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 Claims 1-20 are currently pending, with claims 1-14 being previously withdrawn.
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.
Claim 15 recites that the halves are formed on a "respective substrate" and it's unclear if the respective substrate is a sacrificial layer (as described in the specification as 1000 at [0040]) or physically part of the cable itself (as described in [0032] where the insulating layers can be considered substrates). As it is presently worded, it reads like the halves are formed (manufactured) on the substrates (sacrificial). However even that interpretation becomes difficult with the newly added language “that forms part of the cable” as it could be referencing the two halves (which is what is assumed), or the respective (sacrificial) substrates. If the halves comprise substrates (insulators) themselves as is described in the disclosure, this should be reworded to reflect that. Further clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 are the above claimed halves and the respective substrates are being read as a product by process type limitation as they are sacrificial layers only used in the manufacturing as an intermediate step and not in the final product). If the halves themselves comprise the substrate layers, as in they are made of substrates, then layers 75-76 meet this limitation. Nevsmith additionally shows the halves are in a stacked configuration (Figures 74-76) and that the traces have a smaller width than the insulating layer beneath it (Figure 19 which shows the widths of the individual traces of the conductive layer being far less wide than the insulating layer it is disposed upon).
An alternate interpretation that still meets the claimed limitation is shown in Figure 76 which includes a half at the top layer which is then “formed on” the attached layer directly beneath it, while a second half is seated just beneath that, with a supporting substrate beneath that (see also column 6 lines 32-48, details that multiple layers of insulating substrates and metal/traces can be alternating on top of the two disclosed above), 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, 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). In either interpretation, Nevsmith 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Each of the three major arguments are addressed below.
Regarding the first argument (Remarks page 2), there is no noticeable distinction between two halves of a cable that are bonded together versus one that made all at once. The manufacturing process is going to be different, but in an apparatus type claim it is simply treated as a product by process type limitation (see MPEP 2113), where so long as the final product is comparable or identical the limitation is considered met.
Regarding the second argument (Remarks page 3), it is still unclear which substrate the Applicant is claiming from their disclosure. One substrate mentioned is part of the final product and the other is not. In the case of Nevsmith there are two halves made of an insulating substrate and are initially made using a sacrificial substrate 322, but 322 is not relied upon in the above rejection. The term “substrate” is commonly considered a generic layer on or within a device, it does not have to be as specific as a type of substrate or inherently include some type of purpose. Claim 15 reads as if the two halves (the entire half of each half) is formed on the respective substrates then bonded together, though if they’re already bonded together it’s further unclear where these substrates are supposed to be positioned with respect to the other elements of claim 15. And if they’re simply a sacrificial substrate used in the manufacturing process in an intermediate step they are not required to be found within the prior art of record, this should be clarified in either case.
Regarding the third argument (Remarks pages 3-4), Lieber is utilized to show the general trace/conductive layer thickness. The insulating layer (of Nevsmith) would not be able to function as an insulator if the conductive layer was wider and exposed to the outside elements/tissue. Further, when describing these types of devices the phrase “thickness” can refer to the height or the actual width, without some level of orientation it also isn’t given a great deal of patentably distinguishable weight. What the office believes the Applicant is intending to claim is shown in Figure 2, where the layers are not the same size (assuming this is correctly understood). The issue is the layers of the above combination are still stacked, and every conductive layer is going to have a smaller width than any of the insulating layers (above or below it), as that is how they function. The insulators are of Nevsmith are designed to envelope and insulate each conductor of the conductive layer to prevent cross-talk or interference (barring where thicker or additional material is utilized to serve as the electrode), and by extension must be wider to cover or envelope them (see also the Summary section).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights