The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1-4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okandan (US 8,323,955) in view of Nick (Microsystem Technologies 2014). In the patent Okandan teaches an apparatus with a housing including a hollow inside (see at least the walls surrounding lower chamber 14 in at least figure 7); a cover configured to cover the housing and support a portion of a biological cell on the cover (see at least common wall 18 in at least figures 2A-2B and 7); an opening formed through the cover and configured to expose at least a portion of the cell to the hollow inside of the housing (see opening 20 in figure 7 in particular); an electrode base disposed on a bottom of the housing (the 1 one more electrodes 22 and their formation described in column 7, lines 21-43); and one or more electrode rods arranged between the electrode base and the cover (see electrodes 22 in the figures), wherein the electrode base and/or the one or more electrode rods are arranged for sensing an electrical signal from at least another portion of the cell (see at least column 2, lines 39-49, allow electrical current measurements to be made using the electrodes . . . in electrical connection with the biological cell). With respect to claim 1, column 7, lines 40-43 teach that the electrodes 22 are preferably centered about the opening 20 through the common wall 18 to facilitate accurate and reproducible measurements, using the patch-clamp technique. Okandan does not teach that the electrodes are and configured to support the cover.
In the paper Nick describes high aspect ratio gold nanopillars on microelectrodes for neural interfaces. Microelectrode arrays (MEA) have become an established tool in applied and fundamental research. Low impedance at the interface between tissue and conducting electrodes is of utmost importance for the electrical recording or stimulation of electrophysiological active cells such as cardiac myocytes and neurons. A common way to improve this interface is to increase the electrochemically active surface area of the electrode. In this paper the fabrication of microelectrodes covered with very high aspect ratio (AR > 100) gold nanopillars is presented and electrode biocompatibility is investigated using cell culture experiments. The nanopillar electrodes show decreased impedance over the entire scanned frequency range of 1 Hz–100 kHz and an impedance improvement of up to 89.5 at 1 kHz depending on nanopillar height. Neurons adhere well to the substrate and electrodes and signals with amplitudes up to ten times higher than with conventional gold electrodes were recorded in cell culture experiments. Figure 1 shows the fabrication process resulting in an electrode base with a plurality of electrode rods.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the structure of Okandan to create high aspect ratio electrodes that would reach from the base to the cover of the Okandan chamber because as taught by Nick the properties of the electrodes would have been expected to improve as the surface area of the electrodes increased and the way to obtain the high surface area is through making them high aspect ratio electrodes as taught by Nick.
With respect to claim 2 Okandan teaches a plurality of electrode rods that are spaced apart from each other on the electrode base. Additionally with respect to claim 2, Okandan clearly teaches one or more electrodes that are preferably centered about the opening through the common wall to facilitate accurate and reproducible measurements and Nick teaches more than two electrodes that are spaced apart from each other on the electrode base so that the combination of the two teachings would meet the limitation of claim 2 for more than two electrode rods as well. With respect to claim 3, Okandan teaches that at least one of the plurality of electrode rods is respectively disposed surrounding the opening. With respect to claim 4, both Okandan and Nick teach a structure in which the electrode base and the electrode rods are integrally formed.
With respect to claim 12, figures 4A-4I and their associated discussion teach a process of forming the device that includes the steps of forming a conductive base generating respective electrode rods extending from the conductive base by selectively removing portions of the conductive base (figure 4B and its associated description); disposing sacrificial material in the housing to cover at least respective portions of the respective electrode rods (figure 4C and its associated discussion); forming a cover, on the sacrificial material, to cover a portion of an inside of the housing see at least figure 4D and its associated discussion); and removing the sacrificial material (see at least figure 4I and its associate discussion). Okandan does not teach use of an insulative material to form the electrode rods.
In the paper, figure 1 teach the fabrication process used by Nick. The paragraph bridging pages 1850-1851 teaches an in-place synthesis of the nanopillars in the microsystem a thin layer (1.5 μm) of ma-P 1215 positive resist is spin coated onto the polyimide layer and structured by photolithography (Fig. 1e). A nanopore membrane is thermally laminated at 135 °C onto this resist Fig. 1f). The substrate is mounted into an electroplating chamber which is then filled with DI-water and boiled in a vacuum (<30 mbar) to remove all air from cavities and pores. After replacing the water by gold electrolyte gold is deposited by an electroplating process at a constant potential (−500 mV) and constant temperature (35 °C). After filling the large cavity between the insulation layer and the resist (Fig. 1g), the gold is deposited into the nanopores of the membrane (Fig. 1h). Once the electroplating process is finished, membrane and resist are removed by methylene chloride to obtain free standing high aspect ratio gold nanopillars (Fig. 1i).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the Okandan process to make gold or other metal electrode rods as taught by Nick because of their conductivity and known use in neural stimulation and/or recording apparatus.
Claims 10-11 are allowed.
Claims 5-9 are 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 art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the combination of structure found in these claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additionally cited art is related to similar electrode structures used for neural stimulation and/or recording.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arlen Soderquist whose telephone number is (571)272-1265. The examiner can normally be reached 1st week Monday-Thursday, 2nd week Monday-Friday.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571)272-1254. 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.
/ARLEN SODERQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797