DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts Park does not disclose the claimed invention because Park does not show a radial offset of the second electrode is reduced. However, no radial offset details are recited in the claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Park discloses the same structures as recited and thus reads on the claims. In addition, any purported benefit of radial offset would also appear to be inherent or implicit in Park, since Park discloses the same structural configuration with the adjustable second electrode.
Regarding claims 10-11, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (US 2023/0173260).
PNG
media_image1.png
142
405
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses the same invention as claimed (Figures 2B-C shown above for example), including a physiological sensing and/or stimulation probe (abstract), comprising: a probe body (Figures 2B-C); a first electrode, disposed on the probe body (Figure 4: e.g. 17-1); a second electrode, spaced apart from the first electrode and having an outer surface facing away from the first electrode (Figure 4: any other electrode); and an adjusting unit, wherein the second electrode is movably disposed on the probe body via the adjusting unit so that an angle between a normal direction of the outer surface of the second electrode and a central line of the probe body is adjustable (Figures 2B-C), thereby allowing an electrical field generated between the first electrode and the second electrode to be adjustable.
Further regarding claim 1, Park discloses the adjusting unit comprises at least two adjusting components as recited (Figures 2F, 3, 4, 5E), and Park discloses the central line of the probe body passing through the geometric center of the second electrode as recited (Figure 4: central axis passes through geometric center of any ring electrode).
Regarding claims 2-4, Park discloses a flexible unit as recited (Figures 2C, 2F, 4, 5E-F).
Regarding claim 6, Park discloses at least three adjusting components (Paragraph 49; Figures 2D-E: four operation wires).
Regarding claim 8, Park discloses the first electrode is a ring shape as recited (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 9, Park discloses at least two mounting channels as recited (Figures 2D-E, 3, 4; Paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 11, Park discloses stimulating as recited (Paragraphs 7-9, 18).
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.
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2023/0173260) in view of Robinson (US 2016/0038733).
Regarding claim 10, Park does not explicitly disclose operating the deep brain stimulation lead to perform sensing. However, Robinson teaches a mechanically adjustable deep brain stimulation lead may also be used for sensing a variety of positions (Paragraphs 2, 39, 47, 59, 62, 65, 78, 124), in order to assess the suitability of the electrode positions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park as taught by Robinson to include sensing as recited, in order to assess the suitability of the electrode positions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rezai (US 2005/0075681), Martens (US 2010/0100152), King (US 2010/0114283) show mechanically adjustable leads.
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 Eugene T Wu whose telephone number is (571)270-5053. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
/Eugene T Wu/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights