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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I comprising claims 1 – 14 and 16 – 20 in the reply filed on 1/9/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/9/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 8 and 12, the phrase “in particular” which is considered equivalent to the phrases: “such as,” “for example,” “specifically,” and “or the like,” is considered indefinite. The metes and bounds of the claim scope are not clear. It is not clear if the claim limitation is optional or not. Furthermore, without knowing this information, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know whether they are infringing on the claims or not.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 6, 9 – 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ionescu et al. (US 2020/0194592 A1; hereinafter “Ionescu”).
Regarding claim 1, Ionescu teaches a biochip (paragraphs 23 – 43; figures 1 – 8) comprising at least one coupling arrangement (multi-gate chemical sensor 1; figure 1) capable for electrical stimulation of biological material or electrical measurement of the biological material, the biochip comprising:
a support structure (first insulator comprising gate oxide 27; figures 1 and 4; paragraphs 34 and 35) arranged at and/or in the coupling arrangement; and
a layer, a layer surface (ferroelectric element 7 comprising ferroelectric material 13; figure 4; paragraphs 32, 34 and 35) of which is arranged at the coupling arrangement, and an opposite layer surface of which forms a coupling surface capable for electrical stimulation of the biological material and/or for electrical measurement on the biological material;
wherein the layer has ferroelectric properties (paragraph 32).
Regarding claim 2, Ionescu teaches the biochip according to claim 1, wherein the layer comprises hafnium oxide with ferroelectric properties (paragraph 32).
Regarding claim 3, Ionescu teaches the biochip according to claim 2, wherein the hafnium oxide with ferroelectric properties is doped with silicon (paragraph 32).
Regarding claim 4, Ionescu teaches the biochip according to claim 2, wherein the hafnium oxide with ferroelectric properties is doped with zirconium (paragraph 32).
Regarding claim 5, Ionescu teaches the biochip according to claim 4, wherein the zirconium-doped hafnium oxide with ferroelectric properties has the composition Hf0.5 Zr0.5O2 (hafnium zirconium oxide; paragraph 32).
Regarding claim 6, Ionescu teaches the biochip according to claim 1, wherein the layer comprises zirconium oxide having ferroelectric properties (paragraph 32).
Regarding claim 9, Ionescu teaches the biochip according to claim 1, wherein the support structure comprises a substrate of a semiconductor material (paragraphs 23 – 34; figure 4).
Regarding claim 10, Ionescu teaches the biochip according to claim 9, wherein the layer forms part of a ferroelectric field effect transistor of the biochip (paragraphs 23 – 34; figure 4).
Regarding claim 11, Ionescu teaches the biochip according to claim 10, wherein the layer forms an insulating layer of the ferroelectric field effect transistor (paragraphs 23 – 34; figure 4).
Regarding claim 12, Ionescu teaches the biochip according to claim 1, wherein the biochip has memristive properties; in particular wherein the layer is adapted such that a ferroelectric tunnel contact is formed (figure 4).
Regarding claim 13, Ionescu teaches the biochip according to claim 1, wherein the biochip is adapted to couple, or capable of being able to couple to, an artificial neural network to a biological neural network (figure 4).
Regarding claim 19, Ionescu teaches an in vitro assembly comprising at least one biochip and an electrolyte receptacle (e.g., third insulator 39 as an electrolyte holder; figure 4; paragraph 27) for receiving an electrolyte comprising biological material, wherein the electrolyte receptacle is adapted to dispose the electrolyte on at least one coupling surface of the biochip for electrical stimulation of the biological material and/or electrical measurement of the biological material, wherein the at least one biochip is a biochip according to claim 1 (figure 4).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ionescu et al. (US 2020/0194592 A1; hereinafter “Ionescu”) in view of Shih (US 2015/0226618 A1; hereinafter “Shih”).
Regarding claim 7, Ionescu does not specifically teach the biochip according to claim 1, wherein the layer comprises aluminum scandium nitride with ferroelectric properties.
However, Shih teaches the use of aluminum scandium nitride as a substrate material in a related sensor apparatus (paragraphs 3,4 and 20). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.07). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the layer comprises aluminum scandium nitride with ferroelectric properties.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ionescu et al. (US 2020/0194592 A1; hereinafter “Ionescu”) in view of Wu et al. (US 2006/0240575 A1; hereinafter “Wu”).
Regarding claim 8, Ionescu does not specifically teach the biochip according to claim 1, wherein a thickness (d) of the layer is greater than 200 nm, in the range between 200 nm and 1500 nm, or between 200 nm and 800 nm.
However, Wu teaches a related sensor apparatus having a ferroelectric oxide layer within the specified thickness range (paragraph 54). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein a thickness (d) of the layer is greater than 200 nm, in the range between 200 nm and 1500 nm, or between 200 nm and 800 nm.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ionescu et al. (US 2020/0194592 A1; hereinafter “Ionescu”).
Regarding claim 14, Ionescu does not specifically teach the biochip according to claim 1, wherein the biochip comprises a plurality of mutually separated coupling surfaces of different coupling arrangements of the biochip.
However, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the biochip comprises a plurality of mutually separated coupling surfaces of different coupling arrangements of the biochip.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ionescu et al. (US 2020/0194592 A1; hereinafter “Ionescu”) in view of Wu et al. (US 2006/0240575 A1; hereinafter “Wu”).
Regarding claim 16, Ionescu does not specifically teach an implant comprising a biochip comprising at least one coupling arrangement for electrical stimulation of biological material or for electrical measurement on the biological material, wherein the biochip is a biochip according to claim 1.
However, Wu teaches a related biochip sensor implant apparatus providing a biran-machine interface suitable for electrical stimulation of biological material or for electrical measurement on biological material as claimed (paragraphs 58 and 81; figure 4). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein an implant comprising a biochip comprising at least one coupling arrangement for electrical stimulation of biological material or for electrical measurement on the biological material, wherein the biochip is a biochip according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Ionescu does not specifically teach implant according to claim 16, wherein the implant is a retinal implant, a cochlear implant, an implant for deep brain stimulation and/or an implant for providing a brain-machine interface.
Wu teaches a related biochip sensor implant apparatus providing a brain-machine interface suitable for electrical stimulation of biological material or for electrical measurement on biological material as claimed (paragraphs 58 and 81; figure 4). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the implant is a retinal implant, or an implant for deep brain stimulation and/or an implant for providing a brain-machine interface.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ionescu et al. (US 2020/0194592 A1; hereinafter “Ionescu”) and Wu et al. (US 2006/0240575 A1; hereinafter “Wu”), and further in view of Chen et al. (ref. no. 17 on IDS filed 6/5/2023 by Applicant; hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding claim 18, modified Ionescu does not specifically teach the implant according to claim 16, wherein the implant comprises a semiconductor chip separate from the biochip, wherein a terminal of the semiconductor chip is electrically connected via a conductor track to an electrode layer adjacent to the layer surface and the conductor track and the biochip are arranged on a common substrate.
Chen teach a related sensing electrode array having the recited configuration (figure 3a). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the implant comprises a semiconductor chip separate from the biochip, wherein a terminal of the semiconductor chip is electrically connected via a conductor track to an electrode layer adjacent to the layer surface and the conductor track and the biochip are arranged on a common substrate.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ionescu et al. (US 2020/0194592 A1; hereinafter “Ionescu”) in view of Chen et al. (ref. no. 18 on the IDS filed 6/5/2023 by Applicant; hereinafter “Chen 2016”) or Becker et al. (ref. no. 16 in the IDS filed 6/5/2023; hereinafter “Becker”).
Regarding claim 20, Ionescu does not specifically teach the assembly according to claim 19, wherein the assembly comprises at least one biological neuron and at least one artificial neuron.
However, Both Chen 2016 (figure 5) and Becker (figure 1) teach pertinent apparatus structure wherein an assembly structure comprises at least one biological neuron and at least one artificial neuron. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the assembly comprises at least one biological neuron and at least one artificial neuron.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN J. SINES whose telephone number is (571)272-1263. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM EST M-F.
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, Elizabeth A Robinson can be reached at (571) 272-7129. 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.
BRIAN J. SINES
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1796
/BRIAN J. SINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796