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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Response, filed 3/8/2022, with respect to the non-final office action 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Pivonka et al. US 2017/0001003 in view of Andersen US 2014/0185805.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is indicated as “original” however this claim depends from claim 18 which is withdrawn and therefore claim 19 is also withdrawn. The status identifier should be amended to read “withdrawn”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Status
Claims 1-3 and 5-13 are under active prosecution.
Claims 4 and 14-19 are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pivonka et al. US 2017/0001003 in view of Andersen US 2014/0185805.
Regarding claim 1: Pivonka discloses a neural interface device 200 (“neuromodulation” abstract, paragraph 0003) comprising:
an electrode array 260 (figures 2 and 17) to stimulate and record from the neural tissue from which the electrodes are implanted (paragraph 102 “neuromodulate tissue or record information”); and
an integrated circuit 220 (figure 2) in communication with the electrode array (via leads 265, figure 2); the integrated circuit 220 comprising:
an analog-to-digital converter ADC (figure 17; the sensor interface 261 is shown in both figures 2 and 17, stated another way the sensor interface in figure 17 is the sensor interface in figure 2) it is known in the art that an ADC converts analog signals into digital signals which would produce a digital output (see paragraph 0141).
Pivonka, therefore, discloses the claimed invention however Pivonka does not disclose an encryption module which encrypts the digitized electrical output signal. Andersen however teaches of a neurostimulator 106 (figure 1) which communicates with external programmers 120A. The neurostimulator includes a sensor interface 220, which is similar to the sensor interface of Pivonka (figure 17 of Pivonka). The sensor interface of Andersen is connected to a communication subsystem 208 (figure 4), the sensor subsystem 208 (figure 4) includes a Cipher Key Exchange Subsystem 216 (figure 4). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary at the time the invention was filed to modify Pivonka to include a Cipher Key Exchange Subsystem, as taught by Andersen, in order to protect the integrity of data transfer by the external device and also by the IMD (see paragraphs 0013-0014 of Andersen).
Regarding claim 5: Pivonka/Andersen discloses the claimed invention, Andersen further discloses that the key is either 128 or 156 bits (paragraph 0039). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Pivonka/Andersen to include encryption keys of 128 or 156 bits in order to follow ASE standards (Andersen; paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 6: Pivonka discloses a transceiver 231 (figure 2) which is wireless (the transceiver is connected to antenna 240 (figure 2), which indicates wireless transmission and receiving). In this design the antenna 240 (figure 2) is connected to the antenna 540 (figure 3) of the external device 500 (figure 3) for wireless communication (paragraph 0118 “wirelessly receive power and/or data”).
Regarding claim 7: Pivonka discloses the controller 250 (figure 2) which controls the on-board circuitry (paragraph 0111), selects which transceiver for data receiving and transmitting (paragraph 0114) and configures the functionality of the implant (paragraph 0138) this is considered to be control logic, memory (paragraphs 0064, 0138 and 0161) which stores data (paragraphs 0079) and a power management unit 235 (figure 2) which provides power to the IC (paragraph 0118).
Claims 2, 8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pivonka et al. US 2017/0001003 in view of Andersen US 2014/0185805 and further in view of Muller et al. US 2019/0282817.
Regarding claim 2: Pivonka/Andersen discloses the claimed invention however Pivonka/Andersen does not disclose that the ADC is a successive approximation register (SAR). Muller however also teaches of a neurostimulation device (abstract) which uses an SAR or an equivalent ADC (paragraphs 0018, 0115). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Pivonka/Andersen to include an SAR, as taught by Muller, in order “to support concurrent stimulation, with a resettable interface for rapid recovery from saturation and greater stability” (paragraph 0115 Muller).
Regarding claim 8: Pivonka discloses a neural interface device 200 (“neuromodulation” abstract, paragraph 0003) comprising:
an electrode array 260 (figures 2 and 17) to stimulate and record from the neural tissue from which the electrodes are implanted (paragraph 102 “neuromodulate tissue or record information”); and
an integrated circuit 220 (figure 2) in communication with the electrode array (via leads 265, figure 2); the integrated circuit 220 comprising:
an analog-to-digital converter ADC (figure 17; the sensor interface 261 is shown in both figures 2 and 17, stated another way the sensor interface in figure 17 is the sensor interface in figure 2) it is known in the art that an ADC converts analog signals into digital signals which would produce a digital output (see paragraph 0141).
Pivonka, therefore, discloses the claimed invention however Pivonka does not disclose an encryption module which encrypts the digitized electrical output signal. Andersen however teaches of a neurostimulator 106 (figure 1) which communicates with external programmers 120A. The neurostimulator includes a sensor interface 220, which is similar to the sensor interface of Pivonka (figure 17 of Pivonka). The sensor interface of Andersen is connected to a communication subsystem 208 (figure 4), the sensor subsystem 208 (figure 4) includes a Cipher Key Exchange Subsystem 216 (figure 4). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary at the time the invention was filed to modify Pivonka to include a Cipher Key Exchange Subsystem, as taught by Andersen, in order to protect the integrity of data transfer by the external device and also by the IMD (see paragraphs 0013-0014 of Andersen).
Pivonka/Andersen discloses the claimed invention however Pivonka/Andersen does not disclose that the ADC is a successive approximation register (SAR). Muller however also teaches of a neurostimulation device (abstract) which uses an SAR or an equivalent ADC (paragraphs 0018, 0115). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Pivonka/Andersen to include an SAR, as taught by Muller, in order “to support concurrent stimulation, with a resettable interface for rapid recovery from saturation and greater stability” (paragraph 0115 Muller).
Regarding claim 11: Pivonka/Andersen/Muller discloses the claimed invention, Andersen further discloses that the key is either 128 or 156 bits (paragraph 0039). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Pivonka/Andersen to include encryption keys of 128 or 156 bits in order to follow ASE standards (Andersen; paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 12: Pivonka discloses a wireless transmitter 231 (figure 2) and an external processor 500 (figure 3). The antenna 240 (figure 2) of the implant 200 (figure 2) communicates with the antenna 540 (figure 2) of the external device 500 (figure 2) via the implant transceiver 231 (figure 2) and external transceiver 533 (figure 3).
Regarding claim 13: Pivonka discloses the controller 250 (figure 2) which controls the on-board circuitry (paragraph 0111), selects which transceiver for data receiving and transmitting (paragraph 0114) and configures the functionality of the implant (paragraph 0138) this is considered to be control logic, memory (paragraphs 0064, 0138 and 0161) which stores data (paragraphs 0079) and a power management unit 235 (figure 2) which provides power to the IC (paragraph 0118).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pivonka et al. US 2017/0001003 in view of Andersen US 2014/0185805 and further in view of Andersen US 2013/0108046 herein Andersen ’046.
Regarding claim 3: Pivonka/Andersen discloses the claimed invention however Pivonka/Andersen does not specifically disclose a bit stream cipher. Andersen ‘046 however teaches of a “stream cipher” which could include a stream cipher based on scrambling bits (paragraph 0059, which is considered to be a bit-stream cipher). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Pivonka/Andersen to include a bit stream cipher, as taught by Andersen ‘046, in order to utilize a low cost cipher (Andersen ‘046, paragraph 0059).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pivonka et al. US 2017/0001003 in view of Andersen US 2014/0185805 and further in view of Muller et al. US 2019/0282817 and further in view of Andersen US 2013/0108046 herein Andersen ’046.
Regarding claim 9: Pivonka/Andersen/Muller discloses the claimed invention however Pivonka/Andersen does not specifically disclose a bit stream cipher. Andersen ‘046 however teaches of a “stream cipher” which could include a stream cipher based on scrambling bits (paragraph 0059, which is considered to be a bit-stream cipher). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Pivonka/Andersen/Muller to include a bit stream cipher, as taught by Andersen ‘046, in order to utilize a low cost cipher (Andersen ‘046, paragraph 0059).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The invention is directed towards a neural interface, the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious all of the limitations of the claimed invention in combination with a sample and hold circuit electrically coupled to a comparator, wherein the comparator compares the received electrical signal to a reference signal of the DAC.
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 PAULA J. STICE whose telephone number is (303)297-4352. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am -4pm MST.
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, Carl H Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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.
PAULA J. STICE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3796
/PAULA J STICE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796