DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/08/2026 has been entered.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an apparatus configured to apply Transcranial Photobiomodulation (tPBM) to a person” in claim 1
“an apparatus configured to apply Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) to the person” in claim 1
“an apparatus configured to obtain Electro Encephalogram (EEG) signals from the person” in claim 1
“n apparatus configured to store a plurality of stimulation recipes” in claim 1
“an apparatus configured to provide a capability to define the plurality of stimulation recipes” in claim 1
“an apparatus configured to perform dynamic closed loop feedback of the tPBM and the tDCS using one of the plurality of defined stimulation recipes and based on the obtained EEG signals” in claim 1
“an apparatus configured to provide a capability to define the plurality of stimulation recipes” in claim 9
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, as explained below.
“an apparatus configured to apply Transcranial Photobiomodulation (tPBM) to a person” in claim 1 is interpreted as at least one LED, as recited in paragraphs [0007] and [0150]-[0150] of the instant specification, and equivalents thereof
“an apparatus configured to apply Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) to the person” in claim 1 is interpreted as a plurality of electrodes, as recited in paragraphs [0007] and [0151] of the instant specification, and equivalents thereof
“an apparatus configured to obtain Electro Encephalogram (EEG) signals from the person” in claim 1 is interpreted as EEG sensors, as recited in paragraph [0151] of the instant specification, and equivalents thereof
“n apparatus configured to store a plurality of stimulation recipes” in claim 1 is interpreted as a memory, as recited in paragraphs [0008] and [0622] of the instant specification, and equivalents thereof
“an apparatus configured to provide a capability to define the plurality of stimulation recipes” in claim 1 is interpreted as software, as recited in paragraph [0158] of the instant specification, and equivalents thereof
“an apparatus configured to perform dynamic closed loop feedback of the tPBM and the tDCS using one of the plurality of defined stimulation recipes and based on the obtained EEG signals” in claim 1 is interpreted as a processor, as recited in paragraphs [0008] and [0150] of the instant specification, and equivalents thereof
“an apparatus configured to provide a capability to define the plurality of stimulation recipes” in claim 9 is interpreted as software, as recited in paragraph [0158] of the instant specification, and equivalents thereof
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leyde, (US 20130046358) in view of Kagan et al., (US 20120143568; hereinafter Kagan), Hagedorn, (US 20140350431), Lim, (US 20180015301; hereinafter Lim), and Abreu, (US 20070106172).
Regarding claim 1, Leyde (Figures 1-2 and 6-7) discloses a device (20), ([0063]-[0064]) comprising: an apparatus (11) configured to apply Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) to a person ([0047], [0094]); an apparatus (9) configured to obtain Electro Encephalogram (EEG) signals from the person ([0041], [0047]); an apparatus (memory 38) configured to store a plurality of stimulation recipes defined using an apparatus (separate device comprising the observer algorithm) configured to provide the capability to define the plurality of stimulation recipes ([0054], [0056], [0062], [0087]-[0088]), and an apparatus (24) configured to perform dynamic closed loop feedback of the tDCS using one of the plurality of defined recipes and based on the obtained EEG signals ([0059], [0074], [0088], [0091]-[0092]).
Leyde fails to disclose wherein the dynamic closed loop feedback is performed using machine learning techniques to compute an optic and electric response that minimizes the difference between current and desired neural activity. However, Kagan (Figure 1) teaches a sensor-effector system (110), wherein closed loop feedback of the system is performed using machine learning techniques to compute an optic and electric response that minimizes the difference between current and desired neural activity ([0010]-[0011], [0015], [0017]-[0019], [0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leyde such that the closed loop feedback is performed using machine learning techniques to compute an optic and electric response that minimizes the difference between current and desired neural activity, as taught by Kagan, because the modification would provide a scalable, self-adaptive brain computer interface (BCI) platform to explore the architecture and operation of multi-scale, functional brain networks (Kagan; [0010]).
Leyde/Kagan fails to teach wherein the apparatus further comprises a visor configured to display multimedia information. However, Hagedorn (Figure 4) teaches a brain-computer interface system ([0050]) comprising a visor (460) configured to display multimedia information ([0051]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leyde/Kagan to include a visor configured to display multimedia information, as taught by Hagedorn, because the modification would provide optical stimulation and facilitate various types of operations, including clinical use applications, personal data collection or bio-hacking operations, gaming operations, amongst others (Hagedorn; [0016]).
Leyde/Kagan/Hagedorn fails to teach an apparatus configured to apply Transcranial Photobiomodulation (tPBM) to the person using electrical components mounted within a nostril of the person, wherein the electrical components are configured to include at least one light emitting diode (LED), further wherein the apparatus is configured to perform dynamic closed loop feedback of the tPBM in addition to the tDCS based on the obtained EEG signals. However, Lim (Figures 20-25) teaches a neurostimulation system including an apparatus (100) configured to apply tPBM to the person using electrical components (104) mounted within a nostril of the person ([0230], [0238]-[0240]), wherein the electrical components (104) are configured to include at least one LED (122), ([0241]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leyde/Kagan/Hagedorn to include an apparatus configured to apply tPBM to the person using electrical components mounted within a nostril of the person, wherein the electrical components are configured to include at least one LED, as taught by Lim, because the modification would provide a great potential to treat a wide range of medical conditions ([0012]). Furthermore, the therapeutic effects of brain-absorbed light energy are not accompanied by any substantive complications or major side effects (Lim; [0017]). In the modified device, the apparatus would still be configured to perform dynamic closed loop feedback of the neuromodulation signals based on the obtained EEG signals. The neuromodulation would be performed by the tBPM in addition to the tDCS in the modified device. Therefore, the feedback control apparatus would be configured to perform dynamic closed loop feedback of the tPBM and the tDCS based on the obtained EEG signals in the modified device.
Lim further teaches that the at least one LED (122) is attached to the user using a clip (120), ([0238]), but Leyde/Kagan/Hagedorn/Lim fails to teach a sliding mechanism operable to connect the visor to the at least one LED. However, Abreu (Figure 15X) teaches a headworn device comprising a sliding mechanism (3999) operable to connect a headworn frame (3980) to a nasal module (3998), ([0530]-[0531]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the nose clip connection taught by Lim with the sliding mechanism connection connecting the headworn frame (visor) to the nasal module (including the at least one LED in the modified device), as taught by Abreu, since both connection elements perform the same function of attaching the at least one nasal module to the user and it has been held that substituting parts of an invention which perform the same function involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.06 (II)(B).
Regarding claim 2, Leyde/Lim/Kagan/Hagedorn further teaches wherein the apparatus configured to apply the tPBM (Lim; [00230]-[0232]; element 100) comprises: the at least one LED (Lim; [0241]; element 122) configured to be mounted in the nostril of the person; a plurality of LEDs (Lim; [0241], elements 108, 110, 112, 114) configured to be mounted on a head of the person; and circuitry (106) configured to control an on/off state and an intensity of the at least one LED (Lim; [0241]; element 122) and the plurality of LEDs (Lim; [0241], elements 108, 110, 112, 114), (Lim; [0133], [0333]-[0338]).
Regarding claim 3, Leyde/Lim/Kagan/Hagedorn further teaches wherein the circuitry (Lim; 106) configured to control the on/off state and the intensity of the at least one LED (Lim; [0241]; element 122) and the plurality of LEDs (Lim; 108, 110, 112, 114) and an intensity of the LEDs (Lim; 108, 110, 112, 114) is further configured to control the on/off state of the plurality of LEDs (Lim; 108, 110, 112, 114) in a range of 10-40Hz (Lim; [0181], [0254]) and to control the intensity of the plurality of LEDs configured to be mounted on a head of the person in a range of 20 mW/cm2 to 60 mW/cm2. Leyde/Lim/Kagan fails to teach that said intensity is controlled in a range of 75mW/cm2 to 150mW/cm2. 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 Leyde/Lim/Kagan/Hagedorn such that said intensity is controlled in a range of 75mW/cm2 to 150mW/cm2 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, Leyde/Lim/Kagan/Hagedorn further teaches wherein the circuitry (Lim; 106) configured to control the on/off state and the intensity of the at least one LED (Lim; [0241]; element 122) and the plurality of LEDs (Lim; 108, 110, 112, 114) and an intensity of the LEDs (Lim; 108, 110, 112, 114) is further configured to control the intensity of the at least one LED (Lim; 122) configured to be mounted in the nostril of the person to be approximately 25mW/cm2 (Lim; [0254]).
Regarding claim 5, Leyde further discloses wherein the apparatus (11) configured to apply the tDCS comprises: a plurality of electrodes (I-P) configured to be mounted on a head of the person ([0046]); and circuitry (8) configured to control a current of the plurality of electrodes ([0094]).
Regarding claim 6, Leyde further discloses wherein the circuitry (8) configured to control the current of plurality of electrodes (11) is further configured to control the current of the electrodes (11) in a range of 1 to 4 mA ([0006]).
Regarding claim 7, Leyde further discloses wherein the circuitry (8) configured to control the current of the plurality of electrodes (11) is further configured to apply Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation (tACS), ([0094]).
Regarding claim 8, Leyde further discloses wherein the circuitry (8) configured to control the current of the plurality of electrodes (11) is further configured to apply tACS in a current range ±0.5 to ±2mA and a frequency range of 2 to 100 Hz ([0006]).
Regarding claim 9, Leyde (Figures 1-2 and 6-7) discloses a device (20), ([0063]-[0064]) comprising: a processor (4, 42), memory (38) accessible by the processor, and program instructions and data stored in the memory (38), ([0073]-[0074], [0091]); a plurality of electrodes (9, 11) connected to signal output circuitry interfacing the processor (4, 42) with the electrodes (9, 11), wherein the program instructions and data stored in the memory (38) are further configured so that the processor (4, 42) generates and transmits Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) signals to the plurality of electrodes (9, 11), ([0047], [0094]); wherein the program instructions and data stored in the memory (38) are further configured so that the processor (4, 42) receives Electro Encephalogram (EEG) signals from the electrodes (9, 11), connected to signal input circuitry ([0041], [0047]); wherein the program instructions and data stored in the memory (38) are further configured to store a plurality of stimulation recipes defined using an apparatus (separate device comprising the observer algorithm) configured to provide the capability to define the plurality of stimulation recipes ([0054], [0056], [0062], [0087]-[0088]) and are further configured so that the processor (4, 42) performs dynamic closed loop feedback of the tDCS signals based on the received EEG signals ([0059], [0074], [0088]).
Leyde fails to disclose wherein the closed loop feedback is performed using machine learning techniques to compute an optic and electric response that minimizes the difference between current and desired neural activity. However, Kagan (Figure 1) teaches a sensor-effector system (110), wherein closed loop feedback of the system is performed using machine learning techniques to compute an optic and electric response that minimizes the difference between current and desired neural activity ([0010]-[0011], [0015], [0017]-[0019], [0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leyde such that the closed loop feedback is performed using machine learning techniques to compute an optic and electric response that minimizes the difference between current and desired neural activity, as taught by Kagan, because the modification would provide a scalable, self-adaptive brain computer interface (BCI) platform to explore the architecture and operation of multi-scale, functional brain networks (Kagan; [0010]).
Leyde/Kagan fails to teach wherein the apparatus further comprises a visor configured to display multimedia information. However, Hagedorn (Figure 4) teaches a brain-computer interface system ([0050]) comprising a visor (460) configured to display multimedia information ([0051]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leyde/Kagan to include a visor configured to display multimedia information, as taught by Hagedorn, because the modification would provide optical stimulation and facilitate various types of operations, including clinical use applications, personal data collection or bio-hacking operations, gaming operations, amongst others (Hagedorn; [0016]).
Leyde fails to disclose electrical components mounted within a nostril of a person, wherein the electrical components are operable to include at least one of a plurality of LEDs connected to signal output circuitry interfacing the processor with the plurality of LEDs, wherein the program instructions and data stored in the memory are configured so that the processor generates and transmits Transcranial Photobiomodulation (tPBM) signals to the at least one of the plurality of LEDs; wherein the program instructions and data stored in the memory are further configured so that the processor performs dynamic closed loop feedback of the tPBM signals in addition to the tDCS signals based on the received EEG signals. However, Lim (Figures 20-25) teaches a neurostimulation system including an apparatus (100) comprising electrical components (104) mounted within a nostril of a person, wherein the electrical components (104) are operable to include at least one of a plurality of LEDs (122) configured to apply tPBM to the person ([0007], [0230]-[0232], [0238]-[0241]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Leyde to include a plurality of LEDs mounted within a nostril of a person, the LEDs configured to apply tPBM to the person, as taught by Lim, because the modification would provide a great potential to treat a wide range of medical conditions ([0012]). Furthermore, the therapeutic effects of brain-absorbed light energy are not accompanied by any substantive complications or major side effects (Lim; [0017]). In the modified device, the processor would still be configured to perform dynamic closed loop feedback of the neuromodulation signals based on the obtained EEG signals. The neuromodulation would be performed by the tBPM in addition to the tDCS in the modified device. Therefore, the modified device would include a plurality of LEDs connected to signal output circuitry interfacing the processor with the LEDs, wherein the program instructions and data stored in the memory are configured so that the processor generates and transmits tPBM signals to the LEDs; wherein the program instructions and data stored in the memory are further configured so that the processor performs dynamic closed loop feedback of the tPBM signals and the tDCS signals based on the received EEG signals.
Lim further teaches that the at least one LED (122) is attached to the user using a clip (120), ([0238]), but Leyde/Kagan/Hagedorn/Lim fails to teach a sliding mechanism operable to connect the visor to the at least one LED. However, Abreu (Figure 15X) teaches a headworn device comprising a sliding mechanism (3999) operable to connect a headworn frame (3980) to a nasal module (3998), ([0530]-[0531]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the nose clip connection taught by Lim with the sliding mechanism connection connecting the headworn frame (visor) to the nasal module (including the at least one LED in the modified device), as taught by Abreu, since both connection elements perform the same function of attaching the at least one nasal module to the user and it has been held that substituting parts of an invention which perform the same function involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.06 (II)(B).
Regarding claim 10, Leyde/Lim/Kagan/Hagedorn further teaches wherein the plurality of LEDs (Lim; [0241]; elements 108, 110, 112, 114, 122) comprises: the at least one of the plurality of LEDs (Lim; 122) configured to be mounted in the nostril of the person; and a second plurality of the plurality of LEDs (Lim; 108, 110, 112, 114) configured to be mounted on a head of the person (Lim; [0230]-[0232], [0241]).
Regarding claim 11, Leyde/Lim/Kagan/Hagedorn further teaches wherein the program instructions and data to generate and transmit the tPBM signals are further configured to control an on/off state and an intensity of the at least one of the plurality of LEDs (Lim; 122) and second plurality of the plurality of LEDs (Lim; 108, 110, 112, 114), (Lim; [0133], [0333]-[0334]).
Regarding claim 12, Leyde/Lim/Kagan/Hagedorn further teaches wherein the program instructions and data to generate and transmit the tPBM signals are further configured to control the on/off state of the at least one of the plurality of LEDs (Lim; 122) in a frequency range of 10-40Hz (Lim; [0181], [0254]) and to control the intensity of the second plurality of the plurality of LEDs (Lim; 108, 110, 112, 114), configured to be mounted on the head of the person in a range of 20 mW/cm2 to 60 mW/cm2. Leyde/Lim/Kagan fails to teach that said intensity is controlled in a range of 75mW/cm2 to 150mW/cm2. 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 Leyde/Lim/Kagan/Hagedorn such that said intensity is controlled in a range of 75mW/cm2 to 150mW/cm2 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, Leyde/Lim/Kagan/Hagedorn further teaches wherein the program instructions and data to generate and transmit the tPBM signals are further configured to control the intensity of the at least one of the plurality of LEDs (Lim; 122) configured to be mounted in the nostril of the person to be approximately 25mW/cm2 (Lim; [0254]).
Regarding claim 14, Leyde further discloses wherein the plurality of electrodes (11) connected to signal output circuitry comprises a plurality of electrodes (I-P) configured to be mounted on a head of the person ([0094]).
Regarding claim 15, Leyde further discloses wherein the program instructions and data to generate and transmit tDCS signals are further configured to control the current of the plurality of electrodes connected to the signal output circuitry (11) in a range of 1 to4 mA ([0006]).
Regarding claim 16, Leyde further discloses wherein the program instructions and data is configured so that the processor generates and transmits Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation (tACS) signals to the plurality of electrodes connected to the signal output circuitry (11), ([0094]).
Regarding claim 17, Leyde further discloses wherein the program instructions and the data to generate and transmit the tACS signals are further configured to control the current of the plurality of electrodes connected to the signal output circuitry (11) to apply the tACS signals in a current range ±0.5 to ±2mA and a frequency range of 2 to 100 Hz ([0006]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/08/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17 under 35 U.S.C 103 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 reference Abreu and a new interpretation of Lim. Under the new interpretation, Lim teaches a neurostimulation system in which nose-mounted LEDs on a nasal module are configured to apply tPBM signals to the patient, wherein the nasal module is attached to the patient using a nose clip. Abreu teaches a headworn device in which a nasal module is attached to the patient using a sliding mechanism connecting a headworn frame to the nasal module. Therefore, the new Leyde/Kagan/Hagedorn/Lim/Abreu combination teaches the invention as recited at least in newly amended independent claims 1 and 9.
Conclusion
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
