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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/2/24 and 11/26/24 are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
“describing coordinates of sensor circuitries where spikes were detected at a given time point” in claim 2; and
“a transmission circuitry connected to the decoder configured to transit the signal data; and a controller configured to: receive the signal data; generate stimulation signals; transmit the stimulation signals to the sensor array via the transmission circuitry, where the sensor array is further configured to provide stimulation based on the stimulation signals via the electrode” in claim 18.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: for the limitations “the wired-OR circuits,” see lines 14-15 and 17 in claim 2 for example, Applicant is encouraged to change the limitations to recite –each wired-OR circuit--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant is encouraged to change “the electrodes” to recite –each electrode—since a plurality of electrodes are not previously recited in claim 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation of “the sensor circuitries in the array” in line 4. Applicant is encouraged to change the limitation to recite –the electrodes in the array—to clarify which array is being referred to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “transit” in line 22 should recite –transmit--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 18-19 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 18 recites the limitation "the sensor circuitries" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claim 19 is rejected for the same deficiency in claim 18.
In claim 18, the limitation of “generate stimulation signals; transmit the stimulation signals to the sensor array via the transmission circuitry” seems unclear as it is missing “and” between the last two limitations. It remains unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. See In re Kiely, 2022 USPQ2d 532 at 2* (Fed. Cir. 2022) (each independent claim recites "a selection from the group comprising a person, an animal, an animated character, a creature, an alien, a toy, a structure, a vegetable, and a fruit." … (emphasis added). A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. Abbott Labs., 334 F.3d at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196. See MPEP 2173.05(h). Applicant is encouraged to change the limitation of “generate stimulation signals; transmit the stimulation signals to the sensor array via the transmission circuitry” to recite -- generate stimulation signals; and transmit the stimulation signals to the sensor array via the transmission circuitry--. Dependent claim 19 is rejected for the same deficiency in claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
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 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act 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 10 includes the limitation of “wherein the data-compressive sensor array is implanted proximal to the retinal ganglion cell layer of an eye.” As such, the limitation requires that the data-compressive sensor array would encompass being in contact with a patient (human organism) under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Applicant should be recommended to change the claimed limitation to -- wherein the data-compressive sensor array is configured to be implanted proximal to the retinal ganglion cell layer of an eye-- in order to overcome this 101 rejection. Dependent claims 11-12 are rejected for the same deficiency in claim 10.
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.
Claims 2 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 20170366771 filed on 6/14/17) in view of Luo (US 20030081134 filed on 7/25/02 as cited in the IDS) and Sperry (NPL “Flexible microelectrode array for interfacing with the surface of neural ganglia” published 4/16/18).
Regarding claim 2, Jung teaches a data-compressive sensor array (¶56-the engine unit 1400 may generate YUV data or compressed data, e.g., Joint Photography Experts Group (JPEG) data, based on the RGB data received from the image sensor 1200), comprising: a ramp signal generator configured to distribute a global ramp signal (¶7-a ramp signal generator configured to generate a ramp signal); an array of sensor circuitries, where the sensor circuitries in the array are arranged in a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns (¶22-the sensor array 130 includes a plurality of photodetection devices. The sensor array 130 includes a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns), and a comparator configured to compare the global ramp signal to a recorded signal produced by the sensor (¶25-the comparing unit 150 compares the ramp signal VRAMP and the pixel signal VPIX with each other to transmit a comparator signal COMOUT to the counting unit 160; ¶29); where the comparator for each sensor circuitry in a given row in the plurality of rows is connected via a given row wire (¶29-pixels connected to a selected row of the sensor array 130 may output pixel signals VPIX1 to VPIXn. Each of the comparators 151 to 15n may compare the ramp signal VRAMP to each of the pixel signals VPIX1 to VPIXn and output comparator signals COMOUT1 to COMOUTn; Fig. 2); where the comparator for each sensor circuitry in a given column in the plurality of columns is connected via a given column wire (¶28-the comparing unit 150 may include a plurality of comparators 151 to 15n connected to the plurality of columns of the sensor array 130; Fig. 2); and where each row wire and each column wire form a wired-OR circuit (¶22-the sensor array 130 includes a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns. For example, the photodetection devices may be arranged at intersections of the rows and the columns; ¶28-the comparing unit 150 may include a plurality of comparators 151 to 15n connected to the plurality of columns of the sensor array 130. The ramp signal generator 140 may generate the ramp signal VRAMP in response to the ramp enable signal RMP_en. The ramp signal VRAMP may be provided to each of the comparators 151 to 15n; ¶29-pixels connected to a selected row of the sensor array 130 may output pixel signals VPIX1 to VPIXn. Each of the comparators 151 to 15n may compare the ramp signal VRAMP to each of the pixel signals VPIX1 to VPIXn and output comparator signals COMOUT1 to COMOUTn; Fig. 2).
However, Jung does not explicitly teach where each sensor circuitry comprises: an electrode; a row readout configured to sense signals on each row wire produced by the circuits; a column readout configured to sense signals on each column wire produced by the circuits; and a decoder connected to the row readout and the column readout configured to provide signal data, and describing coordinates of sensor circuitries where spikes were detected at a given time point.
Luo relates to imaging and more particularly to a CMOS imager technique and system architecture (¶2). Luo further teaches the invention using the following steps:
a row readout configured to sense signals on each row wire produced by the circuits (¶26-a row decoder 12 is coupled to the PD pixel array 14. The row decoder 12 selects a row of pixels sensors for sampling or reading by a readout device 18); a column readout configured to sense signals on each column wire produced by the circuits (¶28-the column decoder (not shown) can be integrated into the control logic device 16 or the readout device 18); and a decoder connected to the row readout and the column readout configured to provide signal data (¶28-the control logic device 16 controls the sampling of the PD pixel array 14 using the row decoder 12 and a column decoder (not shown). The control logic device 16 can also control the readout of the PD pixel array 14).
Therefore, 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 invention of Jung to include a row readout configured to sense signals on each row wire produced by the circuits; a column readout configured to sense signals on each column wire produced by the circuits; and a decoder connected to the row readout and the column readout configured to provide signal data of Luo in order to associate a time with the firing of the fired pixels (Luo, ¶26; ¶28) and control the sampling of the PD pixel array using the row decoder and a column decoder (Luo, ¶37).
Sperry relates to a flexible non-penetrating polyimide electrode array interfacing with the surface of ganglia (Abstract). Sperry further teaches the invention using the following steps:
where each sensor circuitry comprises: an electrode (page 8, left col.-electrode array); and describing coordinates of sensor circuitries where spikes were detected at a given time point (page 5, right col.-the distance of the neuronal source from the electrode ri(x,y,z), where (x,y,z) are the three unknown coordinates of the source location. Four known values of V(t) must be used to solve this equation’s four unknown values. Essentially, the distance from each electrode to the neural source is calculated, and the intersection of these distances is the location estimate. The mean peak voltage of the detected spike on each electrode was used as the feature for calculation, as this is assumed to be most representative of soma firing. The spikes were detected on a pentrode (five electrodes), which gave four sets of tetrodes (four electrodes) for estimation of the source location).
Therefore, 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 invention of Jung to include where each sensor circuitry comprises: an electrode; and describing coordinates of sensor circuitries where spikes were detected at a given time point of Sperry in order for neural source localization (Sperry, page 10, right col.) and to record and stimulate neural activity in acute procedures (Sperry, page 10, left col., last ¶).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Jung, Luo, and Sperry teaches the data-compressive sensor array of claim 2, further comprising a transmitter (Jung, ¶61-the electronic system 2000 may further include a radio-frequency (RF) chip 2160 that is capable of performing communication with the application processor 2110 . A physical layer (PHY) 2113 of the application processor 2110 and a PHY 2161 of the RF chip 2160 may perform data transmission and reception data according to MIPI DigRF) capable of transmitting signal data provided by the decoder (Luo, ¶37-a control logic device 16 is coupled to the PD pixel array 14, the row decoder 12 and the readout device 18, the row decoder 90 and a column decoder; ¶27-the readout device 18 can include logic for transmitting time values and/or address values in parallel or serially to an off-chip memory device; MPEP 2114: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
Therefore, 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 invention of Jung to include being capable of transmitting signal data provided by the decoder of Luo in order to transmit to another device separate from the PD pixel array and associated logic (Luo, ¶65). In addition, a time associated with the firing of the fired pixels and addresses corresponding to the fired pixels to be transmitted serially to a storage device (e.g., off-chip) for later reconstruction of the captured image (Luo, ¶41).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Jung, Luo, and Sperry teaches the data-compressive sensor array of claim 14, wherein the transmitter is a wireless transmitter (Jung, ¶63-the electronic system 2000 may perform communication using a ultra-wideband (UWB) 2210 , a wireless local area network (WLAN) 2220 , a worldwide interoperability for microwave access (WiMAX) 2230 , or the like; ¶61).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Jung, Luo, and Sperry teaches the data-compressive sensor array of claim 2, further comprising a receiver capable of receiving control data (Jung, ¶25-the comparing unit 150 receives the ramp signal VRAMP and the pixel signal VPIX; ¶62-the application processor 2110 may further include a DigRF master 2114 that controls data transmission and reception according to the MIPI DigRF of the PHY 2113 . The RF chip 2160 may include a DigRF slave 2162; ¶20; MPEP 2114: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Jung, Luo, and Sperry teaches the data-compressive sensor array of claim 16, wherein the receiver is a wireless receiver (Jung, ¶63-the electronic system 2000 may perform communication using a ultra-wideband (UWB) 2210 , a wireless local area network (WLAN) 2220 , a worldwide interoperability for microwave access (WiMAX) 2230 , or the like)).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Luo and Sperry as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Raynor (US 20170208279 filed on 4/5/17).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Jung, Luo, and Sperry teaches the data-compressive sensor array of claim 2. However, the combination of Jung, Luo, and Sperry does not teach a Gray counter in communication with the decoder.
Raynor teaches a Gray counter in communication with the decoder (¶34-the count signal is in the form of a Gray code count signal; ¶40-the SRAM elements are enabled by the output of the column decoder 34, when that column is to be read out. Each SRAM element receives one bit of a Gray code count).
Raynor relates to image sensors and in particular but not exclusively to CMOS (complimentary metal-oxide semiconductor) image sensors (¶2).
Therefore, 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 invention of Jung to include a Gray counter in communication with the decoder of Raynor because the Gray code count value is a measure of the value of VRAMP being used by the comparator (Raynor, ¶40). In addition, it helps capture a value representative of the pixel voltage (Raynor, ¶40).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Luo and Sperry, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Barkan (US 5107122 filed on 10/12/90).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Jung, Luo, and Sperry teaches the data-compressive sensor array of claim 2. However, the combination of Jung, Luo, and Sperry does not explicitly teach wherein the decoder is configured to disregard signals from the column readout and signals from the row readout that describe collision events.
Barkan teaches wherein the decoder is configured to disregard signals from the column readout and signals from the row readout that describe collision events (col. 3, line 2-decoding circuitry; col. 9 and lines 8-10-if the row data has already been read for a previous column, it is disregarded (trace 148); col. 4 and lines 1-3-a large number of hybrid chips 18, each bearing a pixel array of particle detectors, are positioned around the beam axes in the vicinity of the expected collisions; MPEP 2114: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
Barkan relates to pixel arrays used for precise detection purposes such as tracing the paths of sub-atomic particles, and to methods and systems for efficiently processing the large amounts of data resident in such arrays (col. 1 and lines 7-11).
Therefore, 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 invention of Jung to include wherein the decoder is configured to disregard signals from the column readout and signals from the row readout that describe collision events of Barkan in order to efficiently process the large amounts of data resident in such arrays (Barkan, col. 1 and lines 9-11).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Luo and Sperry as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of De Sapio (WO 2015073713 filed on 11/13/14).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Jung, Luo, and Sperry teaches the data-compressive sensor array of claim 2. However, the combination of Jung, Luo, and Sperry does not teach where the data-compressive sensor array is part of a brain-computer interface.
De Sapio teaches where the data-compressive sensor array is part of a brain-computer interface (¶68-brain machine interfaces (B I) and neural prosthetics offer great hope for restoring function to people with spinal cord injuries and amputees, as well augmenting and enhancing the abilities of people with full motor function; ¶70-the ability of the simulation environment to drive both the motion of the prosthetic device and the motion of the simulated subject through cortical commands (i.e., BMi) is unique and can be utilized by a variety of prosthetic manufacturers and/or developers).
De Sapio relates to a robotic control system and, more particularly, to a system for controlling robotic prosthetic devices given motor intent inferred from neuroimatiinti data (¶7).
Therefore, 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 invention of Jung to include where the data-compressive sensor array is part of a brain-computer interface of De Sapio in order to provide a system-level architecture for controlling robotic prosthetic devices given motor intent inferred from neuroimaging data (De Sapio, ¶69).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Jung, Luo, Sperry, and De Sapio teaches the data-compressive sensor array of claim 7, wherein the brain-computer interface is an artificial sight prosthetic (De Sapio, ¶72-This motor intent is in the form of desired motion commands represented in different Cartesian coordinate systems (eye-centered, hand- centered, etc.) using visumotor transformations. Examples of such visumotor transformations were describe in Literature Reference os. 3 and 13. This desired motion command is referred to herein as ¾ a multidimensional vector of task coordinates (e.g. Cartesian coordinates associated motion of a single hand or coordinated motion of both hands). The goal is to control the prosthetic device based on this motor intent; ¶68-brain machine interfaces (B I) and neural prosthetics offer great hope for restoring function to people with spinal cord injuries and amputees, as well augmenting and enhancing the abilities of people with full motor function; ¶70-the ability of the simulation environment to drive both the motion of the prosthetic device and the motion of the simulated subject through cortical commands (i.e., BMi) is unique and can be utilized by a variety of prosthetic manufacturers and/or developers).
Therefore, 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 invention of Jung to include wherein the brain-computer interface is an artificial sight prosthetic of De Sapio in order to provide a system-level architecture for controlling robotic prosthetic devices given motor intent inferred from neuroimaging data (De Sapio, ¶69).
Claims 9-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Luo and Sperry, and further in view of De Sapio as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Gross (US 20190232051 filed on 1/31/18).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Jung, Luo, Sperry, and De Sapio teaches the data-compressive sensor array of claim 8. However, the combination of Jung, Luo, Sperry, and De Sapio does not teach wherein the artificial sight prosthetic is a dictionary-based artificial sight prosthetic.
Gross teaches wherein the artificial sight prosthetic is a dictionary-based artificial sight prosthetic (¶77-apparatus 20 performs an image registration process using the two separate sets of data (i.e., the image captured by imaging device 4080 and the image captured by photosensor array 6050) to generate a unified coordinate system, essentially achieving the same functionality as an eye tracking system which provides information regarding a gaze direction of the subject; ¶10-the stimulating electrodes are then driven to apply currents to the retina based on the processed image; ¶83).
Gross relates generally to implantable medical devices, and specifically to a retinal prosthesis (¶1).
Therefore, 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 invention of Jung to include wherein the artificial sight prosthetic is a dictionary-based artificial sight prosthetic of Gross in order for restoring at least partial vision in a subject suffering from a retinal disease (Gross, ¶7).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Jung, Luo, Sperry, De Sapio, and Gross teaches the data-compressive sensor array of claim 9, wherein the data-compressive sensor array is implanted proximal to the retinal ganglion cell layer of an eye (¶8-the intraocular device is implanted entirely in the subject's eye, typically, in an epiretinal position, stimulation of the retina elicits action potentials in the retinal ganglion cells, restoring some vision by activating the intact mechanisms of the eye; ¶70; Fig. 3).
Therefore, 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 invention of Jung to include wherein the data-compressive sensor array is implanted proximal to the retinal ganglion cell layer of an eye of Gross in order for restoring at least partial vision in a subject suffering from a retinal disease (Gross, ¶7).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Jung, Luo, Sperry, and De Sapio teaches the data-compressive sensor array of claim 8. However, the combination of Jung, Luo, Sperry, and De Sapio does not teach wherein the electrodes are directed to stimulate cells in order to trigger the impression of sight.
Gross teaches wherein the electrodes are directed to stimulate cells in order to trigger the impression of sight (¶8-stimulation of the retina elicits action potentials in the retinal ganglion cells, restoring some vision by activating the intact mechanisms of the eye; ¶10-the stimulating electrodes are then driven to apply currents to the retina based on the processed image).
Therefore, 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 invention of Jung to include wherein the electrodes are directed to stimulate cells in order to trigger the impression of sight of Gross in order for restoring at least partial vision in a subject suffering from a retinal disease (Gross, ¶7).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Luo, Sperry, De Sapio, and further in view of Gross as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Nirenberg (US 20130289668 filed on 8/25/11).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Jung, Luo, Sperry, De Sapio, and Gross teaches the data-compressive sensor array of claim 10. However, the combination of Jung, Luo, Sperry, De Sapio, and Gross does not teach wherein the signal data provided by the decoder is used to estimate a receptive field mosaic.
Nirenberg teaches wherein the signal data provided by the decoder is used to estimate a receptive field mosaic (¶136-targeting the dendrites of a cell and stimulating with the ganglion cell dendritic code allows the ganglion cell's spatial receptive field to be more precisely matched; ¶59-spike trains were recorded from the ganglion cells of each group; ¶144-the transducer is a light-responsive element in retinal ganglion cells. The code generated by the encoder may be represented by bit streams (e.g., streams of zeros and ones, where zero=no spike, and one=spike). The bit streams are then converted to streams of light pulses (e.g., zero=no light, and one=light); ¶243-with proper choice of encoders, this generated response (i.e., the spike train generated by the ganglion cells) can be well matched to the corresponding response in a normal subject; ¶95; ¶288; ¶293; ¶301).
Nirenberg relates to methods and devices for restoring or improving vision, and for treating blindness or visual impairment. In particular, the present invention relates to methods and devices for restoring or improving vision using a set of encoders that produce normal or near-normal retinal output together with a high resolution transducer targeted to retinal cells (¶3).
Therefore, 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 invention of Jung to include wherein the signal data provided by the decoder is used to estimate a receptive field mosaic of Nirenberg in order for restoring or improving vision, and for treating blindness or visual impairment (Nirenberg, ¶3).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Jung, Luo, Sperry, De Sapio, Gross, and Nirenberg teaches the data-compressive sensor array of claim 11, wherein the receptive field mosaic is estimated by: performing spike sorting on the signal data provided by the decoder; and classifying retinal ganglion cells in the retinal ganglion cell layer based on the spike sorting (¶59-spike trains were recorded from the ganglion cells of each group; ¶144-the transducer is a light-responsive element in retinal ganglion cells. The code generated by the encoder may be represented by bit streams (e.g., streams of zeros and ones, where zero=no spike, and one=spike). The bit streams are then converted to streams of light pulses (e.g., zero=no light, and one=light); ¶243-with proper choice of encoders, this generated response (i.e., the spike train generated by the ganglion cells) can be well matched to the corresponding response in a normal subject; ¶95; ¶301).
Therefore, 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 invention of Jung to include wherein the receptive field mosaic is estimated by: performing spike sorting on the signal data provided by the decoder; and classifying retinal ganglion cells in the retinal ganglion cell layer based on the spike sorting of Nirenberg in order for restoring or improving vision, and for treating blindness or visual impairment (Nirenberg, ¶3).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Luo, Sperry, and Gross.
Regarding claim 18, Jung teaches a sensor array (¶56-the engine unit 1400 may generate YUV data or compressed data, e.g., Joint Photography Experts Group (JPEG) data, based on the RGB data received from the image sensor 1200) comprising: a ramp signal generator configured to distribute a global ramp signal (¶7-a ramp signal generator configured to generate a ramp signal); an array of sensors (¶7-an image sensor includes a sensor array), where the sensor circuitries in the array are arranged in a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns (¶22-the sensor array 130 includes a plurality of photodetection devices. The sensor array 130 includes a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns), and a comparator configured to compare the global ramp signal to a recorded signal produced by the sensor (¶25-the comparing unit 150 compares the ramp signal VRAMP and the pixel signal VPIX with each other to transmit a comparator signal COMOUT to the counting unit 160; ¶29); where the comparator for each sensor circuitry in a given row in the plurality of rows is connected via a given row wire (¶29-pixels connected to a selected row of the sensor array 130 may output pixel signals VPIX1 to VPIXn. Each of the comparators 151 to 15n may compare the ramp signal VRAMP to each of the pixel signals VPIX1 to VPIXn and output comparator signals COMOUT1 to COMOUTn; Fig. 2); where the comparator for each sensor circuitry in a given column in the plurality of columns is connected via a given column wire (¶28-the comparing unit 150 may include a plurality of comparators 151 to 15n connected to the plurality of columns of the sensor array 130; Fig. 2); and where each row wire and each column wire form a wired-OR circuit (¶22-the sensor array 130 includes a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns. For example, the photodetection devices may be arranged at intersections of the rows and the columns; ¶28-the comparing unit 150 may include a plurality of comparators 151 to 15n connected to the plurality of columns of the sensor array 130. The ramp signal generator 140 may generate the ramp signal VRAMP in response to the ramp enable signal RMP_en. The ramp signal VRAMP may be provided to each of the comparators 151 to 15n; ¶29-pixels connected to a selected row of the sensor array 130 may output pixel signals VPIX1 to VPIXn. Each of the comparators 151 to 15n may compare the ramp signal VRAMP to each of the pixel signals VPIX1 to VPIXn and output comparator signals COMOUT1 to COMOUTn; Fig. 2); and a transmission circuitry (¶61-the electronic system 2000 may further include a radio-frequency (RF) chip 2160 that is capable of performing communication with the application processor 2110 . A physical layer (PHY) 2113 of the application processor 2110 and a PHY 2161 of the RF chip 2160 may perform data transmission and reception data according to MIPI DigRF).
However, Jung does not explicitly teach an artificial sight prosthesis, where each sensor circuitry comprises: an electrode; a row readout configured to sense signals on each row wire produced by the circuits; a column readout configured to sense signals on each column wire produced by the circuits; a decoder connected to the row readout and the column readout configured to provide signal data; describing coordinates of sensor circuitries where spikes were detected at a given time point; connected to the decoder configured to transit the signal data; and a controller configured to: receive the signal data; generate stimulation signals; transmit the stimulation signals to the sensor array via the transmission circuitry, where the sensor array is further configured to provide stimulation based on the stimulation signals via the electrodes.
Luo teaches a row readout configured to sense signals on each row wire produced by the circuits (¶26-a row decoder 12 is coupled to the PD pixel array 14. The row decoder 12 selects a row of pixels sensors for sampling or reading by a readout device 18); a column readout configured to sense signals on each column wire produced by the circuits (¶28-the column decoder (not shown) can be integrated into the control logic device 16 or the readout device 18); a decoder connected to the row readout and the column readout configured to provide signal data (¶28-the control logic device 16 controls the sampling of the PD pixel array 14 using the row decoder 12 and a column decoder (not shown). The control logic device 16 can also control the readout of the PD pixel array 14); and connected to the decoder configured to transit the signal data (¶37-a control logic device 16 is coupled to the PD pixel array 14, the row decoder 12 and the readout device 18, the row decoder 90 and a column decoder; ¶27-the readout device 18 can include logic for transmitting time values and/or address values in parallel or serially to an off-chip memory device; MPEP 2114: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
Therefore, 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 invention of Jung to include a row readout configured to sense signals on each row wire produced by the circuits; a column readout configured to sense signals on each column wire produced by the circuits; a decoder connected to the row readout and the column readout configured to provide signal data; and connected to the decoder configured to transit the signal data of Luo in order to associate a time with the firing of the fired pixels (Luo, ¶26; ¶28) and control the sampling of the PD pixel array using the row decoder and a column decoder (Luo, ¶37).
While Jung teaches a sensor array (¶7), Jung and Luo do not explicitly recite and where each sensor circuitry comprises: an electrode; describing coordinates of sensor circuitries where spikes were detected at a given time point; and a controller configured to: receive the signal data; generate stimulation signals; transmit the stimulation signals to the sensor array via the transmission circuitry, where the sensor array is further configured to provide stimulation based on the stimulation signals via the electrodes.
Sperry teaches where each sensor circuitry comprises: an electrode (page 8, left col.-electrode array); describing coordinates of sensor circuitries where spikes were detected at a given time point (page 5, right col.-the distance of the neuronal source from the electrode ri(x,y,z), where (x,y,z) are the three unknown coordinates of the source location. Four known values of V(t) must be used to solve this equation’s four unknown values. Essentially, the distance from each electrode to the neural source is calculated, and the intersection of these distances is the location estimate. The mean peak voltage of the detected spike on each electrode was used as the feature for calculation, as this is assumed to be most representative of soma firing. The spikes were detected on a pentrode (five electrodes), which gave four sets of tetrodes (four electrodes) for estimation of the source location); and a controller (page 4, left col., ¶2-Ripple Grapevine processor; page 4, right col., ¶1) configured to: receive the signal data (page 8, right col., ¶1-data from multiple array placements on multiple DRG allowed for simple somatotopy mapping of neural responses to several different types of sensory stimuli, including dermatome brushing and bladder pressure (figure 3(D)); page 8, left col., last ¶-a flexible thin-film multi electrode array to both record and stimulate neural activity in invertebrate ganglia (figure 2) and feline DRG (figures 3 and 4)); generate stimulation signals (page 8, left col., last ¶-a flexible thin-film multi electrode array to both record and stimulate neural activity in invertebrate ganglia (figure 2) and feline DRG (figures 3 and 4)); transmit the stimulation signals to the sensor array via the transmission circuitry (page 8, left col., ¶3-electrical stimulation was applied to sacral DRG through the GSEA; page 8, left col., last ¶-a flexible thin-film multi electrode array to both record and stimulate neural activity in invertebrate ganglia (figure 2) and feline DRG (figures 3 and 4)), where the sensor array is further configured to provide stimulation based on the stimulation signals via the electrodes (page 3, left col., ¶2-a flexible polymer ganglionic surface electrode array (GSEA); page 10, left col., last ¶-type of array, once placed, can successfully record and stimulate neural activity in acute procedures).
Therefore, 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 invention of Jung to include where each sensor circuitry comprises: an electrode; describing coordinates of sensor circuitries where spikes were detected at a given time point; and a controller configured to: receive the signal data; generate stimulation signals; transmit the stimulation signals to the sensor array via the transmission circuitry, where the sensor array is further configured to provide stimulation based on the stimulation signals via the electrodes of Sperry in order for neural source localization (Sperry, page 10, right col.) and to record and stimulate neural activity in acute procedures (Sperry, page 10, left col., last ¶).
While the combination of Jung, Luo, and Sperry teaches open- or closed-loop sensory neuroprostheses (Sperry, page 1, right col.), the combination does not explicitly teach an artificial sight prosthesis.
Gross teaches an artificial sight prosthesis (¶1-a retinal prosthesis).
Therefore, 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 invention of Jung to include an artificial sight prosthesis of Gross in order for restoring at least partial vision in a subject suffering from a retinal disease (Gross, ¶7).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Jung, Luo, Sperry, and Gross teaches the artificial sight prosthesis of claim 18, wherein dictionary-based artificial sight processes are used to generate the stimulation signals (Gross, ¶77-apparatus 20 performs an image registration process using the two separate sets of data (i.e., the image captured by imaging device 4080 and the image captured by photosensor array 6050) to generate a unified coordinate system, essentially achieving the same functionality as an eye tracking system which provides information regarding a gaze direction of the subject; ¶10-the stimulating electrodes are then driven to apply currents to the retina based on the processed image; ¶83).
Therefore, 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 invention of Jung to include wherein dictionary-based artificial sight processes are used to generate the stimulation signals of Gross in order for restoring at least partial vision in a subject suffering from a retinal disease (Gross, ¶7).
Examiner’s Note
Claims 5-6 distinguish over the prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of overcoming the prior art:
The scope of wherein the decoder is configured to estimate signals sensed by sensors in the array which are involved in a collision event by using a baseline value was not found in the prior art to be obvious over the prior art of record in combination with the other claimed elements. The closest prior art of record is US 20170366771; however it fails to recite wherein the decoder is configured to estimate signals sensed by sensors in the array which are involved in a collision event by using a baseline value.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12064337 in view of Sperry (NPL “Flexible microelectrode array for interfacing with the surface of neural ganglia”).
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection. 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 invention of the U.S. Patent to include the subject matter in Sperry as shown below.
Claims of the Present Application (18/762628)
Claims of US Patent 12064337
Secondary Reference Sperry (NPL “Flexible microelectrode array for interfacing with the surface of neural ganglia”).
2
1, 12
Sperry teaches describing coordinates of sensor circuitries where spikes were detected at a given time point (page 5, right col.-the distance of the neuronal source from the electrode ri(x,y,z), where (x,y,z) are the three unknown coordinates of the source location. Four known values of V(t) must be used to solve this equation’s four unknown values. Essentially, the distance from each electrode to the neural source is calculated, and the intersection of these distances is the location estimate. The mean peak voltage of the detected spike on each electrode was used as the feature for calculation, as this is assumed to be most representative of soma firing. The spikes were detected on a pentrode (five electrodes), which gave four sets of tetrodes (four electrodes) for estimation of the source location). Therefore, 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 invention of the US Patent to include describing coordinates of sensor circuitries where spikes were detected at a given time point of Sperry in order for neural source localization (Sperry, page 10, right col.) and to record and stimulate neural activity in acute procedures (Sperry, page 10, left col., last ¶).
3
2
4
3
5
4
6
5
7
6
8
7
9
8
10
9
11
10
12
11
13
12
14
13
15
14
16
15
17
16
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12064337 in view of Sperry and Luo (US 20030081134).
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection. 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 invention of the U.S. Patent to include the subject matter in Sperry and Luo as shown below.
Claims of the Present Application (18/762628)
Claims of US Patent 12064337
Secondary Reference Sperry (NPL “Flexible microelectrode array for interfacing with the surface of neural ganglia”).
Secondary Reference Luo (US 20030081134)
18
1, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19
Sperry teaches describing coordinates of sensor circuitries where spikes were detected at a given time point (page 5, right col.-the distance of the neuronal source from the electrode ri(x,y,z), where (x,y,z) are the three unknown coordinates of the source location. Four known values of V(t) must be used to solve this equation’s four unknown values. Essentially, the distance from each electrode to the neural source is calculated, and the intersection of these distances is the location estimate. The mean peak voltage of the detected spike on each electrode was used as the feature for calculation, as this is assumed to be most representative of soma firing. The spikes were detected on a pentrode (five electrodes), which gave four sets of tetrodes (four electrodes) for estimation of the source location); and a controller (page 4, left col., ¶2-Ripple Grapevine processor; page 4, right col., ¶1) configured to: receive the signal data (page 8, right col., ¶1-data from multiple array placements on multiple DRG allowed for simple somatotopy mapping of neural responses to several different types of sensory stimuli, including dermatome brushing and bladder pressure (figure 3(D)); page 8, left col., last ¶-a flexible thin-film multi electrode array to both record and stimulate neural activity in invertebrate ganglia (figure 2) and feline DRG (figures 3 and 4)); generate stimulation signals (page 8, left col., last ¶-a flexible thin-film multi electrode array to both record and stimulate neural activity in invertebrate ganglia (figure 2) and feline DRG (figures 3 and 4)); transmit the stimulation signals to the sensor array (page 8, left col., ¶3-electrical stimulation was applied to sacral DRG through the GSEA; page 8, left col., last ¶-a flexible thin-film multi electrode array to both record and stimulate neural activity in invertebrate ganglia (figure 2) and feline DRG (figures 3 and 4)), where the sensor array is further configured to provide stimulation based on the stimulation signals via the electrodes (page 3, left col., ¶2-a flexible polymer ganglionic surface electrode array (GSEA); page 10, left col., last ¶-type of array, once placed, can successfully record and stimulate neural activity in acute procedures). Therefore, 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 invention of the US Patent to include describing coordinates of sensor circuitries where spikes were detected at a given time point; and a controller configured to: receive the signal data; generate stimulation signals; transmit the stimulation signals to the sensor array, where the sensor array is further configured to provide stimulation based on the stimulation signals via the electrodes of Sperry in order for neural source localization (Sperry, page 10, right col.) and to record and stimulate neural activity in acute procedures (Sperry, page 10, left col., last ¶).
Luo teaches a transmission circuitry connected to the decoder configured to transit the signal data (¶37-a control logic device 16 is coupled to the PD pixel array 14, the row decoder 12 and the readout device 18, the row decoder 90 and a column decoder; ¶27-the readout device 18 can include logic for transmitting time values and/or address values in parallel or serially to an off-chip memory device; MPEP 2114: "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)). Therefore, 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 invention of the US Patent to include a transmission circuitry connected to the decoder configured to transit the signal data of Luo in order to associate a time with the firing of the fired pixels (Luo, ¶26; ¶28) and control the sampling of the PD pixel array using the row decoder and a column decoder (Luo, ¶37).
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12064337 in view of Sperry, Luo, and Gross (US 20190232051).
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection. 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 invention of the U.S. Patent to include the subject matter in Sperry, Luo, and Gross as shown below.
Claims of the Present Application (18/762628)
Claims of US Patent 12064337
Secondary Reference Sperry (NPL “Flexible microelectrode array for interfacing with the surface of neural ganglia”).
Secondary Reference Luo (US 20030081134)
Secondary Reference Gross (US 20190232051)
19
8
Gross teaches wherein dictionary-based artificial sight processes are used to generate the stimulation signals (Gross, ¶77-apparatus 20 performs an image registration process using the two separate sets of data (i.e., the image captured by imaging device 4080 and the image captured by photosensor array 6050) to generate a unified coordinate system, essentially achieving the same functionality as an eye tracking system which provides information regarding a gaze direction of the subject; ¶10-the stimulating electrodes are then driven to apply currents to the retina based on the processed image; ¶83). Therefore, 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 invention of the US Patent to include wherein dictionary-based artificial sight processes are used to generate the stimulation signals of Gross in order for restoring at least partial vision in a subject suffering from a retinal disease (Gross, ¶7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20150029372: relates to image sensors, and in particular, to image sensors producing a counter enable signal corresponding to a delayed ramp signal and a method of controlling the same (¶2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA HODGE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7101. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, UNSU JUNG can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/LAURA HODGE/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights