DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to the claims filed on 12/22/2025. Claims 3, 6, and 10-18 are pending. A first action on the merits of claims 3, 6, and 10-18 is as follows.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims are acknowledged and entered accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wijdenes (U.S. PGPub No. 2019/0017988) in view of Achyuta (U.S. PGPub No. 2015/0217109).
Regarding claim 3, Wijdenes teaches An electric signal transmission device operation method comprising receiving, by an electric signal transmission device opposed to an axon of a nerve cell inside a body, a first electric signal derived from the axon (Fig 2, microelectrode 10 opposed a dendrite, soma, or axon terminals 100 as disclosed in [0040]; [0005] disclosing receiving signals from the cell), emitting a second electric signal by the electric signal transmission device, and thereby regenerating the axons ([0032] disclosing two-way electrical communication between axon and electrode), wherein the electric signal transmission device comprises an electrode (Fig 2, microelectrode 10) and an arranged cell disposed on the electrode and spaced from an end portion of the axon (Fig 2, excitable cell 100 defines an arranged cell on the electrode 10 via ridge 16 as disclosed in at least [0005, 0008, 0010]; arranged cell 100 is interpreted as being a dendrite, soma, or axon terminal [0040] such that said arranged cell 100 is spaced from an end portion of the axon), the electrode receives the first electric signal derived from the axon via the arranged cell ([0032] disclosing microelectrode receiving electric signal derived from excitable neuronal cell 100; [0040] disclosing excitable cell as an dendrite, soma, or axon terminal, such that said received signal is derived from the axon), and the electrode emits the second electric signal to the axon via the arranged cell ([0062] electrode 10 stimulates and records from arranged cell 102).
Wijdenes fails to teach the end portion of the axon is a cut part of the axon.
In related prior art, Achyuta teaches a similar method and device wherein the end portion of the axon is a cut part of the axon (Fig 6 [0058-0059], arranged cells of axon are provided on electrodes 626, 628, 630 and are spaced from an end portion of a severed axon). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Wijdenes in view of Achyuta to incorporate the end portion of the axon as a cut part of the axon to arrive at claim 3. Doing so would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as the use of electric signal transmission devices is well-known in the art to be provided on severed axons to assist in the regeneration of said axons for a user’s benefit ([0058-0059]).
Regarding claim 6, Wijdenes teaches the device of claim 5 as stated above wherein the electric signal transmission device further comprises a cell retention membrane in which a recess located on the electrode is provided (Fig 2, ridge 16 defines a recess of a cell retention membrane of electrode body 14c), and the arranged cell is disposed in the recess of the cell retention membrane (excitable cell 100 defines an arranged cell on the electrode 10 via ridge 16 to improve sealing resistance between the electrode and cell 100 as disclosed in at least [0005, 0008, 0010]).
Regarding claim 16, Wijdenes/Achyuta teach the method of claim 3 as stated above. Wijdenes further teaches wherein the arranged cell is a nerve cell ([0040] cell 100 is a neural cell).
Regarding claim 18, Wijdenes/Achyuta teach the method of claim 3 as stated above. Wijdenes further teaches wherein the arranged cell is a single cell ([0040] cell 100 is disclosed as a neural cell (i.e., a single cell; not plural cells)).
Claim(s) 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wijdenes in view of Achyuta, and in further view of Durand (U.S. PGPub No. 2015/0141786).
Regarding claims 10 and 15, Wijdenes/Achyuta teaches the method of claim 3 as stated above.
Wijdenes fails to explicitly teach wherein the axon is included in a nerve fascicle; wherein the electric signal transmission device is inserted into a nerve fascicle.
However, in related prior art, Durand teaches a similar method including inserting an implantation device into a nerve fascicle wherein the axon is included in a nerve fascicle ([0038] and Fig 9). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Wijdenes in view of Achyuta and Durand to incorporate the inserting the implantation device into a nerve fascicle wherein the axon is included in the nerve fascicle to arrive at claims 10 and 15. Doing so would advantageously enable the electric signal transmission device to interface with an axon disposed within a fascicle ([0038]).
Claim(s) 11-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wijdenes in view of Achyuta, and in further view of Serex (U.S. PGPub No. 2022/0249834).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 14, Wiljdenes/Achyuta teaches the method of claim 3 as stated above.
Wiljdenes fails to specify wherein the axon is included in a central nervous system included in a brain; wherein the axon is included in a peripheral nervous system.
In related prior art, Serex teaches a similar device and method wherein the axon is included in a central nervous system included in a brain ([0072] disclosing device can be used as a CNS nerve interface; [0063] disclosing interfacing with brain); wherein the axon is included in a peripheral nervous system ([0072] disclosing device can be used as a peripheral nerve interface or a CNS nerve interface). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Wijdenes in view of Achyuta and Serex to incorporate the axon of interest being part of the brain and central nervous system to arrive at claims 11-12 and to be part of a peripheral nervous system to arrive at claim 14. Doing so would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as the interfacing of nerve devices with central and peripheral nervous systems is well-known in the art to yield predictable results therein.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wijdenes in view of Achyuta, Serex and in further view of Nudo (U.S. PGPub No. 2013/0090706).
Regarding claim 13, Wiljdenes/Achyuta/Serex teaches the method of claim 11 as stated above.
Wiljdenes/Serex fails to teach wherein the axon is included in a nerve fascicle connecting two hemispheres.
In related prior art, Nudo teaches a similar device and method wherein a suitable neural site for a neural device to be provided is the corpus callosum ([0044]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Wijdenes in view of Serex and Nudo to incorporate the target axon being the axon in the nerve fascicle connecting the two hemispheres (e.g., the corpous callosum) to arrive at claim 13. Doing so would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as it is well-known the corpus callosum is an area of interest as it relates to neural devices used to treat neural diseases or deficiencies ([0044]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wijdenes in view of Achyuta, and in further view of Willand (Willand, Michael, et. al., “Electrical Stimulation to Promote Peripheral Nerve Regeneration”, Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 2016).
Regarding claim 17, Wijdenes/Achyuta teaches the method of claim 3 as stated above.
Wijdenes fails to teach wherein the arranged cell is a muscle cell.
In related prior art, Willand teaches a similar device wherein an arranged cell is placed on a similar electrode for stimulation and/or recording, wherein the arranged cell is a muscle cell (Pg 494, Electrical Stimulation of Denervated Muscles discloses stimulation of muscle cells to assist in recovery in axon regeneration). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Wijdenes in view of Achyuta and Willand to incorporate the arranged cell as a muscle cell spaced from an end portion of a corresponding axon to arrive at the method of claim 17. Providing the arranged cell as a muscle cell advantageously allows for stimulation of denervated muscle cells which is can increase effectiveness of recovery in nerve injuries (Pg 494).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant alleges that “the electrically excitable cell 100 of Wijdenes, at most, may appear to correspond to an axon”, that the electrically excitable cell 100 does not correspond to the arranged cell, and that Wijdenes fails to disclose “an electrode receives an electric signal form an axon through an arranged cell”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., differentiation of the “arranged cell” from the axon) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In the instant case, the scope of claim 3 does not prevent the “arranged cell” from simply being the cell of a neuron or axon corresponding to the claimed “axon of a nerve cell”. Examiner is of the position that a clear differentiation between “the arranged cell” and an “axon of a nerve cell” may help to expedite and advance prosecution.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Adam Z Minchella whose telephone number is (571)272-8644. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri 7-3 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, 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.
/ADAM Z MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794