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 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.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 05/18/2026 (“Amendment”). Claims 1-7, 9-12, and 21-28 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 9, 11, 12, and 23, as well as the cancellation of claim 8, and the addition of new claims 27-29. Claims 13 and 16-18 remain withdrawn, and newly added claim 29 is withdrawn.
The objection(s) to the drawings, specification, and/or claims, the interpretation(s) under 35 USC 112(f), and/or the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 and/or 35 USC 112 not reproduced below has/have been withdrawn in view of the corresponding amendments.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 12, the recitation of “and/or lowing” should instead read –and/or lowering--.
Regarding claim 23, the recitation of “said one or more training sessions” should instead read –said at least one training session--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 11, 12, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over various teachings of US Patent Application Publication 2019/0159715 (“Mishra”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2009/0069707 (“Sandford”).
Regarding claim 1, Mishra teaches [a] method for training a subject diagnosed with a stress disorder caused by a trauma (Abstract, cognitive fitness training, ¶ 0026, PTSD), comprising: exposing said subject during at least one training session to a scenario …, wherein said scenario … comprises a challenge expected to trigger at least one symptom of said stress disorder (Fig. 1, stimulus 101, ¶ 0149 - also see ¶ 0120, neural feedback is part of a feedback loop that influences subsequent rounds of the cognitive task, such as whether difficulty is increased or decreased. This involves a selection. ¶ 0127 describes an appropriate difficulty level, and ¶ 0165 describes cognitive impairment as a symptom of PTSD. Thus, the cognitive task at a particular difficulty level is expected to trigger a symptom, i.e., cognitive impairment, at least some of the time (¶ 0127). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the difficulty to a point where the cognitive impairment (or any other symptom) was likely to emerge, for the purpose of training the individual (i.e., you want to train a person having PTSD (¶ 0026), and presenting some degree of difficulty is the way to do it) – also see ¶ 0092; ¶ 0149 describes delivering the challenge/stimulus via an interface such as a display); …; recording electrical signals generated by the brain of said subject by at least one electrode, in conjunction with said exposing (Fig. 1, ¶ 0087 – also see ¶ 0092, describing the stimulus and recorded signals being time-locked); processing during said exposing said recorded electrical signals to estimate an activation level of at least one specific brain region (¶ 0059, evaluating neural performance relative to various standards such as a subject’s prior performance or the level equivalent to an average healthy subject – also see ¶ 0185, describing the calculation of average cognitive efficiency, and ¶¶s 0081, 0082, etc., describing measuring e.g. an increase or decrease of neural activity of a particular brain structure such as the amygdala; ¶ 0061, real-time); presenting during said exposing at least one indication of said estimated activation level to said subject (¶ 0123, neural performance level is provided as feedback to the subject. ¶ 0115, providing feedback as positive or negative indicators based on desired or undesired outcomes), wherein said presenting comprises providing feedback to said subject by modifying said scenario delivered to said subject during said exposing, according to said activation level of said at least one specific brain region (as above, ¶ 0120 describes neural feedback as influencing subsequent rounds of the cognitive task, such as whether difficulty is increased or decreased – also see ¶ 0124, etc.), …; and repeating said recording, said processing and said presenting (Fig. 1, ¶¶s 0122, 0123, etc., a feedback loop – also see ¶ 0124, multiple sessions).
Mishra does not appear to explicitly teach exposing said subject to a scenario having an unrest level, wherein said scenario is configured to move between a resting state and an agitated state, wherein said scenario comprises one or more objects in an agitated state or in a resting state, wherein a relation between said agitated state and said resting state, or said one or more objects, determine said unrest level of said scenario; instructing said subject to apply during said exposing at least one mental strategy, to lower said unrest level of said scenario, wherein said modifying comprises modifying during said exposing said unrest level of said scenario according to said activation level of said at least one specific brain region (although e.g. ¶ 0118 does describe presenting a cognitive task in the form of e.g. a video game, and providing feedback as in-game rewards or penalties; Fig. 1, behavioral response 103; ¶ 0057, instructing the individual to perform a task of e.g. identifying or recognizing a particular stimulus, and e.g. acting on it by pressing a button, ¶¶s 0065, 0066, 0183, etc.).
Sandford teaches a video-game based neurofeedback modality that e.g. slows down objects/targets to make them easier to hit when a user is focusing (i.e., achieving a desired mental state or activation level via a mental strategy), and speeding them up otherwise (¶ 0015). The unrest level is the speed of the objects, which can move between a resting state (slow) and an agitated state (fast). A lowered unrest level of the scenario corresponds to one in which the objects move more slowly. The unrest level is modified based on activation level.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the video-game based neurofeedback of Mishra as in Sandford, by e.g. presenting a scenario comprising moving target objects that determine an unrest level, instructing users to perform an activity such as paying attention or focusing, and presenting an indication by slowing down the moving objects (i.e., modifying the scenario) in response to the activity, for the purpose of enhancing neurofeedback training (Sandford: ¶ 0015), and as the simple substitution of one known means of neurofeedback training for another with predictable results (helping users focus via a reward mechanism).
Regarding claim 2, Mishra-Sandford teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Mishra-Sandford further teaches wherein said exposing to said challenge affects an activation level of said at least one specific brain region (Mishra: ¶ 0059, evaluating neural performance relative to various standards such as a subject’s prior performance or the level equivalent to an average healthy subject – also see ¶ 0185, describing the calculation of average cognitive efficiency, and ¶¶s 0081, 0082, etc., describing measuring e.g. an increase or decrease of neural activity of a particular brain structure such as the amygdala).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Mishra-Sandford teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Mishra-Sandford further teaches wherein said at least one specific brain region is a brain region of a limbic system, wherein said challenge comprises a challenge selected to activate an amygdala and/or brain regions connected to the amygdala by a neural network (Mishra: ¶ 0082, amygdala (limbic system)(limbic lobe)).
Regarding claim 6, Mishra-Sandford teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Mishra-Sandford further teaches wherein said stress disorder comprises post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Mishra: ¶¶s 0026, 0165, etc.).
Regarding claim 7, Mishra-Sandford teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Mishra-Sandford further teaches wherein said challenge is selected to upregulate activation of said at least one specific brain region, and wherein said at least one indication is continuously presented according to an ability of said subject to downregulate said activation level (Mishra: ¶¶s 0120, 0124, etc., adjusting difficulty based on biofeedback to train the subject; ¶ 0197, challenging an individual to improve on the extent of their neural signal modulation, which includes decreasing difficulty when cognitive impairment is evident, or increasing difficulty when improvement is observed (¶¶s 0120, 0127, 0165, 0190, etc.)).
Regarding claim 9, Mishra-Sandford teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Mishra-Sandford further teaches wherein said presenting comprises presenting said at least one indication according to an ability of said subject to modulate an activation level of said at least one specific brain region by performing said at least one mental strategy (Mishra: as above in e.g. ¶¶s 0120, 0127, etc., the biofeedback is based on the success or failure of the subject in performing the task – also see ¶ 0165, describing using the biofeedback training to combat anxiety, stress, panic, etc.).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Mishra-Sandford teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Mishra-Sandford further teaches wherein said providing feedback comprises continuously modifying an intensity or severity of said challenge and/or continuously modifying said unrest level of said scenario, according to said activation level of said at least one specific brain region (Mishra: ¶ 0120, based on the biofeedback - also see ¶ 0124, etc.), wherein said continuously modifying comprises lowering an intensity or severity of said challenge if an activation level of said at least one specific brain region is lowered, and/or lowing said unrest level if said activation level of said at least one specific brain region is lowered, based on said processing (Mishra: ¶ 0197, challenging an individual to improve on the extent of their neural signal modulation, which includes decreasing difficulty when cognitive impairment is evident (¶¶s 0120, 0127, 0165, 0190, etc.)).
Regarding claim 21, Mishra-Sandford teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Mishra-Sandford further teaches wherein said at least one mental strategy comprises a self-generated mental strategy generated by the subject (Sandford: ¶ 0015, their own way of focusing).
Regarding claim 22, Mishra-Sandford teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Mishra-Sandford further teaches generating an indication based on an ability of said subject to reach a desired activation level of said at least one specific brain region by applying said at least one mental strategy (Sandford: ¶ 0015, slowing the moving targets down).
Regarding claim 23, Mishra-Sandford teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Mishra-Sandford further teaches wherein said scenario having said unrest level is suitable to evoke a stress response in said subject during said one or more training sessions (Mishra: ¶¶s 0135, 0165 – also see Fig. 1, stimulus 101, ¶ 0082, detecting activity from the amygdala).
Regarding claims 24 and 25, Mishra-Sandford teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Mishra-Sandford further teaches wherein said providing feedback comprises continuously modifying during said exposing said unrest level of said scenario according to said activation level of said at least one specific brain region (Sandford: ¶ 0015, modifying the speed of the targets based on focus), wherein said continuously modifying comprises lowering said unrest level of said scenario if an activation level of said at least one specific brain region is lowered, based on said processing (Sandford: ¶ 0015, lowering the speed of the targets when there is greater focus. It would have been obvious to do this based on e.g. lower activation of the limbic region, which corresponds to less stress/panic).
Regarding claim 26, Mishra-Sandford teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Mishra-Sandford further teaches wherein said scenario comprises characters and wherein behavior of said characters in said scenario is modified according to said activation level of said at least one specific brain region (Sandford: ¶ 0015, modifying the speed of the targets (which may be characters) based on focus – also see ¶ 0016, using game characters).
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra-Sandford in view of US Patent Application Publication 2014/0148657 (“Hendler”).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Mishra-Sandford teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Mishra-Sandford does not appear to explicitly teach identifying a relation between at least a portion of said recorded electrical signals and an electrical fingerprint indicating an activation level of said at least one brain region, and wherein said presenting comprises presenting said at least one indication based on said identified relation, or providing at least one EEG electrical fingerprint indicating an activity level of said at least one specific brain region, and wherein said processing comprises processing said recorded electrical signals with said at least one EEG electrical fingerprint to identify a relation between at least a portion of said electrical signals and said at least one EEG electrical fingerprint, and wherein said activation level of said at least one specific brain region is estimated based on said identified relation.
Hendler teaches identifying a relationship between brain electrical activity and a fingerprint/signature (¶¶s 0013, 0100, etc.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify a relation between the recorded brain signals of the combination and an electrical fingerprint indicating activation level of a particular brain region (or to provide the fingerprint and identify a relation to estimate an activation level), as in Hendler, for the purpose of more easily identifying a brain state or response (Hendler: ¶ 0013).
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra-Sandford in view of US Patent Application Publication 2016/0155355 (“Merzenich”).
Regarding claim 27, Mishra-Sandford teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Mishra-Sandford does not appear to explicitly teach wherein said exposing comprises exposing in said at least one training session said subject to said scenario during a baseline stage in which the unrest level of said scenario is fixed, and during a neurofeedback stage in which said scenario unrest level is modified according to said estimated activation level.
Merzenich teaches using assessments to personalize/calibrate games for a training program, the assessment not including progressive variables that change the exercise’s difficulty (¶¶s 0286-0288, etc.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to implement a baseline stage during which the unrest level is fixed, in the
combination as in Merzenich, for the purpose of calibrating the game to the patient (Merzenich: ¶¶s 0286-
0288, etc.).
Regarding claim 28, Mishra-Sandford-Merzenich teaches all the features with respect to claim 27, as outlined above. Mishra-Sandford-Merzenich further teaches calculating a neurofeedback success score indicating a success of said subject in reaching a desired activity level of said at least one specific brain region based on a relation between activity of said at least one specific brain region during said neurofeedback stage and activity of said at least one specific brain region during said baseline stage (Sandford: ¶ 0010 describes using a quantitative score to reflect success during neurofeedback training, ¶ 0015 suggests that a score would be desirable for indicating training success, ¶ 0023 describes indication of a score, etc. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a neurofeedback success score into the combination as in Sandford, reflecting performance compared to baseline, for the purpose of helping a trainee to easily measure their success (Sandford: ¶ 0015)).
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 1-7, 9-12, and 21-28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/319,265 in view of Mishra, Sandford, Hendler, and/or Merzenich. Claim 1 of the reference application teaches all features except for those made up for by Mishra, Sandford, Hendler, and/or Merzenich as outlined above
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. The targets of Sandford are the objects that can have an agitated or resting state. Thus, all claims remain rejected in light of the prior art.
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 ANDREY SHOSTAK whose telephone number is (408) 918-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 am - 3 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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached on (571) 272-5001. 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.
/ANDREY SHOSTAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights