surface. Regarding claim 33, John discloses (par. 0117) the electrically conductive layer includes a plurality of electrodes, at least one electrode from the plurality of electrodes positioned at a node from a plurality of nodes, each node from the plurality of nodes being adjacent to at least one recess from the plurality of recesses. Regarding claim 34, John discloses (par. 0302) microelectronics one of in or on the flexible substrate. Regarding claim 35, John discloses (par. 0155-0162) an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) positioned at a node from a plurality of nodes of the apparatus. Regarding claim 36, John discloses (par. 0116) a plurality of electrodes, the non-planar surface is a surface of a brain of the patient, and the plurality of electrodes includes surface electrodes configured to record signals derived from neural activity of the brain of the patient. Regarding claim 37, John discloses (par. 0116 and 0224) a plurality of electrodes, the non-planar surface is a surface of a brain of the patient, and the plurality of electrodes includes implantable microelectrodes configured to enter neural tissue when the apparatus conforms to the surface of the brain of the patient. Regarding claim 38, John discloses (par. 0117) the electrically conductive layer includes a plurality of electrodes configured to contact the non-planar surface, and a plurality of conductive traces configured to couple two or more components within the apparatus. Regarding claim 39, John discloses (Figures 39A-40B) the predefined pattern has one of a mesh geometry or a lace geometry. Regarding claim 40, John discloses (Figures 39A-40B) the predefined pattern has a honeycomb. Regarding claim 41, John discloses (Figures 39A-40B) the plurality of recesses extends through each of the first electrically insulating layer, the electrically conductive layer, and the second electrically insulating layer. Regarding claim 42, John discloses (Figures 39A-40B) a subset of recesses from the plurality of recesses extends through each of the first electrically insulating layer, the electrically conductive layer, and the second electrically insulating layer. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over John et al (U.S. 2019/0038438) in view of Mercanzini (U.S. 2016/0059016). John discloses the claimed invention except for introducing the apparatus into the biological environment of the patient is via a craniotomy. Mercanzini, however, discloses (Figures 15-16; par. 0046 and 0067) a layered neurostimulator for introduction into a patient’s brain via craniotomy. Mercanzini and John both disclose methods of placing a layered stimulator in a brain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify John’s stent with exposed electrodes with Mercanzini in order to be provide a minimally invasive deployment of the system for in situ stimulation. Regarding claim 19, Mercanzini discloses (par. 0046) introducing the apparatus into the biological environment of the patient includes passing the apparatus through a burr hole. Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over John et al (U.S. 2019/0038438). John discloses the claimed invention except for at least one of the first electrically insulating layer or the second electrically insulating layer includes at least one of a liquid crystal polymer (LCP), Parylene-C, a ceramic, or a silicon dioxide. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBORAH L MALAMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-2106. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 1:00-9:30 Eastern. 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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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. /DEBORAH L MALAMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 30, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 30, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jan 30, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598433
VAGAL NERVE STIMULATION DEVICES AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594418
DEVICES AND METHODS FOR NERVE STIMULATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588868
BIPOLAR MAPPING SUCTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586687
SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF DEDUPLICATING DATA COLLECTED BY AN IMPLANTABLE MEDICAL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575795
NON-INVASIVE PREDICTION OF RISK FOR SUDDEN CARDIAC DEATH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+10.0%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 847 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