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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shah et al. (WO 2020/191408 – citations are made to US PGPUB 2022/0168571).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 11, Shah discloses a method for calibrating a retinal prosthetic (e.g. ¶ 56), the prosthetic comprising: a microelectrode array comprising a plurality of electrodes (e.g. 150) and a processor (e.g. 140), the processor configured to:
instantiate a parametric model for multi-electrode stimulation (e.g. ¶ 74; h(S) can be a linear/non-linear Poisson model, a generalized linear model…);
stimulate a plurality of retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) using a set of adjacent electrodes in a microelectrode array (e.g. ¶ 37);
record activation responses of the plurality of RGCs in response to the stimulation (e.g. ¶ 48);
fit the parametric model to the recorded activation responses (e.g. ¶ 74-76);
determine a plurality of stimulation patterns for a next testing iteration using sequential measurement optimization, where each stimulation pattern comprises a current level and a voltage for each electrode in the set of adjacent microelectrodes (e.g. ¶ 49);
stimulate the plurality of RGCs using a sampling of the determined plurality of stimulation patterns (e.g. ¶ 48 – 49);
stimulate the plurality of RCGs using a different set of stimulation patterns; recording new activation responses of the plurality of RGCs in response to the sampled stimulation patterns and the different set of stimulation patterns (e.g. ¶ 48);
fit the parametric model to the new activation responses (e.g. ¶ 74-76);
and select a stimulation pattern that is most selective for a target RGC in the plurality of RGCs using the parametric model (e.g. ¶ 74 – 76).
Regarding claims 3, 8, and 13, Shah discloses recording activation responses comprises determining locations and an electrical image of each RGC in the plurality of RGCs (e.g. ¶ 61).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah et al.
Regarding claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 15¸ Shah discloses using the parametric model as described above, but does not explicitly recite where the sequential measurement optimization is A-optimal design and the specific formulas used in the model. However, these are well known in the art. Sequential/A-optimal design is used in neurophysiology for efficient calibration and stimulus selection. The formula of claim 4 recites a well-known and standard logistic parametric model is a fundamental activation function in neural modeling. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention as taught by Shah with the well-known formulas, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of better fitting the model to map multi-electrode stimulation patterns to RGC responses.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Esler et al. (WO2020/198783) teaches multi-electrode neural stimulation including retinal stimulation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M DIETRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1895. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 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.
/JOSEPH M DIETRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights