DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 22 September 2025. Claims 12 – 14, 16 and 19 – 20 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 12 – 14, 16 and 20, as well as the cancellation of claims 15 and 17 - 18.
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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the second sentence portrays a long run-on sentence. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 13 – 14, 16 and 19 - 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13, lines 1 - 2, “and second sensory stimuli” should read --and the second sensory stimuli--.
Claim 14, lines 1 - 2, “and second sensory stimuli” should read --and the second sensory stimuli--.
Claim 16, line 9, "the first and second stimuli" should read --the first stimuli and the second stimuli--.
Claim 20, line 1, "the first and second stimuli" should read --the first stimuli and the second stimuli--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16 and 19 – 20 are 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 16, line 11, the limitation “wherein the first stimuli and the first stimuli and second stimuli are different types of stimuli” is unclear as it raises the question what does this limitation entail with two “the first stimuli”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 12 – 14, 16 and 19 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoonover et al (US 20140221779 A1, hereinafter Schoonover) in view of Durand (US 20150305667 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Schoonover teaches a multimodal sensory device (“Headband unit 14”, [0091]) for promoting sleep in a subject (abstract, “a method and a system for enhancing a user's dream stages”, [0002], [0003]), comprising:
a) a first sensory delivery component (“light emitting bars 20”, [0091], Figure 1; [0016]);
b) a second sensory delivery component (“speaker system 24”, [0091], Figure 1; [0016]); and
c) a controller (“processor 36”, [0099] - [0100], [0094]),
wherein the first and second sensory delivery components (20 and 24, respectively) are constructed and arranged for delivering a first and second sensory stimuli (“AV stimuli”, [0018], [0024], [0114], [0118], [0130] – [0132]) to the subject and the controller (36) is constructed and arranged to deliver the first and second sensory stimuli at a synchronized frequency ([0130], [0133], [0016], [0020])
wherein the controller (“processor 36”, [0099] - [0100], [0094]) is constructed and arranged to deliver the synchronized frequency ([0130], [0133], [0016], [0020]).
Schoonover does not teach the controller arranged to deliver at a frequency at about 40 Hz.
However, Durand discloses “systems, methods, and articles for stress reduction and sleep promotion” (abstract) and teaches a controller arranged to deliver at a frequency at about 40 Hz (“apparatus and methods reduce epileptic seizures in a human patient by non-invasively providing low frequency (e.g., 1-10 Hz) audio stimuli coordinated with low frequency (e.g., 1-10 Hz) visual stimuli to the patient”, [0012], abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Schoonover by making the frequency ranging from 1 – 10 Hz to 40 Hz, as taught by Durand, as a matter of routine optimization for the benefit of “reduc[ing] epileptic seizures in a human patient” (Durand: abstract). It has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A). Furthermore, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range.
Regarding claim 13, Schoonover teaches all limitations of claim 12. Schoonover teaches the first sensory stimuli and second sensory stimuli (“AV stimuli”, [0018], [0024], [0114], [0118], [0130] – [0132]) are visual stimuli ([0016], [0091]), auditory stimuli ([0016], [0091]), and tactile stimuli.
Regarding claim 14, Schoonover teaches all limitations of claim 13. Schoonover teaches the first second sensory and second sensory stimuli (“AV stimuli”, [0018], [0024], [0114], [0118], [0130] – [0132]) are a different type of stimuli (Examiner interprets AV represents audio and visual in which are different.).
Regarding claim 16, Schoonover teaches a multimodal sensory system (“a method and a system for enhancing a user's dream stages”, [0002]) for multimodal sensory stimulation of a subject (abstract, [0016]), comprising:
a) a first sensory delivery component (“light emitting bars 20”, [0091], Figure 1; [0016]) configured to deliver a first stimuli (visual aspect in “AV stimuli”, [0018], [0024], [0114], [0118], [0130] – [0132]) to a subject (“directed towards the user's eyes to stimulate and illuminate the user's ocular senses with a plurality of distinct colored lights (including white light)”, [0016], [0020]);
b) a second sensory delivery component (“speaker system 24”, [0091], Figure 1; [0016]) configured to deliver a second stimuli (audio aspect in “AV stimuli”, [0018], [0024], [0114], [0118], [0130] – [0132]) to the subject (“emits sound to the user”, [0025], [0020]); and
c) a synchronizing controller (“processor 36”, [0099] - [0100], [0094]) configured to synchronize the delivery of the first and second stimuli (“AV stimuli”, [0018], [0024], [0114], [0118], [0130] – [0132]),
wherein the first stimuli and second stimuli (“AV stimuli”, [0018], [0024], [0114], [0118], [0130] – [0132]) are a type of stimuli (Examiner interprets AV represents audio and visual in which are different.) selected from the group consisting of visual ([0016], [0020], [0091]), auditory ([0016], [0020], [0025] [0091]) and tactile stimuli,
wherein the first stimuli and the first stimuli and second stimuli (“AV stimuli”, [0018], [0024], [0114], [0118], [0130] – [0132]) are different types of stimuli (“AV stimuli”, [0018], [0024], [0114], [0118], [0130] – [0132]), and
wherein the controller (“processor 36”, [0099] - [0100], [0094]) is constructed and arranged to deliver the synchronized frequency ([0130], [0133], [0016], [0020]).
wherein the first stimuli and second stimuli (“AV stimuli”, [0018], [0024], [0114], [0118], [0130] – [0132]) are synchronized ([0130], [0133], [0016], [0020]).
Schoonover does not teach the first stimuli and second stimuli are synchronized at about 40 Hz.
However, Durand discloses “systems, methods, and articles for stress reduction and sleep promotion” (abstract) and teaches a first stimuli and a second stimuli are synchronized at about 40 Hz (“apparatus and methods reduce epileptic seizures in a human patient by non-invasively providing low frequency (e.g., 1-10 Hz) audio stimuli coordinated with low frequency (e.g., 1-10 Hz) visual stimuli to the patient”, [0012], abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Schoonover by making the frequency ranging from 1 – 10 Hz to 40 Hz, as taught by Durand, as a matter of routine optimization for the benefit of “reduc[ing] epileptic seizures in a human patient” (Durand: abstract). It has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A). Furthermore, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range.
Regarding claim 19, Schoonover teaches all limitations of claim 16. Schoonover teaches the system (“a method and a system for enhancing a user's dream stages”, [0002]) comprising at least one EEG electrode (“measures the user's Electroencephalography (EEG) and Electrooculography (EOG) activity directly via stainless steel active dry electrodes”, [0060], [0016], [0092]) configured for measuring brain oscillations of the subject ([0016] – [0017], [0019], [0022]).
Regarding claim 20, Schoonover teaches all limitations of claim 19. Schoonover teaches the first and second stimuli (“AV stimuli”, [0018], [0024], [0114], [0118], [0130] – [0132]) are delivered in phase with recorded brain oscillations of the subject (“The EEG/EOG information is collected, either actively, before or after the user's sleep period, or passively during the user's sleep period, and the data is used with the DE stim device which automatically adjusts the intensity of light and/or sound, and adjusting the placement of stimuli within the REM episode (a timing event relative to the detected stim trigger), to best suit the user.”, [0089]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 September 2025, with respect to specification objections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the second sentence portrays a long run-on sentence. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant’s arguments, filed 22 September 2025, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The claims objections for claims 17 and 18 of 21 March 2025 have been withdrawn except for the following below.
Claim 16, line 9, "the first and second stimuli" should read --the first stimuli and the second stimuli--.
Claim 20, line 1, "the first and second stimuli" should read --the first stimuli and the second stimuli--.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 22 September 2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections for claims 12 – 20 of 21 March 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 22 September 2025, with respect to the invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. It is noted that Durand still explicitly teaches optimizing a range of hertz. See rejection above.
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 JULIE T TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 8:30 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on (571) 272-4233. 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.
/JULIE THI TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791