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 § 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) 1, 2, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Gooie et al (US20220054830A1); hereinafter Gooie, in view of Abramson(US 20150342723 A1) and further in view of Johnson(US 20220032044 A1).
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 information transmitted );
the 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 a plurality of sites of the neural tissue([0094] The neuronal stimulation electrode 720 may comprise a plurality of independently controllable electric contacts (see FIG. 8 below) that may be arranged in the vicinity of a bundle of afferent sensory axons 730 targeting the sensory areas 720 and 710 of the cerebral cortex). Gooie fails to disclose “the implanted device being oblate spheroid shaped; and a plurality of carbon nanotube fibers radially extending from the implanted device used to apply the stimulation signals to the neural tissue”.
However, Abramson teaches “[0003]When the eye is removed, a sphere (also referred to as an orbital implant) the size of the normal eye is placed in the socket and the conjunctiva (transparent mucous membrane that normally covers the sclera that is often referred to as the white portion of the eye) is surgically closed over the sphere”.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the computer brain interface of Gooie with the spherical shape of the ocular prosthesis of Abramson. Doing so would specify the shape of the implant so the implant is able to naturally fit in the patient’s body.
However, Johnson further teaches “[0016] The electrode array 102 formed by the method of the present disclosure may be used in a neuroprosthetic device for treating various neurological diseases and disorders. Non-limiting examples of neuroprosthetic devices include deep brain stimulators, spinal cord stimulators, retinal prostheses, cochlear prostheses, and the like. [0038] Non-limiting examples of conductive particles include medical grade platinum particles, silver particles, copper particles, gold particles, chromium particles, titanium particles, iridium particles, stainless steel particles, conductive polymers, carbon nanotubes, and combinations thereof. ”.
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 carbon nanotubes used in the conductive contact used with the stimulator to ensure proper stimulation of the neuroprosthetic device.
Regarding claim 2, Gooie in view of Abramson and Johnson teach the neural tissue is a visual cortex of a brain of the person ([0048] a visual cortex area).
Regarding claim 5, Gooie in view of Abramson and Johnson 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 and Johnson 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 and Johnson 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 and Johnson 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) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gooie in view Abramson and Johnson, and further in view of Lee et al (US20160073887A1); hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 4, Gooie in view of Abramson and Johnson 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) 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gooie in view of Abramson and Johnson, and further in view of Gribetz et al (US 20200023189 A1); hereinafter Gribetz.
Regarding claim 9, Gooie in view of Abramson and Johnson 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]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Gooie and Abramson, Johnson, and Gribetz teaches system of claim 9. Gooie 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, Abramson, Johnson and Gribetz, 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, Abramson, Johnson and Gribetz 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)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 4/9/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 2 under 102(a)(1) have 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 Gooie in view of Abramson and Johnson. Applicant amended claims to include “the implanted device being oblate spheroid shaped; and a plurality of carbon nanotube fibers radially extending from the implanted device used to apply the stimulation signals to the neural tissue” and argues previous art Gooie fails to disclose these amendments. However, prior art Abramson and Johnson both teach elements of these amendments. Abramson teaches the implanted device being a spheroid shape with tubes extending[0003], [0087], and Johnson teaches carbon nanofiber tubes[0038]. It would be obvious to combine all prior art to disclose the claimed limitations. Therefore the 103 rejections for all claims stand.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Brain-Machine Interface of Howard(US 20180333587 A1).
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 MARIA CATHERINE ANTHONY whose telephone number is (703)756-4514. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 4:30 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, 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.
/MARIA CATHERINE ANTHONY/Examiner, Art Unit 3796 /CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights