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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nurmikko et al., (US 20140094674; hereinafter Nurmikko).
Regarding claim 1, Nurmikko (Figures 2, 5, and 8-9) discloses a system for providing electrical and optical stimulation ([0049]-[0052]), comprising: an implantable device (206), ([0058]), including at least one radio frequency (RF) antenna (505), ([0063]-[0064]); a tether (205), ([0058]); and at least one implantable probe (204), ([0058]), including an application specific integrated circuit (805), ([0072]); wherein the at least one implantable probe (204) includes a plurality of electrodes and optrodes protruding from a distal end of the at least one implantable probe (204), ([0050], [0057]: the elements of the probe 204 may be configured to transmit electrical or optical signals); wherein each electrode or optrode in the plurality of electrodes and optrodes is operable to electrically stimulate at least one region of interest ([0049]-[0055]); and wherein each electrode or optrode of the plurality of electrodes and optrodes is operable to measure single unit activity and/or local field potential in the at least one region of interest ([0049]-[0055]); and wherein the tether (205) facilitates communication between the implantable device (206) and the at least one implantable probe (204), ([0057]-[0058]), and wherein the implantable device (206) and the at least one implantable probe (204) are located in separate regions or layers of a cerebral cortex ([0057]-[0058]).
Regarding claim 5, Nurmikko (Figures 2, 5, and 8-9) further discloses wherein the implantable device (206) further includes at least one induction coil (506) to facilitate wireless charging of the rechargeable battery (0063]-[0064]).
Regarding claim 6, Nurmikko (Figures 2, 5, and 8-9) further discloses wherein the at least one RF antenna (505) facilitates communication with at least one external device (external receiving unit), ([0063]-[0064], [0072]).
Regarding claim 8, Nurmikko (Figures 2, 5, and 8-9) further discloses a monitoring system (916) operable to provide thermal and/or battery management ([0073]: battery management).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nurmikko as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arumugam et al., (US 20150250421; hereinafter Arumugam).
Regarding claim 2, Nurmikko fails to disclose wherein the plurality of electrodes and/or optrodes are comprised of carbon nanotubes (CNTs). However, Arumugam teaches functional elements/electrodes which are comprised of carbon nanotubes ([0016]-[0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nurmikko to include the plurality of electrodes and/or optrodes comprising carbon nanotubes, as taught by Arumugam, because the modification would provide electrodes which are highly biocompatible, highly resistive to surface fouling and functional for extended time periods in chronic implants (Arumugam; [0016]).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nurmikko as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Nurmikko discloses the system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the plurality of electrodes and/or optrodes include at least 256 electrodes. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nurmikko to include the plurality of electrodes and/or optrodes including at least 256 electrodes since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Nurmikko (Figures 2, 5, and 8-9) further discloses wherein the implantable device includes a rechargeable battery ([0063]), but fails to disclose the battery having a lifespan of at least 20 years and/or a battery life of at least 30 hours. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nurmikko to include the battery having a lifespan of at least 20 years and/or a battery life of at least 30 hours since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 9, 11, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nurmikko in view of Arumugam.
Regarding claim 9, Nurmikko (Figures 2, 5, and 8-9) discloses a system for providing electrical stimulation ([0049]-[0052]), comprising: an implantable device (206), ([0058]); a tether (205), ([0058]); and at least one implantable probe (204), ([0058]), comprising an application specific integrated circuit (805), ([0072]); wherein the at least one implantable probe (204) includes a plurality of electrodes protruding from a distal end of the at least one implantable probe (204), ([0050], [0057]: the elements of the probe 204 may be configured to transmit electrical or optical signals); wherein each electrode of the plurality of electrodes is operable to electrically stimulate at least one region of interest ([0049]-[0055]); wherein each electrode of the plurality of electrodes is operable to measure single unit activity and/or local field potential in the at least one region of interest ([0049]-[0055]); and wherein the tether (205) facilitates communication between the implantable device (206) and the at least one implantable probe (204), ([0057]-[0058]), and wherein the implantable device (206) and the at least one implantable probe (204) are located in separate regions or layers of a cerebral cortex ([0057]-[0058]).
Nurmikko fails to disclose that the plurality of electrodes is a plurality of CNT electrodes. However, Arumugam teaches functional elements/electrodes which are comprised of carbon nanotubes ([0016]-[0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nurmikko to include the plurality of electrodes as a plurality of CNT electrodes, as taught by Arumugam, because the modification would provide electrodes which are highly biocompatible, highly resistive to surface fouling and functional for extended time periods in chronic implants (Arumugam; [0016]).
Regarding claim 11, Nurmikko (Figures 2, 5, and 8-9) further discloses wherein the implantable device (206) further includes at least one radio frequency antenna (505), ([0063]-[0064]).
Regarding claim 15, Nurmikko (Figures 2, 5, and 8-9) further discloses wherein the at least one region of interest includes individual neurons and/or groups of neurons associated with movement disorders from neurological diseases ([0004], [0049]-[0055]).
Regarding claim 17, Nurmikko (Figures 2, 5, and 8-9) discloses a system for providing electrical stimulation ([0049]-[0055]), comprising: an implantable device (206), ([0058]), including at least one radio frequency antenna (505), ([0063]-[0064]); a tether (205), ([0058]); and at least one implantable probe (204), ([0058]), comprising an application specific integrated circuit (805), ([0072]); wherein the at least one implantable probe (204) includes a plurality of electrodes and optrodes protruding from a distal end of the at least one implantable probe (204), ([0050], [0057]: the elements of the probe 204 may be configured to transmit electrical or optical signals); wherein each electrode or optrode of the plurality of electrodes and optrodes is operable to electrically stimulate at least one region of interest ([0049]-[0055]); wherein each electrode or optrode of the plurality of electrodes and optrodes is operable to measure single unit activity and/or local field potential in the at least one region of interest ([0049]-[0055]); and wherein the tether (205) facilitates communication between the implantable device (206) and the at least one implantable probe (204), ([0057]-[0058]), and wherein the implantable device (206) and the at least one implantable probe (204) are located in separate regions or layers of a cerebral cortex ([0057]-[0058]).
Nurmikko fails to disclose that the plurality of electrodes is a plurality of CNT electrodes. However, Arumugam teaches functional elements/electrodes which are comprised of carbon nanotubes ([0016]-[0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nurmikko to include the plurality of electrodes as a plurality of CNT electrodes, as taught by Arumugam, because the modification would provide electrodes which are highly biocompatible, highly resistive to surface fouling and functional for extended time periods in chronic implants (Arumugam; [0016]).
Claim(s) 10, 12-13, 16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nurmikko/Arumugam as applied to claims 9 and 17 above.
Regarding claim 10, Nurmikko/Arumugam fails to teach wherein the plurality of CNT electrodes include at least 512 CNT electrodes. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nurmikko/Arumugam to include the plurality of CNT electrodes including at least 512 CNT electrodes since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 12, Nurmikko/Arumugam fails to teach wherein each CNT electrode has a diameter of less than 10 pm and/or a length between about 1.2 mm and about 4.8 mm. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nurmikko/Arumugam to include each CNT electrode having a diameter of less than 10 pm and/or a length between about 1.2 mm and about 4.8 mm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 13, Nurmikko/Arumugam fails to teach wherein each CNT electrode of the plurality of CNT electrodes delivers an electrical charge of at least 10 nanocoulombs (nC). However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nurmikko/Arumugam to include each CNT electrode of the plurality of CNT electrodes delivering an electrical charge of at least 10 nC since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 16, Nurmikko/Arumugam fails to teach wherein the ASIC consumes no more than 15 mW of power. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nurmikko/Arumugam to include the ASIC consuming no more than 15 mW of power since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 18, Nurmikko/Arumugam fails to teach wherein each CNT electrode of the plurality of electrodes and/or optrodes has a diameter of less than 10 pm and/or a length between about 1.2 mm and about 4.8 mm. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nurmikko/Arumugam to include each CNT of the plurality of CNT electrodes and/or optrodes having a diameter of less than 10 pm and/or a length between about 1.2 mm and about 4.8 mm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 19, Nurmikko (Figures 2, 5, and 8-9) further discloses wherein the implantable device includes a rechargeable battery ([0063]), but Nurmikko/Arumugam fails to teach the battery having a lifespan of at least 50 years and/or a battery life of at least 30 hours. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nurmikko/Arumugam to include the battery having a lifespan of at least 50 years and/or a battery life of at least 30 hours since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nurmikko/Arumugam as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of MACNICA RELEASES SLVS-EC INTERFACE IP CORE FOR FPGA. (2016). In Computer Protocols (Vol. 30, Issue 12). Worldwide Videotex (hereinafter Macnica).
Regarding claim 7, Nurmikko/Arumugam fails to teach wherein the ASIC comprises at least one Scalable Low-Voltage Signaling with Embedded Clock (SLVS-EC). However, Macnica teaches a SLVS-EC interface for CMOS sensors (Page 2, lines 32-38; Page 3, lines 5-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nurmikko/Arumugam to include the ASIC comprising at least one SLVS-EC, as taught by Macnica, because the modification would provide high speed data transfer (Macnica; Page 3, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 14, Nurmikko/Arumugam fails to teach wherein the ASIC further comprises at least one Scalable Low-Voltage Signaling with Embedded Clock (SLVS-EC). However, Macnica teaches a SLVS-EC interface for CMOS sensors (Page 2, lines 32-38; Page 3, lines 5-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nurmikko/Arumugam to include the ASIC comprising at least one SLVS-EC, as taught by Macnica, because the modification would provide high speed data transfer (Macnica; Page 3, lines 5-10).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nurmikko/Arumugam as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Tadi et al., (US 20160235323; hereinafter Tadi).
Regarding claim 20, Nurmikko/Arumugam fails to teach wherein the implantable device further comprises a low-power neural processing unit (NPU) and/or an integrated inertial measurement unit (IMU). However, Tadi (Figure 9) teaches an implantable device comprising an integrated inertial measurement unit (29), ([0170], [0173]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nurmikko/Arumugam to include an integrated inertial measurement unit, as taught by Tadi, because the modification would provide tracking of head movement to segment physiological data where the data quality might be degraded due to movement (Tadi; [0170], [0173]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/07/2026, directed to the newly amended limitations of claims 1, 9, and 17, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) has/have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art references Nurmikko, which teaches the base system for providing electrical and optical stimulation, and Arumugam, which teaches using carbon nanotube electrodes. Therefore, Nurmikko discloses the invention as recited at least in amended claim 1 and Nurmikko/Arumugam teaches the invention as recited at least in amended claims 9 and 17.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE PREMRAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-8013. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at 571-272-1213. 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.
/C.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/EUN HWA KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights