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 .
Status of the Claims
The office action is in response to the claims filed on February 16, 2026, for the application filed on October 24, 2023, which is a continuation-in-part of Application No. 18/474,272 filed on September 26, 2023, and claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/418,960 filed on October 24, 2022. In Applicant’s response filed February 16, 2026, claims 1 and 6 – 7 have been amended. Claims 1, 3, and 5 – 9 are currently pending and have been examined as discussed below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 16, 2026 has been entered.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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, 3, and 5 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bikson (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0408391 A1) in view of Dinsmoor (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0176128 A1), Holmes (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0163696 A1), Haffner (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0275923 A1), and NPL He.
Regarding independent claim 1, Bikson teaches the limitations of in bold as:
A system (Abstract of Bikson, [S]ystems are described for closed-loop neuromodulation for control of a physiological state.), comprising:
a processor, memory accessible by the processor, and program instructions and data stored in the memory (Paragraph [0064] of Bikson. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a processor, memory accessible by the processor, and program instructions and data stored in the memory” reads on the one or more processors and a steady computing medium in Bikson (Paragraph [0064]) that has executable information encoded, which upon execution, perform multiple operations utilizing one or more processors.);
a plurality of stimulation devices connected to signal output circuitry interfacing the processor with the stimulation devices, wherein the plurality of stimulation devices comprises one or more stimulation devices each providing both electrical and optical stimulation;
program instructions and data stored in the memory to configure the processor to control the stimulation devices to generate and transmit stimulation signals (Paragraphs [0038], [0048], and [0227] of Bikson. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “program instructions and data stored in the memory to configure the processor to control the stimulation devices to generate and transmit stimulation signals” reads on the instructions in Bikson (Paragraphs [0038], [0048],and [0227]) for execution within the computing system and implementing one or more components of, for example, hardware (e.g., a controller unit) for controlling the physiological state, i.e., transmitting an activation signal to activate the energy application system.);
a plurality of sensing devices connected to signal input circuitry interfacing the processor with the sensing devices, wherein the plurality of sensing devices comprises one or more sensing devices each providing both electrical and optical sensing;
program instructions and data stored in the memory to configure the processor to receive sensed signals from the sensing devices (Paragraphs [0038], [0209], and [0227] of Bikson. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “program instructions and data stored in the memory to configure the processor to receive sensed signals from the sensing devices” reads on the instructions in Bikson (Paragraphs [0038], [0209], and [0227]) for execution within the computing system and implementing one or more components of, for example, hardware (e.g., a controller unit) for controlling the physiological state, i.e., collecting the sensed signal.);
a communication device adapted to wirelessly communicate with an external computer system;
wherein the communication device is configured to compress the received sensed signals into compressed sensed signals and transmit the compressed sensed signals to the external computer system;
wherein the processor, memory, plurality of stimulation devices, plurality of sensing devices, and communication device are contained in an implantable device adapted to be implanted in a body of a person;
wherein at least one of the plurality of stimulation devices and/or the plurality of sensing devices comprises carbon nanotubes (CNTs);
wherein the external computer system comprises a processor, memory accessible by the processor, and program instructions and data stored in the memory, the program instructions and data stored in the memory to configure the processor to perform dynamic closed loop feedback of the stimulation signals based on the compressed sensed signals guided by artificial intelligence contained in the server computer system and communicated using the communication device (Paragraphs [0047, [0139], and [0223] of Bikson. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “guided by artificial intelligence contained in the server computer system and communicated using the communication device” reads on the step in Bikson (Paragraphs [0047], [0139], and [0223]) of providing the individual therapeutic treatment plan for the patient guided by artificial intelligence (i.e., generating bio-psychiatric therapeutic trajectory (BTT) by mapping the physiological reactions based on changes in the physiological responses and a learned history of physiological responses) contained in the physiological wellness control system.); and
wherein the external computer system is adapted to be attached to a body of the person (Paragraph [0050] of Bikson. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the external computer system is adapted to be attached to a body of the person” reads on the mobile computing device in Bikson (Paragraph [0050]) configured to engage the subject or the transducer mounted to the body or clothing.).
Bikson does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Dinsmoor teaches the limitation in bold as “a plurality of stimulation devices connected to signal output circuitry interfacing the processor with the stimulation devices, wherein the plurality of stimulation devices comprises one or more stimulation devices each providing both electrical and optical stimulation” (Paragraph [0084] of Dinsmoor. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a plurality of stimulation devices connected to signal output circuitry interfacing the processor with the stimulation devices” reads on the electrodes of Dinsmoor (Paragraph [0084]) on one or more leads connected to the stimulation generator 84 interfacing the processing circuitry 80 with the electrodes and leads.).
Bikson does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Holmes teaches the limitation in bold as: “a plurality of stimulation devices connected to signal output circuitry interfacing the processor with the stimulation devices, wherein the plurality of stimulation devices comprises one or more stimulation devices each providing both electrical and optical stimulation” (Paragraph [0002] of Holmes. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the plurality of stimulation devices comprises at least one stimulation device providing both electrical and optical stimulation” reads on the implants of Holmes (Paragraph [0002]) being electrical and optical stimulation devices implanted inside a skull of a subject for treatment or diagnosis purposes.).
Bikson does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Dinsmoor teaches the limitation in bold as “a plurality of sensing devices connected to signal input circuitry interfacing the processor with the sensing devices, wherein the plurality of sensing devices comprises one or more sensing devices each providing both electrical and optical sensing” (Paragraph [0087] of Dinsmoor. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a plurality of sensing devices connected to signal input circuitry interfacing the processor with the sensing devices” reads on the electrodes of Dinsmoor (Paragraphs [0087] and [0106]) connected to the eECAP sensor 92 interfacing the processing circuitry 80 with the electrodes.).
Bikson does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Holmes teaches the limitation in bold as “a plurality of sensing devices connected to signal input circuitry interfacing the processor with the sensing devices, wherein the plurality of sensing devices comprises one or more sensing devices each providing both electrical and optical sensing” (Paragraph [0002] of Holmes. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the plurality of sensing devices comprises one or more sensing devices providing both electrical and optical sensing” reads on the implants of Holmes (Paragraph [0002]) being electrical and optical sensing devices implanted inside a skull of a subject for treatment or diagnosis purposes.)
Bikson does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Dinsmoor teaches the limitation in bold as “a communication device adapted to wirelessly communicate with an external computer system” (Paragraphs [0083] and [0103] of Dinsmoor. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “communication device adapted to wirelessly communicate with an external computer system” reads on the telemetry circuit 88 of Dinsmoor (Paragraphs [0083] and [0103]) that may send information to and receive information from external programmer 20).
Bikson does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Haffner teaches the limitation in bold as “wherein the communication device is configured to compress the received sensed signals into compressed sensed signals and transmit the compressed sensed signals to the external computer system” (Paragraphs [0055] and [0067] of Haffner. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “the communication device is configured to compress the received sensed signals into compressed sensed signals and transmit the compressed sensed signals to the external computer system” reads on the implantable intraocular physiological sensor of Haffner (Paragraphs [0055] and [0067]) including the controller module for performing measurement data compression and outputting signals to an external device via a transmitter module.).
Bikson does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Dinsmoor teaches the limitation in bold as “wherein the processor, memory, plurality of stimulation devices, plurality of sensing devices, and communication device are contained in an implantable device adapted to be implanted in a body of a person” (Paragraph [0083] of Dinsmoor. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the processor, memory, plurality of stimulation devices, plurality of sensing devices, and communication device are contained in an implantable device adapted to be implanted in a body of a person” reads on the IMD of Dinsmoor (Paragraphs [0083], [0084], and [0116]) including a processing circuitry, memory, stimulation generator (i.e., including the electrodes on one or more leads), eECAP sensor (i.e., including one or more leads, electrodes, and/or microsensors), and telemetry circuit.).
Bikson does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Haffner teaches the limitation in bold as “wherein at least one of the plurality of stimulation devices and/or the plurality of sensing devices comprises carbon nanotubes (CNTs)” (Abstract of NPL He. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “at least one of the plurality of stimulation devices and/or the plurality of sensing devices comprises carbon nanotubes (CNTs)” reads on the implantable electronic medical devices of NPL He (Abstract) including biocompatible carbon nanotube fibers as electrodes.).
Bikson does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Dinsmoor teaches the limitation in bold as “wherein an external computer system comprises a processor, memory accessible by the processor, and program instructions and data stored in the memory, the program instructions and data stored in the memory to configure the processor to perform dynamic closed loop feedback of the stimulation signals based on the compressed sensed signals guided by artificial intelligence contained in the server computer system and communicated using the communication device” (Paragraph [0107] of Dinsmoor. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “an external computer system comprises a processor, memory accessible by the processor, and program instructions and data stored in the memory, the program instructions and data stored in the memory to configure the processor to perform dynamic closed loop feedback of the stimulation signals based on the compressed sensed signals” reads on the external programmer of Dinsmoor (Paragraphs [0107], [0032], and [0173]) comprising processing circuitry and memory accessible by the processing circuitry, and operation instructions for processing circuitry and data related to patient therapy stored in the memory to configure the processing circuitry to provide closed-loop stimulation control and adjusting electrical stimulation therapy parameters based on a sensed eECAP.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of neural implants and computer-aided diagnosing and treatment to modify the system of Bikson to: include a plurality of stimulation devices connected to signal output circuitry interfacing the processor with the stimulation devices, as taught by Dinsmoor (Paragraphs [0084], [0085], [0112], and [0207]); include a plurality of sensing devices connected to signal input circuitry interfacing the processor with the sensing devices, as taught by Dinsmoor (Paragraphs [0007], [0087], and [0106]); include a communication device adapted to wirelessly communicate with an external computer system, as taught by Dinsmoor (Paragraphs [0083] and [0103]); such that the processor, memory, plurality of stimulation devices, plurality of sensing devices, and communication device are contained in an implantable device adapted to be implanted in a body of a person, as taught by Dinsmoor (Paragraphs [0083], [0084], and [0116]); and include an external computer system comprising a processor, memory accessible by the processor, and program instructions and data stored in the memory, the program instructions and data stored in the memory to configure the processor to perform dynamic closed loop feedback of the stimulation signals based on the received sensed signals, as taught by Dinsmoor (Paragraphs [0107], [0032], and [0173]) in order to determine the most appropriate stimulation parameters to relive the patient's symptoms or conditions and provide improved system performance (e.g., efficient energy usage and targeted therapy delivery) (Paragraph [0031] of Dinsmoor), include the plurality of stimulation devices comprising at least one stimulation device providing both electrical and optical stimulation, as taught by Holmes (Paragraph [0002]); and include the plurality of sensing devices comprising at least one sensing device providing both electrical and optical sensing, as taught by Holmes (Paragraph [0002]) in order to interface with devices implanted inside a skull to enable access (e.g., provide a window to see inside the skull of a living being) to the brain (Paragraph [0003] of Holmes); implement the communication device is configured to compress the received sensed signals into compressed sensed signals and transmit the compressed sensed signals to the external computer system, as taught by Haffner (Paragraphs [0055] and [0067]), in order to effectively diagnose and treat certain physiological conditions (Paragraph [0005]); and include at least one of the plurality of stimulation devices and/or the plurality of sensing devices comprises carbon nanotubes (CNTs), as taught by NPL He (Abstract) in order to provide supercapacitors that are biocompatible, lightweight, miniature and stable without the need for packaging (Abstract of NPL He).
Regarding claim 3, Bikson in view of Dinsmoor, Holmes, Haffner, and NPL He and as applied to claim 1, teaches the limitations of in bold as: the plurality of stimulation devices further comprises stimulation devices not contained in the implantable device including at least one of a Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) device, a Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation (tACS), and a Transcranial Photobiomodulation (tPBM) (Paragraphs [0069] and [0204] of Bikson. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the plurality of stimulation devices further comprises stimulation devices not contained in the implantable device including at least one of a Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) device, a Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation (tACS), and a Transcranial Photobiomodulation (tPBM)” reads on the energy emitting devices 132, 134 of Bikson (Paragraph [0069] and [0204]) employing any (multiple) stimulation modality (e.g. tDCS, tACS, TMS, tFUS)—essentially allowing for more datasets/modalities, as they become available, to enhance system capabilities and positioned on the head (i.e., not implanted within the patient’s body) in a manner that supports directionality of the energy to one or more targets of the nervous system function.).
Regarding claim 5, Bikson in view of Dinsmoor, Holmes, Haffner, and NPL He and as applied to claim 3, teaches the limitations of in bold as: the plurality of sensing devices further comprises sensing devices not contained in the implantable device including at least an Electro Encephalogram (EEG) device (Paragraph [0189] of Bikson. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the plurality of sensing devices further comprises sensing devices not contained in the implantable device including at least an Electro Encephalogram (EEG) device” reads on the controller in Bikson (Paragraph [0189]) calculating a number of EEG signal energy spectral densities at successive time intervals and producing a stimulation start signal based on each energy spectral density and the corresponding phase operation value.).
Regarding claim 6, Bikson in view of Dinsmoor, Holmes, Haffner, and NPL He and as applied to claim 3, teaches the limitations of in bold as:
further comprising program instructions and data stored in the memory to configure the processor of the implant device to perform: (Paragraph [0083] of Dinsmoor. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “program instructions and data stored in the memory to configure the processor of the implant device to perform” reads on the instructions of Dinsmoor (Paragraph [0083]) including instructions for eECAP analysis, posture state information, therapy adjustment information, prior detected eECAP biomarkers, program histories, and any other pertinent data or instructions stored in memory to configure the processing circuitry 80 to perform certain functions.)
applying stimulation based on a first version of stimulation parameters (Paragraph [0085] of Dinsmoor. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “applying stimulation based on a first version of stimulation parameters” reads on the step in Dinsmoor (Paragraph [0085]) of determining the electrode combination and controlling stimulation generator to deliver electrical stimulation via the electrode combination indicated in the memory location (i.e., memory).),
sensing results of the applied stimulation to form patient treatment results data (Paragraph [0087] of Dinsmoor. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “sensing results of the applied stimulation to form patient treatment results data” reads on the activity in Dinsmoor (Paragraph [0087]) of detecting an eECAP biomarker of patient via eECAP sensor that indicates that a modification of the stimulation therapy is appropriate.),
transmitting the patient treatment results data to the external computer system (Paragraph [0104] of Dinsmoor. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “transmitting the patient treatment results data to the external computer system” reads on the step in Dinsmoor (Paragraph [0104]) of communicating the newly detected change in eECAP biomarker (i.e., the patient treatment results) to the external programmer (i.e., the external computer system).),
receiving a second version of stimulation parameters from the external computer system (Paragraph [0116] of Dinsmoor. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “receiving a second version of stimulation parameters from the external computer system” reads on the step in Dinsmoor (Paragraph [0116]) of delivering the therapy information from the external programmer.), and
applying stimulation based on the second version of stimulation parameters (Paragraph [0087] of Dinsmoor. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “applying stimulation based on the second version of stimulation parameters” reads on the step in Dinsmoor (Paragraph [0087]) of modifying the stimulation therapy based on the detected eECAP biomarker.); and
further comprising program instructions and data stored in the memory of the external computer system to configure the processor of the external computer system to perform: (Paragraphs [0107] – [0108] of Dinsmoor. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “program instructions and data stored in the memory of the external computer system to configure the processor of the external computer system to perform” reads on the operation instructions in Dinsmoor (Paragraphs [0107] – [0108]) for processing circuitry (e.g., processing circuitry 104) and data related to patient therapy, with the instructions stored in memory 108.)
receiving the patient treatment results data (Paragraph [0103] of Dinsmoor. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “receiving the patient treatment results data” reads on the activity in Dinsmoor (Paragraph [0103]) of sending and receiving information, e.g., eECAP biomarker data, in real-time when communicating to an external device.),
modifying the first version of stimulation parameters using the patient treatment results data to form a second version of stimulation parameters (Paragraphs [0067] and [0103] of Dinsmoor. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “modifying the first version of stimulation parameters using the patient treatment results data to form a second version of stimulation parameters” reads on the activity in Dinsmoor (Paragraphs [0067] and [0103]) of generating a suggested therapy parameter based upon an eECAP biomarker resulting from delivery of the therapy according to current stimulation therapy parameters.), and
transmitting the second version of stimulation parameters to the implant device (Paragraph [0104] of Dinsmoor. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “transmitting the second version of stimulation parameters to the implant device” reads on the activity in Dinsmoor (Paragraph [0104]) transmitting changes in stimulation parameter values back to IMD.).
Regarding claim 7, Bikson in view of Dinsmoor, Holmes, Haffner, and NPL He and as applied to claim 6, teaches the limitations of in bold as:
further comprising program instructions and data stored in the memory to configure the processors of the implant device and the external computer system to perform: (Paragraphs [0083] and [0107] of Dinsmoor, [I]mplantable Medical Device (IMD) 14. includes a processing circuitry 80, memory 82… Memory 82 may include separate memories for storing instructions including instructions for eECAP analysis, posture state information, therapy adjustment information, prior detected eECAP biomarkers, program histories, and any other pertinent data or instructions. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “program instructions and data stored in the memory to configure the processor of the implant device to perform” reads on the program histories, and any other pertinent data or instructions of Dinsmoor (Paragraphs [0083] and [0107) including instructions for eECAP analysis, posture state information, therapy adjustment information, prior detected eECAP biomarkers, program histories, and any other pertinent data or instructions stored in memory 82 to configure the processing circuitry 80 to perform certain functions.)
repeating the applying, sensing, transmitting, receiving, and modifying using each modified version of stimulation parameters (Paragraphs [0067], [0085], [0087], and [0103] – [0104] of Dinsmoor. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “applying stimulation based on a first version of stimulation parameters” reads on the step in Dinsmoor (Paragraph [0085]) of determining the electrode combination and controlling stimulation generator to deliver electrical stimulation via the electrode combination indicated in the memory location (i.e., memory 82). The broadest reasonable interpretation of “transmitting the patient treatment results data to the external computer system” reads on the step in Dinsmoor (Paragraph [0104]) of communicating the newly detected change in eECAP biomarker (i.e., the patient treatment results) to the external programmer (i.e., the external computer system).
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bikson in view of Dinsmoor, Holmes, Haffner, and NPL He and as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Toong (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0129762 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Bikson in view of Dinsmoor, Holmes, Haffner, and NPL He and as applied to claim 1, teaches the limitations of in bold as: the communication device is adapted to communicate using WiFi wireless communications (Paragraph [0279] of Toong. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the communication device is adapted to communicate using WiFi wireless communications” reads on the communication of Toong (Paragraph [0279]) of data and control among smart controller, patch, respiration monitoring device, and posture indicator device may be by wireless means through the use of Wi-Fi.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of neural implants and computer-aided diagnosis and treatment at the time of filing to modify the system of Bikson as modified by Dinsmoor and Holmes such that the communication device is adapted to communicate using WiFi wireless communications, as taught by Toong (Paragraph [0279]), in order to provide the combination of stimulation with feedback from artificial or natural sensors for closed loop control (Paragraph [0143] of Toong).
Claims 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bikson in view of Dinsmoor, Holmes, Haffner, and NPL He and as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kassiri (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0126047 A1).
Regarding claim 9 Bikson in view of Dinsmoor, Holmes, Haffner, and NPL He and as applied to claim 1, teaches the limitations of in bold as: the communication device is adapted to communicate using Ultra Wide-Band wireless communications (Paragraph [0085] of Kassiri, Data transfer between the CMOS die 102 and the base station 102 or receiver 104 at element 108 may take place using … ultra-wideband pulse radio (“UWB-IR”) transmission. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the communication device is adapted to communicate using Ultra Wide-Band wireless communications” reads on the data transfer in Kassiri (Paragraph [0085]) between the CMOS die and the base station or receiver at element using ultra-wideband pulse radio (“UWB-IR”) transmission.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of neural implants and computer-aided diagnosis and treatment at the time of filing to modify the system of Bikson as modified by Dinsmoor and Holmes such that the communication device is adapted to communicate using Ultra Wide-Band wireless communications, as taught by Kassiri (Paragraph [0085]), in order to provide a wearable or implantable neurostimulator and a method for monitoring, diagnosing and responding to neurophysiological disorders or conditions (Paragraph [0001] of Kassiri).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Last Paragraph on Page 6 to Last Paragraph on Page 11 of the Amendment filed February 16, 2026) and amendment with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3, and 5 – 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
In Amendment filed February 16, 2026, sole independent claim 1 has been amended. Specifically, claim 1 has been amended to add the limitation of “wherein the communication device is configured to compress the received sensed signals into compressed sensed signals and transmit the compressed sensed signals to the external computer system,” and “wherein at least one of the plurality of stimulation devices and/or the plurality of sensing devices comprises carbon nanotubes (CNTs),” which are different in scope from the limitation of previously pending claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT CAESAR ILAGAN whose telephone number is (703) 756-1639. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 6:00pm.
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, Jason B. Dunham, can be reached on (571) 272-8109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300.
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.
/V.C.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/DEVIN C HEIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3686
