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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figure 1: Please provide text labels inside the empty boxes.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-12 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 1, line 4: “an electronics” is grammatically unclear.
Claim 2: “the ratio”, “the ON ganglion cells and OFF ganglion cells” lack proper antecedent basis.
Claims 5, 10-12: Unclear what signal aspect is intended to be covered by “repetition rate”, since a frequency is already recited.
Claim 6: Unclear because the claim does not recite a transitional phrase (i.e. “comprising”) and does not clearly recite method steps.
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, 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fan (US 2020/0069945).
Regarding claims 1, 6, Fan discloses the same invention as claimed, including an arrangement for stimulating a retina (abstract; Figure 1), comprising: a camera (Paragraph 51), a multiplicity of electrodes for interacting with the retina (Paragraph 51), an electronics package (Paragraph 51) configured to use an image evaluation algorithm to determine a respective target value for the stimulation of the retina for a multiplicity of pixels from a camera signal output by the camera (Paragraphs 49-50), to use a decoding algorithm to determine a respective set of stimulation parameters for each of the pixels on the basis of the determined target value (Paragraphs 49-50), to output a stimulation signal to one of the electrodes for each of the pixels on the basis of the set of stimulation parameters in order to stimulate the retina (Paragraphs 49-50), to receive action potentials, created by the retina, for each of the pixels via one of the electrodes (Paragraphs 49-50), to use a classification algorithm to determine an actual value of the stimulation of the retina for each of the pixels from the action potentials received (Paragraphs 49-50), to use an optimization algorithm to adjust the determination of the set of stimulation parameters for each of the pixels on the basis of the determined target value and the determined actual value, in such a way that the actual value approaches the target value (Paragraphs 7, 49-50), wherein at least the multiplicity of electrodes are formed as part of a retinal implant of the arrangement (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Fan discloses stimulation typically comprises an amplitude and frequency or repetition rate as recited (Paragraph 5).
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, 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (US 2020/0069945) in view of Nirenberg (US 2013/0289668).
Regarding claim 2, Fan does not disclose a ratio of ON and OFF ganglion cells to be excited as recited. However, Nirenberg teaches determining stimulation based on a ratio of ON and OFF ganglion cells as recited (Paragraphs 236, 296), in order to mimic natural retinal stimulation (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fan as taught by Nirenberg to include a ratio of ON and OFF ganglion cells to be excited as recited, in order to mimic natural retinal stimulation.
Regarding claims 3, 7, Fan does not disclose a neural network as recited. However, Nirenberg teaches optimizing stimulation via a neural network as recited (Paragraph 108), in order to efficiently optimize the stimulation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fan as taught by Nirenberg to include a neural network as recited, in order to efficiently optimize the stimulation.
Regarding claims 4, 8, 9, Fan does not disclose sinusoidal signals as recited. However, Nirenberg teaches stimulating via sinusoidal signals as recited (Paragraph 95; signals are superimposed at least due to limited spatial proximity on retinal array), in order to stimulate the retina. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fan as taught by Nirenberg to include sinusoidal signals as recited, in order to stimulate the retina.
Regarding claims 10-12, Fan discloses stimulation typically comprises an amplitude and frequency or repetition rate as recited (Paragraph 5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chichilnisky (US 2024/0359009) shows calibrating a retinal stimulator by recording activation responses.
Greenberg (US 2006/0184062) shows fitting a retinal stimulator by recording neural activity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eugene T Wu whose telephone number is (571)270-5053. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Carl Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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.
/Eugene T Wu/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights