DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out or distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. The claim has the limitation of “100,000 sites” for stimulation. The broadest reasonable interpretation would be that the number of sites is equal to the number of electrodes, however it is not reasonable to assume that there are 100,000 different electrodes implanted in the brain. Therefore, the meaning of the word “sites” is unclear and needs to be clarified.
Additionally, claim 1 references “an implanted device” in line 6, however in 8, there is mention of “an implant device”. This raises either a lack of antecedent basis or a clarity issue. If these are meant to refer to the same device, then the second mention should state “the implanted device”. If these are meant to be different devices then the exact purpose of the two devices is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gooie et al (US20220054830A1); hereinafter Gooie.
Regarding claim 1, Gooie teaches a system for artificial vision ([0020] closed-loop CBI device) comprising:
a camera adapted to obtain visual information corresponding to a field of view of a person ([0054] prosthetic system may further comprise at least one of the sensor devices, [0114] camera 1107/1207);
processing circuitry adapted to transform the obtained visual information to control signals for controlling artificial visual stimulation (claim 38 - movement support information transmitted by the CLBCI device is configured to support the control of the electromechanic prosthetic device via the control interface, [0027] movement support information such as different distances to an object that is to be manipulated by the individual or degree of deviation from a desired movement trajectory that is to be executed by the individual);
communication circuitry adapted to transmit the control signals to an implanted device to perform artificial visual stimulation (claim 38 - movement support infoirmation transmitted );
And an implant device adapted to be implanted within a body of the person for interacting with brain tissue to perform artificial visual stimulation, wherein the implant device is adapted to receive the control signals, generate stimulation signals based on the control signals, and apply the stimulation signals to neural tissue ([0030] configured to elicit a sensory percept in the cortex of the individual via stimulating afferent sensory axons in the cortex of the individual via stimulating afferent axons of the central nervous system targeting sensory neurons of the cortex, and wherein the elicited sensory percept indicates artificial movement support information related to the obtained sensor signal to support the execution of the movement or action of the individual), wherein the implant device is further adapted to apply stimulation to at least 100,000 sites of the neural tissue.
Regarding claim 2, Gooie teaches the neural tissue is a visual cortex of a brain of the person ([0048] a visual cortex area).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gooie in view of Johnson et al (US20220032044A1); hereinafter Johnson.
Gooie teaches the system of claim 2. It fails to teach carbon nanotube fibers. Johnson further teaches the plurality of stimulation devices comprises a plurality of carbon nanotube fibers ([0038]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Gooie with Johnson because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Johnson teaches “the conductive material of the first conductive ink includes electrically conductive particles that are also biocompatible” ([0038]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gooie in view of Lee et al (US20160073887A1); hereinafter Lee. Gooie teaches the system of claim 2. Gooie fails to teach a combination of electrical and optical signals. Lee teaches the stimulation signals comprise electrical signals,
optical signals, or a combination of electrical and optical signals ([0007] systems and methods for a neural implant are provided. In one embodiment, a neural implant providing both optical and electrical stimulation of neurons is provided). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Gooie with Lee because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Lee teaches photobiomodulation experiments have shown great specificity in causing particular changes ([0043]).
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gooie in view of Abramson et al (US20150342723A1); hereinafter Abramson.
Regarding claim 5, Gooie teaches the system of claim 2. Gooie fails to teach the camera is a prosthetic eye. Abramson teaches the camera is a prosthetic eye ([0068] ocular prosthetic system 110). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Gooie with Abramson because Gooie provides a motivation to modify the invention and Abramson contains a teaching to address the motivation provided in Gooie. Gooie states “there is consistent clinical evidence that somatosensory dysfunction negatively influences motor function. The impairments affect the ability to discriminate textures, weights, shapes, and sizes, to grasp and manipulate objects without vision, and to perform tasks using hands in everyday life. However very little attention is paid to sensory impairments in rehabilitation and recovery and behavioral task training” ([0004]). So, there is a motivation to incorporate a prosthetic eye into the system. Abramson also teaches “the inventors have developed a prosthetic eye that fits an unmet need for patients who have lost an eye to disease or trauma or congenital malformations or cancer or severe infection, by providing a prosthetic eye that appears to have lifelike movements” ([0004]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Gooie and Abramson teaches the system of claim 5. Abramson further teaches the processing circuitry is included in the prosthetic eye ([0006] The prosthesis further includes a processor disposed within the housing).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Gooie and Abramson teaches the system of claim 6. Abramson further teaches the communication circuitry is adapted to transmit the control signals to the implanted device using a wired connection ([0064] the ocular prosthesis 110 also includes a communication module 313 (e.g., contacts for a wired transceiver)).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Gooie and Abramson teaches the system of claim 6. Abramson further teaches the communication circuitry is adapted to transmit the control signals to the implanted device using a wireless connection ([0064] the ocular prosthesis 110 also includes a communication module 313 (… antenna with or without a tuning circuit for a wireless receiver or transceiver)).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gooie in view of Gribetz et al (US 20200023189 A1); hereinafter Gribetz.
Gooie teaches the system of claim 2. Gooie fails to teach the camera is an external camera. Gribetz teaches the camera is an external camera ([0008] BCIs for assisting blind patients include using images of a field of view acquired by an external video camera). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Gooie with Gribetz because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Gribetz teaches that the external camera can “assist patient's navigation, object identification and obstacles avoidance” ([0008]).
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gooie in view of Abramson and Gribetz.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Gooie and Gribetz teaches system of claim 9. The combination fails to teach the location of the processing circuitry. Abramson teaches the processing circuitry is included in the external camera ([0006] The prosthesis further includes a processor disposed within the housing). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Gooie and Gribetz with Abramson. Abramson teaches “the inventors have developed a prosthetic eye that fits an unmet need for patients who have lost an eye to disease or trauma or congenital malformations or cancer or severe infection, by providing a prosthetic eye that appears to have lifelike movements” ([0004]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Gooie, Gribetz, and Abramson teaches the system of claim 10. Abramson further teaches the communication circuitry is adapted to transmit the control signals to the implanted device using a wired connection ([0064] the ocular prosthesis 110 also includes a communication module 313 (e.g., contacts for a wired transceiver)).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Gooie, Gribetz, and Abramson teaches the system of claim 11. Abramson further teaches the communication circuitry is adapted to transmit the control signals to the implanted device using a wireless connection ([0064] the ocular prosthesis 110 also includes a communication module 313 (… antenna with or without a tuning circuit for a wireless receiver or transceiver)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dhrasti SNEHAL Dalal whose telephone number is (571)272-0780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 am - 6:00 pm, Alternate Friday off, 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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 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.
/D.S.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796