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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Groups II and III, and Groups I, II, and III, in the reply filed on March 13th 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the prior art, Kim (US20140163348A1) does not teach or suggest the special technical feature that “a plurality of lead wires pass through one pore of each electrode layer of the plurality of electrode layers”. This is found persuasive because the claims have been amended to recite the lead wires passing through one pore of each electrode layer.
The requirement is therefore WITHDRAWN.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/20/2023, and 05/19/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “receiving means for receiving” and “distinguishing means for distinguishing” in claim 11 and “the distinguishing means is configured to distinguish” in claim 12.
A review of the specification [0091] shows that “receiving means for receiving” in claim 11 is only broadly referred to as the interface unit functioning to perform the receiving task. For the purpose of examination, the examiner is interpreting “receiving means for receiving” to be wires or similar means for obtaining the electrical signal.
A review of the specification [0096] and [0097] shows that “distinguishing means for distinguishing” and “the distinguishing means is configured to distinguish” in claims 11 and 12 is only broadly referred to as the processing unit distinguishing the electrical signals. Additionally, there is no software associated with the mentioned hardware which allows the processing unit to distinguish the electrical signals based on varying factors. For the purpose of examination, the examiner is interpreting “distinguishing means for distinguishing,” and “the distinguishing means is configured to distinguish” to be characterizing the electrical signals based on a measurement such as impedance.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 6, 7, 10, and 14 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.
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 14, It is ambiguous whether the term “the plurality of lead wires pass through one pore of each electrode layer of the plurality of electrode layers” refers to whether all wires pass through one pore of the plurality of layers or whether the wires pass through each of the layers through each of the pores. Hence the term “the plurality of lead wires pass through one pore of each electrode layer of the plurality of electrode layers” renders the term unclear.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the term “substantially the same pore arrangement,” renders the claim unclear since it is uncertain which pore arrangement is referred to. The term “substantially the same pore arrangement” 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. The term “substantially” makes it difficult to interpret exactly which pore arrangement would be “substantially the same” since there is no way to determine whether it is the same arrangement or not.
Claim limitation “receiving means for receiving” and “distinguishing means for distinguishing” in claim 11 and “the distinguishing means is configured to distinguish” in claim 12 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The applicant’s specification states that “the processing unit 220 can function as distinguishing means,” however there is no clear link between the structure and how this function of “distinguishing” is performed. Similarly, the applicant’s specification states, “the interface unit 210 functions as receiving means for receiving an electrical signal,” but also does not explain how this structure is able to perform the “receiving” function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 13 only claims that the system can be used for a brain-machine interface which is an intended use of the system. Therefore, claim 13 is an improper dependent of claim 11. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9, are rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 1 and inherits the indefiniteness of claim 1.
Claim 13 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 11 and inherits the indefiniteness of claim 11.
Claim 15 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 14 and inherits the indefiniteness of claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act. The claims state “the plurality of lead wires,” however, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, it is stated that “the plurality od lead wires are a plurality of nerves of an organism” (Applicant’s specification [page 4: lines 12-15]) therefore this is seen as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3-11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dirk et al (US9555583) herein referred to as “Dirk”
Regarding claim 1, Dirk teaches: A method for obtaining electrical signals from a plurality of lead wires, ([col 7: lines 63-67] A method for connecting neural interfaces which is seen as the plurality of lead wires, to electrode sites, [col 8: lines 10-12] neural interface, which is seen as the plurality of lead wires, are connected to external circuitry to be recorded which is seen as electrical signals being obtained) comprising: detecting a plurality of electrical signals from the plurality of lead wires by using an electrode structure, ([col 8: limes 24-27] recordings which is seen as signals from the lead wires, are recorded which is seen as being detected, from the electrode site) the electrode structure comprising a plurality of electrode layers that are disposed apart from one another, ([col 6: line 8] the polymer mat which contains the electrodes can be multilayered which is seen as having a plurality of electrode layers. These layers need to be disposed apart from one another to allow the neurons, which is seen as the lead wires, to pass through) each of the plurality of electrode layers having a plurality of pores having a dimension that allows passage of the plurality of lead wires, ([col 8: lines 15-20 and lines 34-40] the pores have a dimension which allows the neurons, which are seen as the lead wires, to go through; See also [col 9: lines 66-67]) and each of the plurality of pores being connected to a conductor for conducting an electrical signal that propagates through a passing lead wire out from the electrode structure, ([col 8: lines 15-20] and [col 9: lines 21-24] the pores contain conductive electrode sites with conductive traces for electrical signals to pass through and onto external wires) wherein the plurality of lead wires pass through one pore of each electrode layer of the plurality of electrode layers; ([col 6: line 8] the polymer mat which contains the electrodes can be multilayered which is seen as containing pores in each layer to allow the neurons, which is seen as the lead wires, to pass through) and distinguishing the plurality of detected electrical signals ([col 1: lines 49-50] the recording electrodes are characterized based on the impedance measurement at the site, which is as distinguishing the electrical signals).
Regarding claim 3, Dirk teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of pores have a first pore having a first dimension, and a second pore having a second dimension, which is different from the first dimension (Each of the pores in the plurality of pores all have different dimensions from each other; See also [col 5: lines 9-10] the pores can have dimensions which differ from each other).
Regarding claim 4, Dirk teaches: The method of claims 1, wherein the plurality of electrode layers comprise at least a first electrode layer and a second electrode layer disposed adjacent to the first electrode layer, and a central axis of at least one of the plurality of pores in the first electrode layer is offset from a central axis of at least one of the plurality of pores in the second electrode layer ([col 6: line 8] the polymer mat which contains the electrodes can be multilayered which is seen as having at least a first and second layer. The multiple layers need to be offset from each other to allow the neurons to pass through).
Regarding claim 5, Dirk teaches: The method of claim 4, wherein the plurality of electrode layers comprise at least a first electrode layer and a second electrode layer disposed adjacent to the first electrode layer, and a central axis of each of the plurality of pores in the first electrode layer is offset from a central axis of each of the plurality of pores in the second electrode layer ([col 6: line 8] the polymer mat which contains the electrodes can be multilayered which is seen as having at least a first and second layer. The multiple layers need to be adjacent to each other to allow the neurons to pass through).
Regarding claim 6, Dirk teaches: The method of claim 4, wherein the plurality of electrode layers further comprise a third electrode layer disposed adjacent to the second electrode layer, the second electrode layer is disposed between the first electrode layer and the third electrode layer, and the third electrode layer has substantially the same pore arrangement as the first electrode layer ([col 6: line 8] the polymer mat which contains the electrodes can be multilayered which is seen as having a third layer. The layers need to be arranged where the first and third layer are the same arrangement to allow the neurons to pass through).
Regarding claim 7, Dirk teaches: The method of claim 6, wherein the plurality of electrode layers further comprise a fourth electrode layer disposed adjacent to the third electrode layer, the third electrode layer is disposed between the second electrode layer and the fourth electrode layer, and the fourth electrode layer has substantially the same pore arrangement as the second electrode layer ([col 6: line 8] the polymer mat which contains the electrodes can be multilayered which is seen as having a fourth layer. The layers need to be arranged where the second and fourth layer are the same arrangement to allow the neurons to pass through).
Regarding claim 8, Dirk teaches: The method of claims 1, wherein the number of the plurality of electrode layers is 3 or greater, or the number of the plurality of pores is 7 or greater (See FIG 1B where there is greater than 7 pores).
Regarding claim 9, Dirk teaches: The method of claims 1, wherein the plurality of lead wires are a plurality of nerves of an organism ([col 8: line 18] the opening in the electrode is for neurons, or nerve endings).
Regarding claim 10, Dirk teaches: An electrode structure (See FIG 1B where 10, the entire neural interface is seen as the electrode structure) for obtaining electrical signals from a plurality of lead wires, ([col 7: lines 63-67] connecting neural interfaces which is seen as the plurality of lead wires, to electrode sites, [col 8: lines 10-12] neural interface, which is seen as the plurality of lead wires, are connected to external circuitry to be recorded which is seen as electrical signals being obtained) the electrode structure comprising a plurality of electrode layers that are disposed apart from one another, ([col 6: line 8] the polymer mat which contains the electrodes can be multilayered which is seen as having a plurality of electrode layers. These layers need to be disposed apart from one another to allow the neurons, which is seen as the lead wires, to pass through) each of the plurality of electrode layers having a plurality of pores having a dimension that allows passage of the plurality of lead wires, ([col 8: lines 15-20 and lines 34-40] the pores have a dimension which allows the neurons, which are seen as the lead wires, to go through; See also [col 9: lines 66-67]) and each of the plurality of pores being connected to a conductor for conducting an electrical signal that propagates through a passing lead wire out from the electrode structure, ([col 8: lines 15-20] and [col 9: lines 21-24] the pores contain conductive electrode sites with conductive traces for electrical signals to pass through and onto external wires) wherein the plurality of electrode layers are connected to each other by a connection member such that the plurality of lead wires pass through one pore of each electrode layer of the plurality of electrode layers ([col 6: line 8] the polymer mat which contains the electrodes can be multilayered which is seen as containing pores in each layer to allow the neurons, which is seen as the lead wires, to pass through; [col 15: lines 21-30] the therapeutic agents that are included in the neural interface making it multilayered are seen as the connection member).
Regarding claim 11, Dirk teaches: A system for obtaining electrical signals from a plurality of lead wires, (See FIG 1A where all components is seen as the system and where the nerve is seen as a plurality of lead wires since it is made up of a plurality of axons; [col 8: lines 10-12] neural interface, which is seen as the plurality of lead wires, are connected to external circuitry to be recorded which is seen as electrical signals being obtained) comprising: the electrode structure of claim 10; (See FIG 1B where 10, the entire neural interface is seen as the electrode structure) receiving means for receiving a plurality of electrical signals from the electrode structure; ([col 8: lines 20-22] the external wires is seen as the receiving the electrical signals from the electrode structure) and distinguishing means for distinguishing the plurality of electrical signals ([col 1: lines 49-50] the recording electrodes are characterized based on the impedance measurement at the site, which is as distinguishing the electrical signals).
Regarding claim 14, Dirk teaches: A method of manufacturing an electrode structure ([col 7: line 63] a method to fabricate is seen as a method of manufacturing the electrode structure) for obtaining electrical signals from a plurality of lead wires, ([col 7: lines 63-67] connecting neural interfaces which is seen as the plurality of lead wires, to electrode sites, [col 8: lines 10-12] neural interface, which is seen as the plurality of lead wires, are connected to external circuitry to be recorded which is seen as electrical signals being obtained) comprising the steps of: preparing a plurality of electrode layers, ([col 6: lines 6-8] the mat containing the electrode can be prepared to have multiple layers by using a therapeutic agent) each of the plurality of electrode layers having a plurality of pores having a dimension that allows passage of the plurality of lead wires, ([col 8: lines 15-20 and lines 34-40] the pores have a dimension which allows the neurons, which are seen as the lead wires, to go through; See also [col 9: lines 66-67]) and each of the plurality of pores being connected to a conductor for conducting an electrical signal that propagates through a passing lead wire out from the electrode structure, ([col 8: lines 15-20] and [col 9: lines 21-24] the pores contain conductive electrode sites with conductive traces for electrical signals to pass through and onto external wires) wherein the plurality of electrode layers are connected to each other by a connection member such that the plurality of lead wires pass through one pore of each electrode layer of the plurality of electrode layers; ([col 6: line 8] the polymer mat which contains the electrodes can be multilayered which is seen as containing pores in each layer to allow the neurons, which is seen as the lead wires, to pass through; [col 15: lines 21-30] the therapeutic agents that are included in the neural interface making it multilayered are seen as the connection member) and disposing the plurality of electrode layers apart from one another ([col 6: line 8] the polymer mat which contains the electrodes can be multilayered which is seen as having a plurality of electrode layers. These layers need to be disposed apart from one another to allow the neurons, which is seen as the lead wires, to pass through).
Regarding claim 15, Dirk teaches: The method of manufacturing of claim 14, wherein the plurality of lead wires are a plurality of nerves of an organism, ([col 8: line 18] the opening in the electrode is for neurons, or nerve endings) and the step of preparing a plurality of electrode layers comprises a step of determining the number of the plurality of electrode layers and the number of the plurality of pores ([col 5: lines 6-10] the number of pores need to be predetermined in order for the layers to be prepared hence the step of determining the number of the plurality of electrode layers and the number of the plurality of pores is seen to be completed upon completion of manufacturing the system) so that the number of trajectories the nerves can take during a process of growth of the nerves is greater than the number of the plurality of nerves (See FIG 1A where the number of trajectories the nerves can take is greater than the plurality of nerves as the number of pores is greater and hence the probability of the trajectory the nerves can take is greater than the actual number of the nerves).
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.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dirk in view of Youn et al (US20130253606A1).
Regarding claim 2, Dirk discloses: The method of claim 1, however, Dirk does not explicitly disclose: wherein the distinguishing comprises distinguishing the plurality of electrical signals based on a propagation rate of an electrical signal, a distance between the plurality of electrode layers, and a position of a pore and a time at which an electrical signal has been detected.
Youn discloses: wherein the distinguishing comprises distinguishing the plurality of electrical signals based on a propagation rate of an electrical signal, a distance between the plurality of electrode layers, and a position of a pore and a time at which an electrical signal has been detected ([0097] the signal from the nerve is analyzed, which is seen as being distinguished based on distance, position of pore and time at which the signal was detected, since in order for the signal to be analyzed it will be known what the time and origin of the signal was).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed in Dirk to include distinguishing the plurality of electrical signals as disclosed in Youn. The motivation being that analyzing the signal allows for a prosthesis to be controlled (Youn [0097]).
Regarding claim 12, Dirk discloses: The system of claim 11, however, Dirk does not explicitly disclose: wherein the distinguishing means is configured to distinguish the plurality of electrical signals based on propagation rates of the electrical signals, a distance between the plurality of electrode layers, and positions of pores and times at which an electrical signal has been detected.
Youn discloses: wherein the distinguishing means is configured to distinguish the plurality of electrical signals based on propagation rates of the electrical signals, a distance between the plurality of electrode layers, and positions of pores and times at which an electrical signal has been detected ([0097] the signal from the nerve is analyzed, which is seen as being distinguished based on distance, position of pore and time at which the signal was detected, since in order for the signal to be analyzed it will be known what the time and origin of the signal was).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in Dirk to include distinguishing the plurality of electrical signals as disclosed in Youn. The motivation being that analyzing the signal allows for a prosthesis to be controlled (Youn [0097]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dirk in view of Edell et al (US20080228240A1).
Regarding claim 13, Dirk teaches: The system of claim 11, however, Dirk does not explicitly disclose: for use in a brain-machine interface (BMI).
Edell discloses: for use in a brain-machine interface (BMI) ([Abstract] the interface can be connected directly to central nerve axons which is seen as axons in the brain, which is seen as being used in a brain-machine interface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system as disclosed in Dirk to include with use in a brain-machine interface as disclosed in Edell. The motivation being that this can restore function to disabled persons or animals with sensory or motor impairments (Edell [0008]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA M GANAN-SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-3194. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7:30am to 5:00pm.
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, Joanne M Rodden can be reached at 3032974276. 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.
/C.G.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights