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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on May 10, 2023 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “mains power grid” from claim 1, line 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because (1) each individual waveform discussed in the specification must be identified with a separate letter designation adjacent to the vertical axis (see 37 C.F.R. 1.84(d)) and (2) there is no reference character to the arrow in the bottom graph, such that the arrow’s meaning is not clear (see 37 C.F.R. 1.84(r)). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “[a] device that enables measuring changes occurring in the dopamine concentration in the brain” in lines 1-2, which recites the preamble of the claim. The determination on whether a preamble carries patentable weight is made on a case-by-case basis in light of the facts of the case. Mere statements of intended use or purpose are not treated as claim limitations. However, if the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, or, if the claim preamble is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim. Furthermore, any terminology in the preamble that limits the structure of the claimed invention must be treated as a claim limitation. See MPEP § 2111.02. In this case the claim preamble is merely providing intended use or purpose of the device, and is therefore not being given patentable weight to the claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, line 4: “the waves” should be “the triangular waves”;
in claim 1, line 4 “the phase” should be “the signal phase”;
in claim 2, line 1: “A device” should be “The device”;
in claim 3, line 2: “tissue” should be inserted after “brain”;
in claim 3, line 6: “a” should be inserted before “data logger”;
in claim 4, line 3: “implanting” should be inserted after “and”;
in claim 4, line 4: “tissue” should be inserted after “brain”;
in claim 4, line 17: “the voltage” should be inserted after “transmitting”;
in claim 4, line 18: “the” should be inserted before “data”;
in claim 5, line 1: “A device” should be “The device”; and
in claim 6, line 1: “A device” should be “The device”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-6 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The following are examples of such errors. Applicant is advised to review the claims and make any such revisions as necessary.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the dopamine concentration" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the recitation to read “dopamine concentration” would overcome this rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the brain" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the recitation to read “a brain” would overcome this rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “and generates triangular waves such that the waves are locked to the phase of said signal” in line 4, but it is not clear which structure is performing the claimed function. For the purposes of examination, the triangular wave generator is being interpreted as performing the claimed function. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said signal" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “and transmits said waveform to a current-to-voltage converter to be applied to a microelectrode” in lines 4-5, but it is not clear which structure is performing the claimed function. For the purposes of examination, the triangular wave generator is being interpreted as performing the claimed function. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said waveform" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears as if this limitation is referring to the generated triangular waves. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-6 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 2 recites various instances of “pulse signals” or “pulse signal” as well as various instances of “triangular wave”, but it is not clear if these recitation are the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “triangular waves” in claim 1, line 4. The recitation in lines 16-17 suggest that they are different, but “triangular wave” recited in line 11 indicates that they might be the same. The confusion between these two terms needs to be made clear. Furthermore, the inconsistent usage of singular and plural (signals/waves and signal/wave) adds to the confusion. These inconsistencies render claim 2 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites “the signal of the mains power grid” in line 4, but it is not clear if this recitation is referring to the signal phase (see claim 1, line 3) or the signal itself (see claim 1, line 4). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the input" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the input" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the optocoupler" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears as if this recitation should read “an optocoupler” and the recitation in line 9 should read “the optocoupler”. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites “the waveform generator” in line 10, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “a triangular wave generator” in claim 1, lines 2-3. The context of the claim and the definite article “the” suggest that they are the same, but the inconsistent language suggests that they are different. If the recitations are the same, the present recitation should be “the triangular wave generator”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). For the purposes of examination, the recitations are being interpretated as the same. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites “a comparator integrated circuit” in line 12, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “a comparator integrated circuit” in line 6. The indefinite article “a” suggest that they are different, but the similar language suggests that they are the same. If the recitations are the same, the present recitation should be “the comparator integrated circuit”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the output" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the amplitude" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites “an operational amplifier (opamp) integrated circuit” in line 14, “an opamp” in line 16, “the opamp” in line 18, “an opamp” in line 20, and “an opamp” in line 22 but it is not clear the relationship among these recitations to one another. The indefinite article “a” suggest that they are different, but the similar language suggests that they are the same. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the integral" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the integral" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites “a diode that prevents the opamp that enables taking integral from reaching saturated state and ensures that the operation of taking integral is performed smoothly” is grammatically awkward and unclear. It is not clear what is required in this recitation. This renders claim 2 indefinite. This recitation is not being given patentable weight. Appropriate correction is required.
The term “smoothly” in claim 2 , line 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “smoothly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification does not indicate what level or degree of smoothness is needed to “ensure that the operation of taking integral”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the operation" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the voltage" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the peak-to-peak amplitude" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-4 and 6 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 2.
Claim 3 recites “[a] device comprising a microelectrode that is implanted into brain tissue…” in lines 1-2 and “wherein it comprises the triangular wave generator according to Claim 2” in lines 7-8. The preamble appears to indicate that claim 3 is a new independent claim; however, the last recitation in lines 7-8 indicates that claim 3 is dependent from claim 2. This confusion renders claim 3 indefinite. This causes additional problems with the relationship between presently recited recitations (i.e., the microelectrode, brain tissue, PLL, mains power grid, etc.) and the prior recitations in claims 1 and 2. Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Claim 3 recites “[a] device comprising a microelectrode that is implanted into brain tissue, a reference electrode that is implanted into the brain or into another tissue, a phase-locked loop (PLL) that is provided inside the a fast-scan cyclic voltammetry (FSCV) device and that is used for removing noise interferences originating from the mains power grid,” in lines 1-4. It is not clear which elements are included within the device or within the FSCV device, or if those two devices are actually the same device. These inconsistencies render claim 3 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “another tissue” in line 2; however, the specification of the present application does not define what other tissues may be included within the definition of “another tissue”. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear. This indefiniteness renders claim 3 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the background current" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the Faraday current values" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “wherein it comprises the triangular wave generator according to Claim 2” in lines 7-8. However, it is not clear what “it” is referring to. Is “it” the device, the FSCV device, or something else? Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 3.
Claim 4 recites “another tissue” in line 4; however, the specification of the present application does not define what other tissues may be included within the definition of “another tissue”. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear. This indefiniteness renders claim 4 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “a triangular wave” in line 5 but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the prior recitations of triangular wave and/or pulse signal. Subsequent recitations of “the waveform” and “the triangular waveform” further add to the confusion. The relationship among these recitations should be made clear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “the waveform generator” in line 5 and lines 6-7, but it is not clear if these recitations are the same as, related to, or different from the prior recitations of triangular wave generator and/or waveform generator. The relationship among these recitations should be made clear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the dopamine” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the tip” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “reducing and oxidizing the dopamine at the tip of the microelectrode by applying the triangular wave to the microelectrode in addition to the obtained background current” in lines 12-13 is grammatically awkward and unclear. It is not clear what is required in this recitation. Is the background current then applied back to the electrode? This renders claim 4 indefinite. This recitation is not being given patentable weight. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “obtaining a Faraday current that is in direct proportion to the dopamine concentration on the microelectrode in addition to the background current as a result of this chemical reaction” in lines 14-15 is grammatically awkward and unclear. It is not clear what is required in this recitation. What is the background current in addition to? What is the chemical reaction? This renders claim 4 indefinite. This recitation is not being given patentable weight. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “the analog-to-digital converter and data logger recording the values of the background current and the Faraday current converted to voltage” in lines 19-20. However, lines 21-23 recite “subtracting the background current from the recorded current values mathematically through subtraction after the recording operation is complete, and obtaining the Faraday current that corresponds to the dopamine concentration in the medium as a result of this operation”, indicating that the current is being mathematically manipulated. This is unclear as the current has already been jointly converted to voltage (see line 16). This inconsistency renders claim 4 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the recorded current values” in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, no current values have been recorded in the claim, only voltage values (see lines 19-20). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the recording operation” in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, no current values have been recorded in the claim, only voltage values (see lines 19-20). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “obtaining the Faraday current that corresponds to the dopamine concentration in the medium as a result of this operation” in lines 22-23. However, lines 14-15 recite “obtaining the Faraday current that corresponds to the dopamine concentration in the medium as a result of this operation”, indicating that the Faraday current has already been obtained. This inconsistency renders claim 4 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the medium” in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “this operation” in line 23. However, it is not clear what “this operation” is referring to. Is “this operation” the subtraction, the recording operation, the obtaining of the Faraday current, or something else? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the linear relationship” in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the ratio” in lines 25-26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites “the device is a fast-scan cyclic voltammetry device” in lines 1-2, but it is not clear what relationship this recitation has with the previously recited device in claim 3, line 1, and the FSCV device in claim 3, lines 3-4. This relationship among these recitations should be made clear. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 does not further limit the claimed subject matter of claim 3, as the FSCV device is already recited in claim 3, lines 3-4. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The succeeding art rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 below are made with the claims as best understood and interpreted in light of the preceding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 above.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Michael et al. (“Improving Data Acquisition for Fast-Scan Cyclic Voltammetry”, Anal. Chem. 1999, 71, 3941-3947), hereinafter Michael.
Regarding Claim 1, Michael teaches improved fast-scan cyclic voltammetry (FSCV) utilizing a phase-locked loop (PLL) to eliminate noise from frequency drift of the powerline (see abstract). Michael teaches a device that enables measuring changes occurring in the dopamine concentration in the brain (see abstract and Introduction (not labeled), the FSCV device for measuring dopamine concentration via the voltage scans),
device comprising a triangular wave generator (see § Experimental Section, §§ Hardware ¶1-2, the voltage waveform is generated by the PCI-MIO-16XE-10; Fig. 2C) that detects a signal phase of a mains power grid by means of a phase-locked loop (PLL) (see § Experimental Section, §§ Hardware ¶1-2, the CD4046 for the phase-locked loop for monitoring line (mains) frequency; Fig. 2A), and
generates triangular waves such that the waves are locked to the phase of said signal (see § Results and Discussion, §§ Line Noise ¶1-2, the output of the phase-locked loop is utilized to trigger the waveform generation and data acquisition, so to address the line noise and harmonics; see § Experimental Section, §§ Hardware ¶1-2, the voltage waveform is generated by the PCI-MIO-16XE-10, Fig. 2C), and transmits said waveform to a current-to-voltage converter to be applied to a microelectrode (see § Experimental Section, §§ Electrochemistry and Microelectrodes ¶1-2, the triangular, voltage, waveform based off of the phase-locked loop is applied to the working electrode relative to a reference electrode, see § Experimental Section, §§ Signal Resolution ¶1, the FSCV system utilizes a current-to-voltage converter).
Regarding Claim 5, Michael teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Michael further teaches wherein the device is a fast-scan cyclic voltammetry device (see abstract and Introduction (not labeled), the FSCV device for measuring dopamine concentration via the voltage scans).
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.
The succeeding art rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 below are made with the claims as best understood and interpreted in light of the preceding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 above.
Claims 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michael as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Koulopoulos et al. (US Patent 5,243,344), hereinafter Koulopoulos.
Regarding Claim 2, Michael teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Michael further teaches a microprocessor that generates the triangular waveforms (see § Experimental Section, §§ Software ¶1-3, the software for controlling the different hardware components, see § Experimental Section, §§ Hardware ¶1-2, the voltage waveform is generated by the PCI-MIO-16XE-10, which may be considered a microprocessor, Fig. 2C),
a comparator integrated circuit (see § Results and Discussion, §§ Line Noise ¶1-2, the output of the phase-locked loop is utilized to trigger the waveform generation and data acquisition, so to address the line noise and harmonics; see § Experimental Section, §§ Hardware ¶1-2, the CD4046 for the phase-locked loop for monitoring line (mains) frequency; Fig. 2A; the CD4046 comprises the comparator, see for example CD4046B Types manual (CD4046B Types, Texas Instruments, 2003) the Features section and Fig. 1, the two comparators);
an opamp that may be configured to manipulate the waveform (see § Experimental Section, §§ Hardware ¶1-2, the operational amplifier)
a diode (see § Experimental Section, §§ Hardware ¶1-2, the CD4046 for the phase-locked loop for monitoring line (mains) frequency; Fig. 2A; the CD4046 comprises the diode, see for example CD4046B Types manual (CD4046B Types, Texas Instruments, 2003) the Features section and Fig. 1, the diode for supply regulation).
Michael is silent regarding an optocoupler between the digital and analog components.
Koulopoulos teaches the usage of a digital-to-analog converter-preamplifier apparatus (see abstract and Fig. 1), in which optocoupling is utilized between the digital and analog components to reduce the noise from the digital components affecting the analog signal (see col. 7 ln. 14-21 and col. 16 ln. 56-68; Figs. 6A-6B).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optocoupling of Koulopoulos between the analog and digital connections in Michael because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) the optocoupling would reduce the effect of noise from the digital components on the analog signal (see Koulopoulos col. 7 ln. 14-21 and col. 16 ln. 56-68).
Regarding Claim 3, Michael in view of Koulopoulos teaches the device of claim 2 as stated above. Michael further teaches a device comprising a microelectrode that is implanted into brain tissue (see § Experimental Section, §§ Electrochemistry and Microelectrodes ¶1-2, the triangular, voltage, waveform based off of the phase-locked loop is applied to the working electrode relative to a reference electrode; see § Experimental Section, §§ Electrochemistry and Microelectrodes, the electrodes are microelectrodes),
a reference electrode that is implanted into the brain or into another tissue (see § Experimental Section, §§ Electrochemistry and Microelectrodes ¶1-2, the triangular, voltage, waveform based off of the phase-locked loop is applied to the working electrode relative to a reference electrode; see § Experimental Section, §§ Electrochemistry and Microelectrodes, the electrodes are microelectrodes),
a phase-locked loop (PLL) that is provided inside a fast-scan cyclic voltammetry (FSCV) device and that is used for removing noise interferences originating from the mains power grid (see abstract and Introduction (not labeled), the FSCV device for measuring dopamine concentration via the voltage scans; see § Results and Discussion, §§ Line Noise ¶1-2, the output of the phase-locked loop is utilized to trigger the waveform generation and data acquisition, so to address the line noise and harmonics),
a current-to-voltage converter that enables applying the triangular waveform to the microelectrode (see § Experimental Section, §§ Electrochemistry and Microelectrodes ¶1-2, the triangular, voltage, waveform based off of the phase-locked loop is applied to the working electrode relative to a reference electrode, see § Experimental Section, §§ Signal Resolution ¶1, the FSCV system utilizes a current-to-voltage converter),
an analog-to-digital converter and data logger that enables recording the background current and the Faraday current values converted to voltage (see § Results and Discussion, §§ Identification of Noise in FSCV Data ¶1, the data is recorded via a 12-bit analog-to-digital converter; see § Results and Discussion, §§ Signal Resolution, the Faradaic currents that may also occur; see § Results and Discussion, §§ Identification of Noise in FSCV Data ¶1 and §§ The Voltage Waveform as a Noise Source ¶2, the background current is subtracted to help reduce noise in the values indicative of dopamine concentration, Figs. 3-4),
wherein it comprises the triangular wave generator according to Claim 2 (see above claim 2 mapping of Michael in view of Koulopoulos).
Regarding Claim 4, Michael in view of Koulopoulos teaches the device of claim 3 as stated above. Michael further teaches implanting the microelectrode into the brain tissue, and the reference electrode into the brain or into another tissue (see § Experimental Section, §§ Electrochemistry and Microelectrodes ¶1-2, the triangular, voltage, waveform based off of the phase-locked loop is applied to the working electrode relative to a reference electrode; see § Experimental Section, §§ Freely Moving Animal Experiments, the electrodes are implanted into the animals in order to detect the dopamine, while experiment is conducted on animal test subjects),
generating a triangular wave by means of the waveform generator (see § Experimental Section, §§ Hardware ¶1-2, the voltage waveform is generated by the PCI-MIO-16XE-10, Fig. 2C),
transmitting the waveform to the current-to-voltage converter by means of the waveform generator in order for applying said waveform to the microelectrode, the current-to-voltage converter applying the triangular waveform to the microelectrode (see § Experimental Section, §§ Electrochemistry and Microelectrodes ¶1-2, the triangular, voltage, waveform based off of the phase-locked loop is applied to the working electrode relative to a reference electrode, see § Experimental Section, §§ Signal Resolution ¶1, the FSCV system utilizes a current-to-voltage converter),
obtaining a background current and Faraday current on the microelectrode upon applying the triangular wave to obtain dopamine concentration (see § Results and Discussion, §§ Identification of Noise in FSCV Data ¶1, the data is recorded via a 12-bit analog-to-digital converter; see § Results and Discussion, §§ Signal Resolution, the Faradaic currents that may also occur),
reducing and oxidizing the dopamine at the tip of the microelectrode by applying the triangular wave to the microelectrode so as to obtain the currents and dopamine concentration (see § Results and Discussion, §§ Identification of Noise in FSCV Data ¶2, the dopamine oxidation and reduction; Fig. 3),
transmitting to the analog-to-digital converter and data logger (see § Results and Discussion, §§ Identification of Noise in FSCV Data ¶1, the data is recorded via a 12-bit analog-to-digital converter), and
involving background current subtraction (see § Results and Discussion, §§ Identification of Noise in FSCV Data ¶1 and §§ The Voltage Waveform as a Noise Source ¶2, the background current is subtracted to help reduce noise in the values indicative of dopamine concentration, Figs. 3-4).
Regarding Claim 6, Michael in view of Koulopoulos teaches the device of claim 3 as stated above. Michael further teaches the device is a fast-scan cyclic voltammetry device (see abstract and Introduction (not labeled), the FSCV device for measuring dopamine concentration via the voltage scans).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Correa Vasques et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0294852) teaches a grid-tied inverter for supplying current to a power supply system including a synchronization unit configured to provide phase synchronization of the auxiliary signal to the power supply system (see abstract), including the usage of a phase locked loop circuit in the synchronization unit (see ¶[0019]-[0020]).
Riaz et al. (“A low-cost fast scan cyclic voltammetry system for measurement of striatal dopamine concentration in behaving rats”, Neuroscience 2019, Poster Presentation, abstract only, October 21, 2019) teaches the usage of a FSCV to detect dopamine concentration via implanted microelectrodes (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D. MORONESO whose telephone number is (571)272-8055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30AM - 6:00 PM, 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, JENNIFER M. ROBERTSON can be reached at (571)272-5001. 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.
/J.D.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791