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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/29/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-8 regarding the claim objections to claim 6 Applicant argues amendments overcome the objection of record.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees noting the issue of antecedent basis was no corrected.
On page 12 and 14-15 regarding prior art rejections Applicant argues Kim fails to disclose pixels arranged into unit groups.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting it is unclear what about the pixels of Kim prevents them from being called a group.
On page 13 Applicant argues Kim does not disclose their controller operating on a unit-group basis assigning distinct roles within the group and argues one pixel is not designated as a stimulation electrode while designating the remaining pixels of the group as return electrodes.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting this is explicitly disclosed in [0055] of Kim.
On page 14 Applicant argues Kim does not disclose generating a single stimulation parameter using currents from multiple photodiodes. Applicant argues KR Kim only teaches driving circuitry and this does not make it inherent that the sensing circuit aggregates photodiode currents from multiple pixels to generate a stimulation parameter.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees noting, as the rejection of record indicates, the claimed invention is drawn towards a retinal prosthesis and not towards a method of use. Any intended use claimed, which does not structurally alter the prosthesis, does not distinguish over the claims of record. Further however, the claim does not require a “single” stimulation parameter or the aggregation of anything, making this argument unpersuasive.
On page 15 Applicant argues that the Examiner does not explain how it would be obvious for the driver to output a stimulation current corresponding to a stimulation parameter derived from multiple photodiodes.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes this is within the grasp of the person of ordinary skill, who understands how to utilize a driver and apply it to the invention of Kim.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 is objected to for claiming “one of the k pixels” is being activated, when it is unclear how, if at all, this relates to the previously “one of the k pixels” of claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Kim et al. (US 20190209833 A1) hereinafter known as Kim in view of Kim (KR 101870599 B1) hereinafter known as KR Kim.
Regarding claim 1 Kim discloses a sub-retinal prosthesis (Abstract) comprising:
a pixel array including a plurality of pixels arranged in unit groups each consisting of a predetermined number of k pixels (Figure 7 items 101), and
a digital controller ([0014], [0022], [0055] control module 105) capable of controlling the pixel array to activate one pixel of the k pixels of that unit group as a stimulation electrode to activate the remaining k-1 pixels as return electrodes (This is stated as an “intended use” of the digital controller (see the explanation above), which does not structurally distinguish the controller of the prior art from that being claimed. See also [0022], [0055], Figure 7, etc.),
wherein each unit group includes k photodiodes respectively disposed in the k pixels (see also the photodiode in Figures 6-7 (triangle with a line on top within the circuit)), a sensing circuit (Figures 6-7 shows the circuit),
wherein the sensing circuit is capable of outputting a stimulation parameter using currents respectively generated by the k photodiodes according to irradiation of light incident to the photodiodes (This is stated as an “intended use” of the sensing circuit (see the explanation above), which does not structurally distinguish the circuit of the prior art from that being claimed. See also [0007] the photodiodes detect light, and currents generated serve as an action potential through a conversion circuit), and
wherein the [prosthesis] is capable of outputting a stimulation current corresponding to the stimulation parameter (This is stated as an “intended use” (see the explanation above), which does not structurally distinguish the prior art from that being claimed. See also [0005] the prosthesis replaces the photoreceptor cells [0007] with photodiodes which sends a stimulation signal through a conversion circuit [0003] the stimulation signal is sent to the optic nerve through),
but is silent with regards to whether or not there is a current driver.
However, regarding claim 1 KR Kim teaches that retinal stimulators can include current drivers (130-133). Kim and KR Kim are involved in the same field of endeavor, namely retinal stimulators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the prosthesis of Kim to include drivers as is taught by KR Kim since the courts have held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success results in a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 (I)(E). In this case, the use of a driver is understood to be obvious to try.
Regarding claim 2 the Kim KR Kim Combination teaches the prosthesis of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Kim further discloses cathodes of the k photodiodes are connected to each other ([0007], [0009] there are multiple photodiodes (photodiodes inherently have cathodes), which are all connected on the substrate (see Figure 8, for example)).
Regarding claim 3 the Kim KR Kim Combination teaches the prosthesis of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Kim further discloses a separate sensing circuit and a separate current driver are provided for each unit group such that one sensing circuit and one current driver are provided per unit group (See the rejection to claim 1 above: there is one group, circuit, and driver).
Regarding claim 4 the Kim KR Kim Combination teaches the prosthesis of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Kim further discloses each unit group includes a central pixel (Figure 7 item 101(a) and a plurality of peripheral pixels adjacent to the central pixel (Figure 7 items 101(b)).
Regarding claim 5 the Kim KR Kim Combination teaches the prosthesis of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Kim further discloses the k pixels include a central pixel (Figure 7 item 101(a), and upper, lower, left, and right pixels adjacent to the central pixel (Figure 7 items 101(b)).
Regarding claim 6 the Kim KR Kim Combination teaches the prosthesis of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Kim further discloses the controller is capable of activating the pixels after a preset time has elapsed (this is stated as an “intended use” of the controller which does not materially affect the controller’s structure (see the explanation above regarding “intended use” statements). See also [0055] where it sis seen the controller switches pixels after light detection, which inherently involves a “time” elapsing).
Regarding claim 7 the Kim KR Kim Combination teaches the prosthesis of claim 1 substantially as is claimed,
wherein Kim further discloses the unit group includes a power supply voltage (Vb), a plurality of switches connected to the voltage (102), and capacitors ([0046] the return electrodes function as capacitors) each connected to the switches and k photodiodes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jacqueline Woznicki whose telephone number is (571)270-5603. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10am-6pm 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, Jerrah Edwards can be reached on 408-918-7557. 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.
/Jacqueline Woznicki/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774 04/15/26
Prosecution Insights