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 . Claims 1-20 are currently pending with claims 1-14 standing as withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 02/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 15-20 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.
Claim 15 recites that the halves are formed on a “respective substrate” and it’s unclear if the respective substrate is a sacrificial layer or physically part of the cable itself given the specification. Along those lines, the conductive traces are claimed as being in a “respective layer”, and given the closeness of the wording it’s unclear if those layers are the same as the respective substrate as the very next line mentions “or the respective longitudinal half”. At present the claim is being read in that the longitudinal half includes a substrate and that the traces are in a conductive layer on their own and coupled to the longitudinal half.
Claim 15 further details in lines 6-7 that the respective layer (assumed to be made of conductive traces) is formed prior to the respective layer, it is unclear if this is a method of manufacturing step detailing when the layer is made, or it is possibly meant that the traces are layered on their respective longitudinal half; the use of “prior” can denote a time component or where something is placed in a stacked arrangement. Given the design shown in Figure 2, the traces having a smaller width than a prior layer (read as a subsequent layer for this interpretation) could be a 112 first issue as the next layer would have to have a larger width than the trace layer to properly insulate the traces. Clarification is required for the above concerns.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the respective longitudinal half" in five. There is a respective substrate (which as mentioned above is unclear on its own) and there is a longitudinal half, but a respective longitudinal half has not been introduced. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the insulating layer" in line one. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the conductive layer" in line one. There are conductive traces in a respective layer, but it was not introduced as a conductive layer
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 non-obviousness.
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 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Nevsmith et al. US Patent 8,180,460 (hereinafter Nevsmith) in view of Lieber et al US Publication 2016/0302682 (hereinafter Lieber).
Regarding claim 15, Nevsmith discloses a cable configured to convey neuron signals (10 coupled to 12, best seen in Figures 19-21), the cable comprising: two longitudinal halves bonded together (the halves are simply read as two elements bonded together by some process, each of the two layers 75-76 is considered a half as each represents half of the cable that houses the conductors 378-379); wherein each of the two longitudinal halves is formed on a respective substrate (75-76 is are substrates, again unclear as to which elements are physically required; alternate interpretation that still meets the broad limitation is shown in Figure 76 which includes a half at the top layer which is then “formed on” the directly attached layer beneath it, while a second half is seated jut beath that with a supporting substrate beneath that, see also column 6 lines 32-48) and includes a plurality of groups of conductive traces each in a respective layer of the respective longitudinal half (there are traces within various layers, but again with the above 112 it’s unclear which layer they are part of or on, see elements 378-379 in Figure 74 or the “trace” elements in Figure 76, where these are simple cross sections, see Figure 19 to see the larger quantity of traces), and wherein each respective layer of the respective longitudinal half has a width smaller than a layer formed prior to the respective layer (the traces have notably smaller widths, see Figure 19 for the overall top down view when compared to the larger substrate/halves which are designed to insulate the traces), but is silent on the respective layer thickness.
Lieber teaches a neural interface that includes conductive traces within polymeric layers that include a thickness that is within a range of 2 microns and 10 microns ([0050] which details including sizes between 2-5 microns). Given that the Applicant has provided no criticality to the claimed range and that the above devices are utilized in the same portion of the human anatomy, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to optimize the trace layer thickness as taught by Lieber with the traces of Nevsmith as a matter of routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 16, Nevsmith discloses an intracortical microelectrode array is coupled to the cable to convey neuron signals from at least one region of a brain to the cable (array at electrodes 13, 330 is electrically connected to the cable, see Figures 19-21, 37, 74).
Regarding claim 17, Nevsmith discloses that the cable is configured to convey the neuron signals to a processing device (bond pads 52 can electrically connect to any processing components or a wireless system that then further connects to such a processor as the processor is not positively claimed; the cable electrically however does connect to electronics 14), wherein if the processing device determines that the neuron signals do not match an appropriate movement, the processing device determines that the neuron signals indicate brain damage, brain function disorder or brain injury (the processing device is not positively claimed and as such the generic cable is fully capable of connecting to such a processing device without any additional structural modification).
Regarding claim 18, Nevsmith discloses that the cable is configured to convey the neuron signals for processing to enable or facilitate: research, training of motor function, rehabilitation, treatment of brain related disease, injury or disorder, detection or diagnosis of brain damage, brain function disorder or brain injury, control of a robotic device, or an action or movement of a virtual entity (the cable, as mentioned above, is fully capable of being electrically connected to a processing device such as shown in 14 or any other type of processing device via bond pads 52, the configured for language does not affect the structure of the cable in patentably distinguishable fashion).
Regarding claim 19, Nevsmith discloses that the insulating layer comprises at least one of: polyimide, polymer, liquid crystal polymer, or parylene (in light of the 112 above, the insulative layer is assumed to be the substrate or one half of the longitudinal halves mentioned above, element 70 is detailed as being a polymer, see also claims 1-3).
Regarding claim 20, Nevsmith discloses that the conductive layer comprises at least one of: gold, platinum, stainless steel, or iridium (claim 9, see also elements 378-379).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian M Antiskay whose telephone number is (571)270-5179. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm EST.
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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at 571-272-1213. 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.
/BRIAN M ANTISKAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794