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 Claims Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application. Claim Objections Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and” should be added after the comma in line 3 . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 3, 14, 17, and 19-20 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. Claims 3, 14, 17, and 20 recite the limitation "the inflammation of brain tissue" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “inflammation of brain tissue”. Claim 19 recites the limitation "the target intracranial position" on page 5, line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “ a target intracranial position”. Claim 19 recites the limitation "the electrode device" on page 5, line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “ the intracranial electrode device”. Claim 20 is also rejected because it is dependent on claim 19. 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. Claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by de Graff et al. (US 20110034912 A1), hereinafter de Graff. Regarding claim 1, de Graff discloses a neural electrode device (Fig. 1, paragraph [0080]), comprising: (a) an electrode body (Fig. 49, paragraph [0300], substrate 200N); (b) at least one electrode array associated with the electrode body (Fig. 49, paragraph [0300], electrodes 1022N); and (c) a drug delivery lumen defined through a portion of the electrode body (Fig. 49, paragraph [0300], reservoir 204, channels 216, refill line 219). Regarding claim 2, de Graff discloses the neural electrode device of claim 1, as explained above. De Graff further discloses that the drug delivery lumen is constructed and arranged to deliver at least one treatment agent to a target area of a patient's brain (paragraph [0297], deep brain stimulation, surface of the brain; paragraph [0303], "sheets that comprise stretchable and/or flexible electronics may deliver stimulation to the brain"). Regarding claim 3, de Graff discloses the neural electrode device of claim 2, as explained above. De Graff further discloses that the at least one treatment agent reduces the inflammation of brain tissue (paragraph [0140], "circuitry can comprise heat or light activated drug-delivery polymers that when activated could release chemical agents, such as anti-inflammatory drugs, to local sites in the body"). Regarding claim 5, de Graff discloses the neural electrode device of claim 1, as explained above. De Graff further discloses that the electrode body comprises an enlongate tubular body (Fig. 49, paragraph [0300], substrate 200N; paragraph [0085], "Substrate 200 may also be three-dimensional. ... the three-dimensional substrate may be pliable, flexible and stretchable while still comprising homogeneous or substantially homogenous material throughout its form, such as a foam or a flexible/stretchable polymeric sphere, ovoid, cylinder, disc, or other three-dimensional object."), wherein the at least one electrode array is a thin film electrode array disposed on an outer surface of the tubular body (Fig. 49, paragraph [0300], circuitry 1000N comprising electrodes 1022N; Figs. 36-37, paragraph [0214]), and wherein the neural electrode device is a depth electrode (paragraph [0297], deep brain stimulation). Regarding claim 6, de Graff discloses the neural electrode device of claim 5, as explained above. De Graff further discloses that the drug delivery lumen is defined within the elongate tubular body such that the lumen is coaxial with a longitudinal axis of the elongate tubular body (Fig. 49, paragraph [0300], reservoir 204, channels 216, refill line 219). Regarding claim 7, de Graff disclsoes the neural electrode device of claim 6, as explained above. De Graff further discloses a drug delivery opening defined at a distal end of the tubular body (paragraph [0300], valve 218, see annotated Fig. 49 below), wherein the drug delivery opening is in fluidic communication with the drug delivery lumen (paragraph [0300], "At the end of the channels 216N are valves 218N which in embodiments are MEMS valves ... The release of a drug can be controlled by means of the MEMS valve 218N"). Regarding claim 8, de Graff disclsoes the neural electrode device of claim 6, as explained above. De Graff further discloses a plurality ofopenings defined in the outer surface of the tubular body (Fig. 49, paragraph [0300], valves 218), wherein the plurality of openings are in fluidic communication with the drug delivery lumen (paragraph [0300], "At the end of the channels 216N are valves 218N which in embodiments are MEMS valves ... The release of a drug can be controlled by means of the MEMS valve 218N"). Regarding claim 9, de Graff discloses the neural electrode device of claim 8, as explained above. De Graff further discloses that the plurality of openings are disposed djacent to the at least one electrode array (Fig. 49, paragraph [0300], electrodes 1022N are adjacent to valves 218). Regarding claim 10, de Graff discloses the neural electrode device of claim 1, as explained above. De Graff further discloses an elongate structure coupled to the electrode body (Fig. 49, paragraph [0300], refill line 219 and 217). wherein the electrode body comprises a thin film pad (Fig. 49, paragraph [0300], circuitry 1000N), wherein the at least one electrode array is disposed in the thin film pad (Fig. 49, paragraph [0300], circuitry 1000N comprising electrodes 1022N), and wherein the neural electrode is a cortical electrode (paragraph [0297], surface of the brain). Regarding claim 11, de Graff discloses the neural electrode device of claim 10, as explained above. De Graff further discloses that the drug delivery lumen is defined within the thin film pad (Fig. 49, paragraph [0300], reservoir 204, channels 216, refill line 219). Regarding claim 12, de Graff discloses a neural depth electrode device (Fig. 1, paragraphs [0080], [0297], deep brain stimulation), (a) an elongate tubular body (Fig. 49, paragraph [0300], substrate 200N; paragraph [0085], "Substrate 200 may also be three-dimensional. ... the three-dimensional substrate may be pliable, flexible and stretchable while still comprising homogeneous or substantially homogenous material throughout its form, such as a foam or a flexible/stretchable polymeric sphere, ovoid, cylinder, disc, or other three-dimensional object."); (b) at least one thin film electrode array disposed on an outer surface of the elongate tubular body (Fig. 49, paragraph [0300], circuitry 1000N comprising electrodes 1022N; Figs. 36-37, paragraph [0214]); (c) a drug delivery lumen defined through a length of the elongate tubular body such that the lumen is coaxial with a longitudinal axis of the elongate tubular body (Fig. 49, paragraph [0300], reservoir 204, channels 216, refill line 219); and (d) a plurality of openings defined in the outer surface of the tubular body, wherein the plurality of openings are in fluidic communication with the drug delivery lumen and are disposed adjacent to the at least one thin film electrode array (Fig. 49, paragraph [0300], valves 218), wherein the drug delivery lumen is constructed and arranged to deliver at least one treatment agent through the plurality of openings to a target area of a patient's brain (paragraph [0297], deep brain stimulation, surface of the brain; paragraph [0303], "sheets that comprise stretchable and/or flexible electronics may deliver stimulation to the brain"). Regarding claim 13, de Graff discloses the neural depth electrode device of claim 12, as explained above. De Graff further discloses a drug delivery opening defined at a distal end of the tubular body (paragraph [0300], valve 218, see annotated Fig. 49 below), wherein the distal end opening is in fluidic communication with the drug delivery lumen (paragraph [0300], "At the end of the channels 216N are valves 218N which in embodiments are MEMS valves ... The release of a drug can be controlled by means of the MEMS valve 218N"), and wherein the drug delivery opening is in fluidic communication with the drug delivery lumen (paragraph [0300], "One benefit of such a capability is to deliver drugs to reduce rejection or scar formation at the interface between the tissue and the apparatus. The release of a drug can be controlled by means of the MEMS valve 218N"). Regarding claim 14, de Graff discloses the neural depth electrode device of claim 12, as explained above. De Graff further discloses that the at least one treatment agent reduces the inflammation of brain tissue (paragraph [0140], "circuitry can comprise heat or light activated drug-delivery polymers that when activated could release chemical agents, such as anti-inflammatory drugs, to local sites in the body"). Regarding claim 16, de Graff discloses a neural cortical electrode device (Fig. 1, paragraphs [0080], [0297], surface of the brain) comprising: (a) a thin film pad (Fig. 49, paragraph [0300], circuitry 1000N); (b) an elongate lead body attached to the thin film pad (Fig. 49, paragraph [0300], 217, substrate 200N); (c) at least one electrode array disposed in the thin film pad (Fig. 49, paragraph [0300], circuitry 1000N comprising electrodes 1022N); and (d) a drug delivery lumen defined within the thin film pad and the elongate lead body (Fig. 49, paragraph [0300], reservoir 204, channels 216, refill line 219), wherein the drug delivery lumen is constructed and arranged to deliver at least one treatment agent through the drug delivery lumen to a target area of a patient's brain (paragraph [0297], deep brain stimulation, surface of the brain; paragraph [0303], "sheets that comprise stretchable and/or flexible electronics may deliver stimulation to the brain"). Regarding claim 17, de Graff discloses the neural cortical electrode device of claim 16, as explained above. De Graff further discloses that the at least one treatment agent reduces the inflammation of brain tissue (paragraph [0140], "circuitry can comprise heat or light activated drug-delivery polymers that when activated could release chemical agents, such as anti-inflammatory drugs, to local sites in the body"). Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foster et al. (US 20060178709 A1), hereinafter Foster. Regarding claim 19, Foster discloses a method of implanting an intracranial electrode device (Fig. 2, paragraph [0040], stimulator 140), the method comprising: forming at least one hole in a skull of a patient (Fig. 7, paragraph [0090], hole 170 in skull 141); urging the intracranial electrode device through the at least one hole (Fig. 7, paragraph [0090], stimulator 140 implanted into hole 170), wherein the intracranial electrode device comprises a drug delivery lumen defined through a portion of the intracranial electrode device (Fig. 7, paragraph [0091], catheter 143; Fig. 4, paragraph [0068]); positioning the intracranial electrode device at a target intracranial position (Fig. 7, paragraph [0090], "The stimulator (140) is placed within the lumen of the hole (170) and coupled to the walls of the hole (170) and/or the top surface of the stimulation site"; paragraph [0091], "a lead (141) may be coupled to the stimulator (140) with the distal end of the lead (141) being routed to a particular location within the cerebral cortex (35) or other stimulation site in the brain ... A catheter (143) may additionally or alternatively be coupled to the stimulator (140) and routed to the stimulation site so as to deliver one or more drugs at the stimulation site."); actuating the intracranial electrode device to stimulate tissue at the target intracranial position (paragraph [0091], "The distal end of the lead (141) may include one or more electrodes (142) configured to deliver an electrical stimulation current to the stimulation site"); and delivering at least one treatment agent to the target intracranial position through the drug delivery lumen (paragraph [0091], "A catheter (143) may additionally or alternatively be coupled to the stimulator (140) and routed to the stimulation site so as to deliver one or more drugs at the stimulation site"). 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. Claims 4, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Graff et al. (US 20110034912 A1), hereinafter de Graff, in view of Sartorius et al. (Rapid termination of intraoperative stimulation-evoked seizures with application of cold Ringer's lactate to the cortex, 1998), hereinafter Sartorius. Regarding claim 4, de Graff discloses the neural electrode device of claim 2, as explained above. Although de Graff further discloses that the at least one treatment agent comprises a coolant (paragraph [0302]), De Graff does not explicitly disclose that the at least one treatment agent comprises a seizure treatment agent comprising a cannabinoid or cold saline. However, Sartorius teaches (Abstract), wherein cold saline is delivered to a target area of a patient's brain as a seizure treatment (Intraoperative Technique, second paragraph, "if the seizure activity or after-discharge potentials measured by electrocorticography did not terminate within a few seconds after removal of stimulus, or if the seizures began to spread, cold Ringer’s solution (4°C) was immediately poured over the surface of the stimulated cortex and its adjacent margins"). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify de Graff with the teachings of Sartorius so that the at least one treatment agent comprises a seizure treatment agent comprising cold saline, because doing so stops seizure activity without interfering with electrocorticography or stimulation mapping (Sartorius, Conclusions). Regarding claim 15, de Graff discloses the neural depth electrode device of claim 12, as explained above. Although de Graff further discloses that the at least one treatment agent comprises a coolant (paragraph [0302]), De Graff does not explicitly disclose that the at least one treatment agent comprises a seizure treatment agent. However, Sartorius teaches (Abstract), wherein cold saline is delivered to a target area of a patient's brain as a seizure treatment (Intraoperative Technique, second paragraph, "if the seizure activity or after-discharge potentials measured by electrocorticography did not terminate within a few seconds after removal of stimulus, or if the seizures began to spread, cold Ringer’s solution (4°C) was immediately poured over the surface of the stimulated cortex and its adjacent margins"). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify de Graff with the teachings of Sartorius so that the at least one treatment agent comprises a seizure treatment agent comprising cold saline, because doing so stops seizure activity without interfering with electrocorticography or stimulation mapping (Sartorius, Conclusions). Regarding claim 18, de Graff discloses the neural cortical electrode device of claim 16, as explained above. Although de Graff further discloses that the at least one treatment agent comprises a coolant (paragraph [0302]), De Graff does not explicitly disclose that the at least one treatment agent comprises a seizure treatment agent. However, Sartorius teaches (Abstract), wherein cold saline is delivered to a target area of a patient's brain as a seizure treatment (Intraoperative Technique, second paragraph, "if the seizure activity or after-discharge potentials measured by electrocorticography did not terminate within a few seconds after removal of stimulus, or if the seizures began to spread, cold Ringer’s solution (4°C) was immediately poured over the surface of the stimulated cortex and its adjacent margins"). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify de Graff with the teachings of Sartorius so that the at least one treatment agent comprises a seizure treatment agent comprising cold saline, because doing so stops seizure activity without interfering with electrocorticography or stimulation mapping (Sartorius, Conclusions). Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster et al. (US 20060178709 A1), hereinafter Foster, in view of de Graff et al. (US 20110034912 A1), hereinafter de Graff. Regarding claim 20, Foster discloses the method of claim 19, as explained above. Foster does not explicitly disclose that the at least one treatment agent reduces the inflammation of brain tissue or minimizes or eliminates a seizure. However, de Graff teaches an device for delivery of electrical stimulation and at least one treatment agent (paragraph [0130]), wherein the at least one treatment agent reduces the inflammation of brain tissue (paragraph [0140], "circuitry can comprise heat or light activated drug- delivery polymers that when activated could release chemical agents, such as anti-inflammatory drugs, to local sites in the body"). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Foster with the teachings of de Graff so that the at least one treatment agent reduces the inflammation of brain tissue, because doing so enables controlled release of the treatment agent to areas where the treatment agent is effective, and when the treatment agent is desired (de Graff, paragraph [0300]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHRISTINE SISON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-4661 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8 am - 5 pm PT, Mon - Fri . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jennifer McDonald can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-3061 . 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. /CHRISTINE SISON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3796 /Jennifer Pitrak McDonald/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796