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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 5, “the array of hyper columns” should read “the array of hypercolumns”.
Claim 14 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. Claim 14, dependent on claim 1, includes limitations fully duplicated by the language in claim 1, adding nothing more.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 12, 14-17, 22-23, 28, and 37-47 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a component of the neocortex" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret as "a component of a neocortex" and suggests amending.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "description by the cortical map" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret as "description by a cortical map" and suggests amending.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "identifying or defining the location or topographic relationship" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret as "identifying or defining a location or topographic relationship" and suggests amending.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the visual cortex including a plurality of hypercolumns forming an array of hypercolumns capable of description by the cortical map characterizing, identifying or defining the location or topographic relationship and placement for respective ones of the plurality of hypercolumns" in lines 2-5. This claim limitation is unclear and indefinite. Examiner does not understand what “capable of description by the cortical map characterizing, identifying or defining the location..” is trying to claim. Examiner suggests amending/rewording to clarify.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the visual cortex including a plurality of hypercolumns forming an array of hypercolumns capable of description" in lines 2-3. The term “capable of” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. This term 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. Examiner does not understand the meets and bounds of the term “capable of” and suggests amending.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “configured to emit light toward the array of cortical hypercolumns capable of description by the cortical map characterizing, identifying or defining a location or topographical relationship and placement for respective ones of the plurality of hypercolumns" in lines 8-10. This claim limitation is unclear and indefinite. Examiner does not understand what “capable of description by the cortical map characterizing, identifying or defining the location..” is trying to claim. Examiner suggests amending/rewording to clarify.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “configured to emit light toward the array of cortical hypercolumns capable of description by the cortical map" in line 8. The term “capable of” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. This term 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. Examiner does not understand the meets and bounds of the term “capable of” and suggests amending.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the array of cortical hypercolumns" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret as "the array of hypercolumns" and suggests amending.
Claims 3-5 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the group consisting of (a) a density of the plurality of emitters of the emitter array is at least 2X greater than a density in a given dimension of the cortical hypercolumn quadrant map, and (b) a density of the plurality of emitters of the emitter array is at least 4X greater than a density of the total hypercolumn quadrants" in lines 1-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret as "a group consisting of (a) a density of the plurality of emitters of the emitter array is at least 2X greater than a density in a given dimension of a cortical hypercolumn quadrant map, and (b) a density of the plurality of emitters of the emitter array is at least 4X greater than a density of a total hypercolumn quadrants" and suggests amending.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “as a result of the calibration process select ones of the plurality of the emitters that are determined to be not aligned to a hypercolumn quadrant of the plurality of hypercolumns are disabled" in lines 4-5. This claim limitation is unclear and indefinite. Examiner believes this claim is meant to say, “as a result of the calibration process, disable ones of the plurality of the emitters that are determined to be not aligned to a hypercolumn quadrant of the plurality of hypercolumns" and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the group consisting of" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret as "a group consisting of" and suggests amending.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the group consisting of" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret as "a group consisting of" and suggests amending.
Claims 14-15 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the group consisting of" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret as "a group consisting of" and suggests amending.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the visual cortex including a plurality of hypercolumns forming an array of hypercolumns capable of description by the cortical map characterizing, identifying or defining the location or topographic relationship and placement for respective ones of the plurality of hypercolumns" in lines 3-5. This claim limitation is unclear and indefinite. Examiner does not understand what “capable of description by the cortical map characterizing, identifying or defining the location..” is trying to claim. Examiner suggests amending/rewording to clarify.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the visual cortex including a plurality of hypercolumns forming an array of hypercolumns capable of description" in lines 3-4. The term “capable of” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. This term 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. Examiner does not understand the meets and bounds of the term “capable of” and suggests amending.
Claim 22 is rejected based on its dependency on claim 16.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the group consisting of" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret as "a group consisting of" and suggests amending.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the group consisting of (a) the system includes, for producing emissions by the plurality of emitters, optical switching devices receiving light generated by the variable-intensity light source" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret as "a group consisting of (a) the system includes, for producing emissions by the plurality of emitters, optical switching devices receiving light generated by a variable-intensity light source" and suggests amending.
Claims 37-43 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 16.
Claim 44 is rejected based on its dependency on claim 1.
Claim 45 recites the limitation "description by the cortical map" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret as "description by a cortical map" and suggests amending.
Claim 45 recites the limitation "identifying or defining the location or topographic relationship" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret as "identifying or defining a location or topographic relationship" and suggests amending.
Claim 45 recites the limitation "the visual cortex including a plurality of hypercolumns forming an array of hypercolumns capable of description by the cortical map characterizing, identifying or defining the location or topographic relationship and placement for respective ones of the plurality of hypercolumns" in lines 2-5. This claim limitation is unclear and indefinite. Examiner does not understand what “capable of description by the cortical map characterizing, identifying or defining the location..” is trying to claim. Examiner suggests amending/rewording to clarify.
Claim 45 recites the limitation “the visual cortex including a plurality of hypercolumns forming an array of hypercolumns capable of description" in lines 2-3. The term “capable of” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. This term 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. Examiner does not understand the meets and bounds of the term “capable of” and suggests amending.
Claim 45 recites the limitation “configured to emit light toward the array of cortical hypercolumns capable of description by the cortical map characterizing, identifying or defining a location or topographical relationship and placement for respective ones of the plurality of hypercolumns" in lines 8-10. This claim limitation is unclear and indefinite. Examiner does not understand what “capable of description by the cortical map characterizing, identifying or defining the location..” is trying to claim. Examiner suggests amending/rewording to clarify.
Claim 45 recites the limitation “configured to emit light toward the array of cortical hypercolumns capable of description by the cortical map" in line 8. The term “capable of” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. This term 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. Examiner does not understand the meets and bounds of the term “capable of” and suggests amending.
Claim 45 recites the limitation "the array of cortical hypercolumns" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret as "the array of hypercolumns" and suggests amending.
Claims 46-47 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 45.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 16, and 45 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 3-6, 8-9, 12, 14-15, 17, 22-23, 28, 37-44, and 46-47 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art examiner has found is reference US 2020/0298005 Howard, that discloses in different embodiments an implant that can be implanted in a user (Para 2), the implant has an emitter array (Figure 12 and Para 239), that emits light energy toward a cortical surface (Para 200). The lights in Howard, however, are not used as part of an image sensor that emits light patterns in a form of a scene to the same visual cortex. Examiner finds no motivation to combine a reference that includes the visual cortex emitters with a reference such as (US 2008/0161915 A1 Ren) that discloses a camera image sensor (Figure 2, element 42), however, the emitters for the image sensor are separate than the emitter used for the visual cortex (Emitter is shown in Figure 2 as element 54/56 and sensor is element 42), Ren also doesn’t teach light signals, instead, the signals delivered are electrical signals, another reason why examiner believes combination to be null. Claim 1 requires “wherein the emitter array includes a plurality of emitters, wherein respective ones of the plurality of emitters are configured to emit light toward the array of cortical hypercolumns”, “the system includes an eye viewing camera image sensor having a field of view encompassing an eye of the user” and “and emits a scene representing light pattern using the emitter array to the array of hypercolumns in dependence on the current eye position”. These limitations have not been found in prior art together. As for claim 16, no reference was found to show a light response signal from brain tissue, wherein the light detectors and the emitters are both within the same implant or any disclosure of frame image data within brain related applications. Lastly, similar to claims 1 and 16, claim 45 is also objected to as allowable, examiner has not found a reference as described above and utilizes frame image data to configure light emissions. For this reason, claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 12, 14-17, 22-23, 28, and 37-47 are objected to as allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The last Non-final rejection on record dated 04/14/2026 has been withdrawn, kindly refer to the rejection above for the newly rejected claims. Also refer to the allowable subject matter, for the claims objected to ask allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYA ZIAD BAKKAR whose telephone number is (313)446-6659. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 5:00 pm M-Th.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached (571) 270-5213. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AYA ZIAD BAKKAR/
Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/Benjamin J Klein/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights