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 § 112
Note that dependent claims will have the deficiencies of base and intervening claims.
Claims 6, 10, 11, and 16 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:
a) Claim 6 and claim 16 each recites, “. . . ., wherein a material of the second electrode is selected from a conductor having a working voltage lower than the first electrode. [italicizing by the Examiner]” The scope of the phrase “a working voltage” is indefinite. It is not clear under what circumstances the second electrode is considered to be “working”. Also, the second electrode having a working voltage implies that it is being used and so that the claim 6 and claim 16 additional limitations are method steps; however, claim 6 and claim 16 as a whole are device claims. Applicant is requested to also clarify whether claim 6 is to be interpreted as a method claim or whether “a working voltage” is somehow meant to be a limiting property or material composition of the second electrode.
b) claim 10 requires “. . . ., wherein the working current is a constant current…. [italicizing by the Examiner]”, which is a method step; however, claim 10 is a device claim. It is not clear whether Applicant meant for claim 10 to add an intended use of the device or whether Applicant is actually claiming a method of using the device of claim 8.
c) claim 11 requires “. . . ., wherein the working current is generated by providing a constant voltage to the electrode set … [italicizing by the Examiner]”, which is a method step; however, claim 11 is a device claim. It is not clear whether Applicant meant for claim 11 to add an intended use of the device or whether Applicant is actually claiming a method of using the device of claim 8.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
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 1, 6, 8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deisseroth et al. US 10,545,075 B2 (hereafter “Deisseroth”) in view of the 2009/10 Hoefer catalog entitled “Proven Solutions for Electrophoresis” (hereafter “Hoefer”) and Ogle et al. US 2003/0019753 A1 (hereafter “Ogle”).
Addressing claim 1, Deisseroth discloses an electrode set (Figures 2c (noting especially first electrode 103a and second electrode 103b (col. 20:30-35)), and
Figure 2d (“Electrode”)) for making a biological tissue transparent (see Figure1, Step #3; and col. 9:1-14), comprising:
a first electrode (103a in Figure 2c); and
a second electrode (103b in Figure 2c),
wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are configured to provide an electrical field to the biological tissue (col. 1:64 – col. 2:6, col. 19:24-31, and col. 28:1-15).
However, Deisseroth does not disclose “. . . ., wherein the first electrode incudes a carrier metal and a coating metal partially coated on the carrier metal.” In Deisseroth the electrodes appear to be uncoated platinum electrodes. See col. 29:61-65.
Hoefer discloses electrophoresis blotting devices comprising a platinum coated titanium anode. See pages 52 and 53.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to have the first electrode of the electrode set of Deisseroth include a carrier metal (titanium) and a coating metal (platinum) partially coated on the carrier metal as taught by Hoefer because
(1) as noted above, Deisseroth already discloses having the first electrode comprise platinum;
(2) the first electrode in Deisseroth may, at least in part, be in the form of a platinum wire. See Figure 2c and col. 3:13-21. Ogle, which discusses an electrophoresis system (see the Abstract), discloses,
PNG
media_image1.png
228
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See Ogle paragraph [0134];
(3) Hoefer states, “Durable platinum coated titanium and stainless steel electrodes– allow for contamination free, consistent transfer.[italicizing by the Examiner]” See pages 52 and 53; and
(4) to substitute the platinum coated titanium anode of Hoefer for the first electrode of Deisseroth is prima facie obvious as simple substitution of one known element (electrode for use in an electrophoresis device for clearing or “blotting” a membrane or sample) for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Addressing claim 6, as a first matter, it is not clear in what way, if any, claim 6 is meant to further limit claim 1 as the phrase “a working voltage” is very vague. So,
claim 6 may be rejected on the same basis upon which underlying claim 1 has been rejected. In any event, in light of Hoefer, to have second electrode in Deisseroth as modified by Hoefer and Ogle comprise a different material than used in the first electrode is prima facie obvious as simple substitution of one known element (electrode for use in an electrophoresis device for clearing or “blotting” a membrane or sample) for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). More particularly, in light of Hoefer, it would have been obvious to have the first electrode (the platinum coated titanium electrode) function as an anode and the second electrode (platinum in Deisseroth) instead be a stainless-steel electrode that functions as a cathode:
PNG
media_image2.png
102
302
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See Hoefer pages 52 and 53.
Addressing claim 8, Deisseroth discloses a device for making a biological tissue transparent (Figure 2a, Figure 1, Step #3; and col. 9:1-14), comprising:
an electrode set (Figures 2c (noting especially first electrode 103a and second electrode 103b (col. 20:30-35)), and
Figure 2d (“Electrode”)) for making a biological tissue transparent (see Figure1, Step #3; and col. 9:1-14), comprising:
a first electrode (103a in Figure 2c); and
a second electrode (103b in Figure 2c),
wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are configured to provide an electrical field to the biological tissue (col. 1:64 – col. 2:6, col. 19:24-31, and col. 28:1-15);
a chamber (“ETC Chamber in Figure 2a) for accommodating the biological tissue (see Figures 2c and 2d noting therein the location of the “target tissue”) , wherein the electrical field is provided in the chamber (this feature may be inferred from Figures 2c and 2d noting therein the location of the Electrodes); and
a power supply configured to provide a working current to the electrode set to generate the electrical field (see Figure 2a noting therein “Electrophoresis Power Supply”. Also, see col. 17:58-62, col. 18:35-41, and col. 19:24-31.).
However, Deisseroth does not disclose “. . . ., wherein the first electrode incudes a carrier metal and a coating metal partially coated on the carrier metal.” In Deisseroth the electrodes appear to be uncoated platinum electrodes. See col. 29:61-65.
Hoefer discloses electrophoresis blotting devices comprising a platinum coated titanium anode. See pages 52 and 53.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to have the first electrode of the electrode set of Deisseroth include a carrier metal (titanium) and a coating metal (platinum) partially coated on the carrier metal as taught by Hoefer because
(1) as noted above, Deisseroth already discloses having the first electrode comprise platinum;
(2) the first electrode in Deisseroth may, at least in part, be in the form of a platinum wire. See Figure 2c and col. 3:13-21. Ogle, which discusses an electrophoresis system (see the Abstract), discloses,
PNG
media_image1.png
228
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See Ogle paragraph [0134];
(3) Hoefer states, “Durable platinum coated titanium and stainless steel electrodes– allow for contamination free, consistent transfer.[italicizing by the Examiner]” See pages 52 and 53; and
(4) to substitute the platinum coated titanium anode of Hoefer for the first electrode of Deisseroth is prima facie obvious as simple substitution of one known element (electrode for use in an electrophoresis device for clearing or “blotting” a membrane or sample) for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Addressing claim 16, as a first matter, it is not clear in what way, if any, claim 6 is meant to further limit claim 8 as the phrase “a working voltage” is very vague. So,
claim 16 may be rejected on the same basis upon which underlying claim 8 has been rejected. In any event, in light of Hoefer, to have second electrode in Deisseroth as modified by Hoefer and Ogle comprise a different material than used in the first electrode is prima facie obvious as simple substitution of one known element (electrode for use in an electrophoresis device for clearing or “blotting” a membrane or sample) for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). More particularly, in light of Hoefer, it would have been obvious to have the first electrode (the platinum coated titanium electrode) function as an anode and the second electrode (platinum in Deisseroth) instead be a stainless-steel electrode that functions as a cathode:
PNG
media_image2.png
102
302
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See Hoefer pages 52 and 53.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deisseroth in view of Hoefer and Ogle as applied to claims 1, 6, 8, and 16 above, and further in view of Bernd Sägmüller US 2016/0231209 A1 (hereafter “Sägmüller”).
Addressing claim 9, as a first matter note that the additional limitation of this claim expresses a contingent limitation of a system. “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur.” See 2111.04(II). For the additional limitation of this claim note that Deisseroth discloses using a voltage with the range 10-60V. See col. 28:1-7 and claim 5. Note that “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05(I). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a number of factors will determine the necessary electrophoresis voltage. Sägmüller, which discusses an electrophoresis method and device for increasing the optical transparency of regions of a tissue sample, discloses that factors such as the pH, ionic strength, and conductivity of the electrolyte solution and whether are additives (for example, surfactant micelles) are used are all relevant to clearing a tissue sample. See, for example, Sägmüller paragraphs [0025], [0026], [0031], [0037], and [0062], and claim 5.
Addressing claim 10, as for the claim limitation “. . . ., wherein the working current is a constant current…”, from the various electrophoresis documents cited in
Deisseroth col. 18:35-60 Deisseroth allows for the working current to be constant or non-constant. Sägmüller, which discusses an electrophoresis method and device for increasing the optical transparency of regions of a tissue sample, discloses monitoring the working current and providing means for adjusting the current. See Sägmüller claim 5 and paragraphs [0059]. Barring evidence to the contrary, such as unexpected results, the decision as to whether or not when using the device of Deisseroth in light of Sägmüller to have the working current be a constant current is prima facie obvious as just routine optimization of a known result effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05(II)), especially as claim 10 does not specify the biological tissue to be made transparent or any other operational conditions, such as electrolyte composition.
Addressing claim 11, as for the claim limitation “. . . ., wherein the working current is generated by providing a constant voltage to the electrode set…”, from the various electrophoresis documents cited in Deisseroth col. 18:35-60 Deisseroth allows for the working current to be constant or non-constant. Sägmüller, which discusses an electrophoresis method and device for increasing the optical transparency of regions of a tissue sample, discloses monitoring the working current and providing means for adjusting the current. See Sägmüller claim 5 and paragraphs [0059]. Barring evidence to the contrary, such as unexpected results, the decision as to whether or not when using the device of Deisseroth in light of Sägmüller to have the working current be a constant current generated by providing a constant voltage is prima facie obvious as just routine optimization of a known result effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05(II)), especially as claim 11 does not specify the biological tissue to be made transparent or any other operational conditions, such as electrolyte composition.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deisseroth in view of Hoefer and Ogle as applied to claims 1, 6, and 8 above, and further in view of an eBay advertisement for a Hoefer TE70X Semidry Blotter Gel Electrophoresis Lab Unit (hereafter “eBay”).
Addressing claim 3, as for the claim limitation “. . . ., wherein the carrier metal forms a mesh structure…”, if not already so, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to have the carrier metal in the first electrode form a metal mesh because
(1) Hoefer states, “Vented electrodes–prevent build up of bubbles which may impair transfer. [italicizing by the Examiner]”. See pages 52 and 53;
(2) as evidenced by eBay, the electrodes if not strictly speaking being in the form of a mesh are at least mesh-like (see the photos from eBay reproduced at the end of this claim rejection). Also, electrodes in other Hoefer electro-blotters are definitely in the form of a mesh. See Hoeffer pages 55 and 56. So having the carrier metal of the first electrode of the electrode set of Deisseroth as modified by Hoefer and Ogle be in the form of a metal mesh is prima facie obvious as a change in shape of the carrier metal with no material effect on the operation of the electrode. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B); and
(3) as already mentioned in the rejection of underlying claim 1, Ogle discloses
PNG
media_image3.png
252
548
media_image3.png
Greyscale
See Ogle paragraph [0034].
PNG
media_image4.png
884
1102
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
618
1078
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
622
1064
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Addressing claim 13, as for the claim limitation “. . . ., wherein the carrier metal forms a mesh structure…”, if not already so, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to have the carrier metal in the first electrode form a metal mesh because
(1) Hoefer states, “Vented electrodes–prevent build up of bubbles which may impair transfer. [italicizing by the Examiner]”. See pages 52 and 53;
(2) as evidenced by eBay, the electrodes if not strictly speaking being in the form of a mesh are at least mesh-like (see the photos from eBay reproduced at the end of this claim rejection). Also, electrodes in other Hoefer electro-blotters are definitely in the form of a mesh. See Hoeffer pages 55 and 56. So having the carrier metal of the first electrode of the electrode set of Deisseroth as modified by Hoefer and Ogle be in the form of a metal mesh is prima facie obvious as a change in shape of the carrier metal with no material effect on the operation of the electrode. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B); and
(3) as already mentioned in the rejection of underlying claim 1, Ogle discloses
PNG
media_image3.png
252
548
media_image3.png
Greyscale
See Ogle paragraph [0034].
PNG
media_image4.png
884
1102
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
618
1078
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
622
1064
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deisseroth in view of Israel et al., “Electrophysiologic Performance of a New Iridium-Coated Electrode with Reduced Surface Area: A One-Year Study,” Progress in Biomedical Research, June 1998, pp. 156-163 (hereafter “Israel”).
Addressing claims 1 and 2, Deisseroth discloses an electrode set (Figures 2c (noting especially first electrode 103a and second electrode 103b (col. 20:30-35)), and
Figure 2d (“Electrode”)) for making a biological tissue transparent (see Figure1, Step #3; and col. 9:1-14), comprising:
a first electrode (103a in Figure 2c); and
a second electrode (103b in Figure 2c),
wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are configured to provide an electrical field to the biological tissue (col. 1:64 – col. 2:6, col. 19:24-31, and col. 28:1-15).
However, Deisseroth does not disclose “. . . ., wherein the first electrode incudes a carrier metal and a coating metal partially coated on the carrier metal.” In Deisseroth the electrodes appear to be uncoated platinum electrodes. See col. 29:61-65.
Israel discloses an iridium-coated titanium electrode for use as an implantable sensing electrode. See the title, Abstract, the first full sentence in the left column on page 157, and the second and third full sentences in the left column on page 158 (“A TIR . . . .”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to substitute the platinum coated titanium electrode of Israel for the first electrode of Deisseroth because
(1) as the iridium-coated titanium electrode of Israel is implantable, in myocardium tissue no less (see Israel the second and third full sentences in the left column on page 158 (“A TIR . . . .”)), so it is clearly compatible with biological tissue; and
(2) the iridium coating of the iridium-coated electrode has a fractal structure. See Israel Figure 1 and the paragraph immediately underneath the Figure 1 caption. In this regard Israel discloses
PNG
media_image7.png
266
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
See the left column on Israel page 157.
Addressing claim 5, although neither Deisseroth nor Israel explicitly indicate whether or not the first electrode is a dimensionally stable anode to have it be an anode is an intended use of the electrode that it is inherently capable of preforming as there is nothing in Deisseroth nor Israel to indicate that it must only function as a cathode. Indeed, Deisseroth states, “Electrophoresis devices in accordance with some embodiments of the invention may comprise two or more electrodes of opposite polarity (i.e. “anode” (negatively charged) and at least one “cathode” (positively charged)) operably associated with the electrophoresis chamber to which an electric current may be applied to create an electric field within the chamber.” See Deisseroth col. 18:35-41. Moreover, Applicant’s specification discloses that an electrode made of titanium metal covered with iridium (as that of Deisseroth as modified Israel is) is inherently able to function as a dimensionally stable anode:
PNG
media_image8.png
210
682
media_image8.png
Greyscale
See Applicant’s originally filed specification paragraph [0030].
Applicant’s specification is referred to here only to establish an inherent property of a material (an electrode made of titanium covered with iridium).
Addressing claim 6, as a first matter, it is not clear in what way, if any, claim 6 is meant to further limit claim 1 as the phrase “a working voltage” is very vague. So,
claim 6 may be rejected on the same basis upon which underlying claim 1 has been rejected. In any event, claim 6, as best understood by the Examiner, is inherently met by Deisseroth as modified Israel as discussed in the rejection of underlying claim 1 because the first electrode will be made of iridium coated titanium (from Israel) and the second electrode will be made from platinum (Deisseroth).
Addressing claims 8 and 12, Deisseroth discloses a device for making a biological tissue transparent (Figure 2a, Figure 1, Step #3; and col. 9:1-14), comprising:
an electrode set (Figures 2c (noting especially first electrode 103a and second electrode 103b (col. 20:30-35)), and
Figure 2d (“Electrode”)) for making a biological tissue transparent (see Figure1, Step #3; and col. 9:1-14), comprising:
a first electrode (103a in Figure 2c); and
a second electrode (103b in Figure 2c),
wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are configured to provide an electrical field to the biological tissue (col. 1:64 – col. 2:6, col. 19:24-31, and col. 28:1-15);
a chamber (“ETC Chamber in Figure 2a) for accommodating the biological tissue (see Figures 2c and 2d noting therein the location of the “target tissue”) , wherein the electrical field is provided in the chamber (this feature may be inferred from Figures 2c and 2d noting therein the location of the Electrodes); and
a power supply configured to provide a working current to the electrode set to generate the electrical field (see Figure 2a noting therein “Electrophoresis Power Supply”. Also, see col. 17:58-62, col. 18:35-41, and col. 19:24-31.).
However, Deisseroth does not disclose “. . . ., wherein the first electrode incudes a carrier metal and a coating metal partially coated on the carrier metal.” In Deisseroth the electrodes appear to be uncoated platinum electrodes. See col. 29:61-65.
Israel discloses an iridium-coated titanium electrode for use as an implantable sensing electrode. See the title, Abstract, the first full sentence in the left column on page 157, and the second and third full sentences in the left column on page 158 (“A TIR . . . .”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to substitute the platinum coated titanium electrode of Israel for the first electrode of Deisseroth because
(1) as the iridium-coated titanium electrode of Israel is implantable, in myocardium tissue no less (see Israel the second and third full sentences in the left column on page 158 (“A TIR . . . .”)), so it is clearly compatible with biological tissue; and
(2) the iridium coating of the iridium-coated electrode has a fractal structure. See Israel Figure 1 and the paragraph immediately underneath the Figure 1 caption. In this regard Israel discloses
PNG
media_image7.png
266
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
See the left column on Israel page 157.
Addressing claim 15, although neither Deisseroth nor Israel explicitly indicate whether or not the first electrode is a dimensionally stable anode to have it be an anode is an intended use of the electrode that it is inherently capable of preforming as there is nothing in Deisseroth nor Israel to indicate that it must only function as a cathode. Indeed, Deisseroth states, “Electrophoresis devices in accordance with some embodiments of the invention may comprise two or more electrodes of opposite polarity (i.e. “anode” (negatively charged) and at least one “cathode” (positively charged)) operably associated with the electrophoresis chamber to which an electric current may be applied to create an electric field within the chamber.” See Deisseroth col. 18:35-41. Moreover, Applicant’s specification discloses that an electrode made of titanium metal covered with iridium (as the first electrode of Deisseroth as modified Israel is) is inherently able to function as a dimensionally stable anode:
PNG
media_image8.png
210
682
media_image8.png
Greyscale
See Applicant’s originally filed specification paragraph [0030].
Applicant’s specification is referred to here only to establish an inherent property of a material (an electrode made of titanium covered with iridium).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deisseroth in view of Israel as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 12, and 15 above, and further in view of Sägmüller.
Addressing claim 9, as a first matter note that the additional limitation of this claim expresses a contingent limitation of a system. “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur.” See 2111.04(II). For the additional limitation of this claim note that Deisseroth discloses using a voltage with the range 10-60V. See col. 28:1-7 and claim 5. Note that “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP 2144.05(I). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a number of factors will determine the necessary electrophoresis voltage. Sägmüller, which discusses an electrophoresis method and device for increasing the optical transparency of regions of a tissue sample, discloses that factors such as the pH, ionic strength, and conductivity of the electrolyte solution and whether are additives (for example, surfactant micelles) are used are all relevant to clearing a tissue sample. See, for example, Sägmüller paragraphs [0025], [0026], [0031], [0037], and [0062], and claim 5.
Addressing claim 10, as for the claim limitation “. . . ., wherein the working current is a constant current…”, from the various electrophoresis documents cited in
Deisseroth col. 18:35-60 Deisseroth allows for the working current to be constant or non-constant. Sägmüller, which discusses an electrophoresis method and device for increasing the optical transparency of regions of a tissue sample, discloses monitoring the working current and providing means for adjusting the current. See Sägmüller claim 5 and paragraphs [0059]. Barring evidence to the contrary, such as unexpected results, the decision as to whether or not when using the device of Deisseroth in light of Sägmüller to have the working current be a constant current is prima facie obvious as just routine optimization of a known result effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05(II)), especially as claim 10 does not specify the biological tissue to be made transparent or any other operational conditions, such as electrolyte composition.
Addressing claim 11, as for the claim limitation “. . . ., wherein the working current is generated by providing a constant voltage to the electrode set…”, from the various electrophoresis documents cited in Deisseroth col. 18:35-60 Deisseroth allows for the working current to be constant or non-constant. Sägmüller, which discusses an electrophoresis method and device for increasing the optical transparency of regions of a tissue sample, discloses monitoring the working current and providing means for adjusting the current. See Sägmüller claim 5 and paragraphs [0059]. Barring evidence to the contrary, such as unexpected results, the decision as to whether or not when using the device of Deisseroth in light of Sägmüller to have the working current be a constant current generated by providing a constant voltage is prima facie obvious as just routine optimization of a known result effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05(II)), especially as claim 11 does not specify the biological tissue to be made transparent or any other operational conditions, such as electrolyte composition.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 14, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
a) in claim 4 the combination of limitations the following underlined feature
PNG
media_image9.png
74
600
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In contrast, in the electrode set of Deisseroth in view of Hoefer and Ogle the coating metal is platinum.
In contrast, in the electrode set of Deisseroth as modified by Israel the coating metal is iridium.
b) in claim 7 the combination of limitations the following underlined feature
PNG
media_image10.png
44
688
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In contrast, in the electrode set of Deisseroth in view of Hoefer and Ogle the second electrode is made of either platinum (see the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C 103 above) or stainless steel (see the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above).
In contrast, in the electrode set of Deisseroth as modified by Israel the second electrode is made of platinum (see the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C 103 above).
c) in claim 14 the combination of limitations the following underlined feature
PNG
media_image11.png
68
574
media_image11.png
Greyscale
In contrast, in the electrode set of Deisseroth in view of Hoefer and Ogle the coating metal is platinum.
In contrast, in the electrode set of Deisseroth as modified by Israel the coating metal is iridium.
d) in claim 17 the combination of limitations the following underlined feature
PNG
media_image12.png
76
648
media_image12.png
Greyscale
In contrast, in the electrode set of Deisseroth in view of Hoefer and Ogle the second electrode is made of either platinum (see the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C 103 above) or stainless steel (see the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above).
In contrast, in the electrode set of Deisseroth as modified by Israel the second electrode is made of platinum (see the rejection of claim 8 under
35 U.S.C 103 above).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER STEPHAN NOGUEROLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1343. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00AM-5:30 PM 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, Luan Van can be reached on 571 272-8521. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ALEXANDER S NOGUEROLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795