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 .
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 18-37 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11672971. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the current application and the US Patent claim device for evoking a virtual sensation in a user, the device comprising: at least one electrode electrically coupled to the user; a signal generator circuitry electrically coupled to the at least one electrode, the signal generator circuitry is configured to generate via the electrode a stimulation signal to evoke the virtual sensation stimulation comprising an amplitude.
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) 18-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tan et al. (A neural interface provides long-term stable natural touch perception filed on 10/8/2014). Examiner finds support for the current application claims pertaining back to PCT/US2014/070435 filed on 12/16/2014).
Regarding claim 18, Tan discloses a device for evoking a virtual sensation in a user, the device comprising:
at least one electrode electrically coupled to the user (Page 7, paragraph 1, 3);
a signal generator circuitry electrically coupled to the at least one electrode (page 11, paragraph 1), the signal generator circuitry is configured to generate via the electrode a stimulation signal to evoke the virtual sensation (page 12, paragraph 5), the stimulation signal comprising:
a first plurality of pulses having a first amplitude (Page 18 Fig. 2B, 1.1mA); and
a second plurality of pulses having a second amplitude different from the first amplitude (Page 18 Fig. 2B, 2.0 mA).
Regarding claim 19, Tan discloses the device of claim 18, wherein
the second plurality of pulses is generated after the first plurality of pulses (Page 18 Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 20, Tan discloses the device of claim 18, wherein
the first plurality of pulses is generated with the second plurality of pulses (Page 18 Fig. 2A-B).
Regarding claim 21, Tan discloses the device of claim 18, wherein
the first plurality of pulses comprises two or more pulses (Page 18, Figs. 2A-B).
Regarding claim 22, Tan discloses the device of claim 18, wherein
the first plurality of pulses has a first duration and the second plurality of pulses has a second duration different from the first duration (Page 18, Figs. 2B).
Regarding claim 23, Tan discloses the device of claim 18, wherein
at least one pulse of the first plurality of pulses has a different amplitude than at least one other pulse of the first plurality of pulses (Fig. 2B, M5).
Regarding claim 26, Tan discloses The device of claim 18, wherein
a first population of axons is recruited in response to the first plurality of pulses and a second population of axons is recruited in response to the second plurality of pulses (Page 7 paragraphs 3-4).
Regarding claim 27, Tan discloses the device of claim 18, wherein
each pulse of the stimulation signal is a charge balanced pulse (Page 11 paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 28, Tan discloses the device of claim 18, wherein
the signal generator circuitry is further configured to modulate at least one of pulse width or interpulse interval of at least one of the first plurality of pulses or the second plurality of pulses (page 11, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 29, Tan discloses the device of claim 18, wherein
the stimulation signal comprises a predefined envelope that is base, at least in part, on the user (Fig. 3, Page 19).
Regarding claim 30, Tan discloses a stimulation device for evoking a virtual sensation by mimicking a biological signal in a user, the device comprising:
a signal receiver configured to receive an instruction from a computing device comprising a user interface (Page 11, paragraph 1), the instruction to evoke the virtual sensation (page 12, paragraph 5);
at least one electrode, each configured to conductively couple to the user proximate to a population of axons (Page 11 paragarph 3) associated with a radial nerve section of the user (Page 10 paragraph 3); and
a signal generator electrically coupled to the at least one electrode (Page 11 paragraph 1), the configured to generate a stimulation signal comprising at least one charge balanced electrical pulse at a defined amplitude and duration (Page 11, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 31, Tan discloses the stimulation device of claim 30, wherein
the stimulation signal comprises a plurality of pulses having at least two different amplitudes (Fig. 2B, M5).
Regarding claim 32, Tan discloses The stimulation device of claim 30, wherein
the instruction received by the signal receiver specifies a type of virtual sensation (Page 12, paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 33, Tan discloses The stimulation device of claim 30, wherein
the stimulation signal is delivered through the electrode to evoke a sense of touch based at least in part on a virtual object rendered on the user interface (Fig. 1, Page 16-17).
Regarding claim 34, Tan discloses The stimulation device of claim 30, wherein
the signal generator is further configured to modulate a pulse width or interpulse interval of the stimulation signal based on the instruction (Page 11, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 35, Tan discloses a method for evoking a virtual sensation in a user by mimicking a biological signal (abstract), the method comprising:
receiving, by a signal receiver, an instruction from a computing device comprising a user interface, the instruction indicating a virtual sensation to be evoked (page 12, paragraph 5);
generating, by a signal generator electrically coupled to an electrode (Page 11 paragraph 1), a stimulation signal comprising at least one charge-balanced electrical pulse having a defined amplitude and duration based at least in part on the instruction (Page 11 paragraph 2 Page 18, Fig. 2B); and
applying the stimulation signal via the electrode to the user to evoke the virtual sensation (page 12, paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 36, Tan discloses The method of claim 35, comprising
generating a second stimulation signal comprising a plurality of charge-balanced pulses (Page 11 paragraph 2) having a second amplitude different from the defined amplitude of the first stimulation signal (Page 18 Fig. 2B, 2.0 mA).
Regarding claim 37, Tan discloses The method of claim 35, wherein
the stimulation signal evokes a sense of touch associated with a virtual object rendered on the user interface of the computing device (Fig. 1, Page 16-17).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JON ERIC C MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-3107. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 830AM-530PM CST.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/JON ERIC C MORALES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/J.C.M/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights