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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 25 Nov 2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 37-38, 48-49, 53, and 55 have been amended, claims 1-36, 39-42, 45, 47, and 56 have been canceled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 37-38, 43-44, 46, and 48-55 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Indefiniteness Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 25 Nov 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been withdrawn.
Rejections Over the Prior Art:
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 25 Nov 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 37 and 53 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Dinsmoor ‘769 does not explicitly disclose step (b) of amended claims 37 and 53 (Remarks, page 7). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Dinsmoor '769 discloses that in step 346 of method 330, "a determination of whether to adjust any therapy parameters may be based at least in part on a detected change in activity level or a detected posture of the patient" (paragraph [0177]). Thus, the steps that follow block 346 (specifically blocks 332, 336, and 338) are dependent on the detected posture of the patient.
Dinsmoor '769 discloses that "patient 12 may provide input to programmer 20 that indicates where the patient perceives any symptoms and characteristics of that particular type of symptom. processing circuitry 80 may associate this physiological condition information with the currently detected posture state" (paragraph [0102]) and that "physiological conditions associated with patient posture state information may include physiological symptoms experienced by the patient when in a particular posture state" (paragraph [0122]). Thus, Dinsmoor ‘769 discloses that the determined posture state is indicative of a patient’s symptoms.
The posture state can be determined using data from an accelerometer (paragraph [0056]), which can be external (paragraph [0100]). Dinsmoor '769 discloses "Whenever the posture state parameter value, e.g., a vector, from the three-axis accelerometer of posture state module 86 resides within a predefined cone or volume, processing circuitry 80 indicates that patient 12 is in the posture state of the cone or volume. In other examples, a posture state parameter value from the 3-axis accelerometer may be compared to values in a look-up table or equation to determine the posture state in which patient 12 currently resides." (paragraph [0098]). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the limitation that “the indication is higher or lower than a threshold” can be interpreted such that the indication can be any value not equal to the threshold. The steps of using the cone/volume and look-up tables to determine the patient’s posture state as disclosed by Dinsmoor ‘769 require the posture state parameter value to be compared to values that either define the cone/volume or define the boundary values stored in the look-up table. Therefore, Dinsmoor ‘769 discloses comparing values that are indicative of a patient’s symptoms, and automatically performing steps based on the comparison, which are analogous to step (b) as recited in claims 37 and 53.
No specific arguments were made regarding dependent claims 38, 43-44, 46, and 48-52 and the previously cited prior art references. Therefore, claims 38, 43-44, 46, and 48-52 are also rejected below.
Claim Objections
Claims 37 and 53 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 37: “a patient” in line 5 should read “the patient”
Claim 53: “receiving” in line 10 should read “receive”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 37-46, 49-50, and 53-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinsmoor et al. (US Publication No. 20180078769 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Dinsmoor '769, in view of Dinsmoor et al. (US 20160303376 A1), hereinafter Dinsmoor '376, and further in view of Bradley et al. (US 20140214131 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Bradley, and Rowell (“Lecture 22: Signal Processing: Continuous and Discrete: Mechanical Engineering.” MIT OpenCourseWare, 2008, previously cited).
Regarding claim 37, Dinsmoor '769 discloses a method for adjusting a position of a pole configuration in an electrode array of an implantable stimulation device as a parameter of a stimulation program (Fig. 13, method 330), the method comprising:
(a) providing stimulation to the patient's tissue using the pole configuration at a position in the electrode array (Fig. 13, paragraph [0175], block 332);
(b) receiving an indication of a symptom of a patient (paragraph [0102], "patient 12 may provide input to programmer 20 that indicates where the patient perceives any symptoms and characteristics of that particular type of symptom. processing circuitry 80 may associate this physiological condition information with the currently detected posture state"; paragraph [0122], "physiological conditions associated with patient posture state information may include physiological symptoms experienced by the patient when in a particular posture state"; the posture state is indicative of the patient's symptoms) at an external device (paragraphs [0056], [0100], accelerometer) in communication with the implantable stimulation device, wherein when the indication is higher or lower than a threshold the following steps are automatically taken (paragraph [0177], "At block 346, IMD 14 may adjust any parameters to the therapy parameters that will be utilized during next stimulation therapy to be applied to the patient, generates the next stimulation therapy, and method 330 then returns to block 332. ... a determination of whether to adjust any therapy parameters may be based at least in part on a detected change in activity level or a detected posture of the patient"):
(1) measuring a neural response from the pole configuration at the position at one or more sensing electrodes in the electrode array as a measured response (Fig. 13, paragraph [0175], block 336); and
(2) comparing the measured response at each of the at least one sensing electrodes to a baseline response at a corresponding one of the sensing electrodes (Fig. 13, paragraph [0176], block 338; "a template" is analogous to the baseline response); and
(3) if the measured response does not equal the baseline response, adjusting the position of the pole configuration in the electrode array (Fig. 13, paragraph [0177], block 346; paragraph [0048] lists "electrode configuration" (analogous to "pole configuration") as a programmable stimulation parameter) and repeating steps (1)-(3) until the measured response equals or is closer to the baseline response (Fig. 13, paragraph [0177]).
Dinsmoor '769 does not explicitly disclose comparing a time or speed at which the measured response arrives at each of the one or more sensing electrodes to a baseline, wherein the baseline comprises a time or speed at which a baseline response arrives at each of the one or more sensing electrodes. However, Dinsmoor '376 discloses a method for delivering and adjusting stimulation therapy (Abstract) comprising:
comparing a time at which a measured response arrives at a sensing electrode to a baseline (paragraph [0032], "The detected change in eCMAP biomarker may be ... a change in the location of activation, which may also be determined from the time between application of the stimulation and receipt of the eCMAP. ... the IMD compares a currently detected eCMAP in response to a particular stimulation therapy program to a previously saved eCMAP in response to the same stimulation therapy program."); and
if the time or speed for the measured response does not equal the baseline, using the time or speed for the measured response and the baseline to adjust the position of the pole configuration in the direction in electrode array, and repeating steps (1)-(3) until the time or speed for the measured response equals or is closer to the baseline (paragraph [0032], "If a change in the eCMAP in response to the stimulation program is detected, the IMD may adjust one or more of the stimulation parameters associated with the stimulation therapy program. The IMD may make adjustments in an iterative manner until an eCMAP in response to stimulation parameters is approximately equal to the desired eCMAP."; paragraph [0038], "the parameters for a program that controls delivery of stimulation therapy by IMD 14 may include information identifying which electrodes have been selected for delivery of stimulation according to a stimulation program, the polarities of the selected electrodes, i.e., the electrode configuration for the program"; paragraph [0075], "processor 80 may control the switching circuitry on a selective basis to cause stimulation generator 84 to deliver electrical stimulation to selected electrode combinations and to shift the electrical stimulation to different electrode combinations in a first direction or a second direction when the therapy must be delivered to a different location within patient 12").
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 modify Dinsmoor '769 with the teachings of Dinsmoor '376 to compare a time or speed at which the measured response arrives at each of the one or more sensing electrodes to a baseline; and if the time or speed for the measured response does not equal the baseline, using the time or speed for the measured response and the baseline to determine a direction for adjusting the position of the pole configuration, and adjusting the position of the pole configuration in the direction in electrode array, and repeating steps (1)-(3) until the time or speed for the measured response equals or is closer to the baseline, because doing so determines the most appropriate stimulation parameters for relieving the patient's symptoms or conditions while also using the device's energy more efficiently (Dinsmoor '376, paragraph [0026]).
Dinsmoor '376 does not explicitly disclose using the time or speed for the measured response and the baseline to determine a direction to move the position of the pole configuration in the electrode array. However, Bradley teaches an apparatus and methods for detecting migration of implanted leads (paragraph [0009]) comprising:
comparing features between the measured response and the baseline (paragraph [0064], “feature comparison analysis (implemented by, for example, a cross-correlation technique) ... The object is to identify an electrode that produces similar evoked potential data as was produced by an electrode used in the baseline measurements”; paragraph [0048]); and
using the comparison to determine a direction to move the position of the pole configuration in the electrode array (paragraph [0064], “a feature comparison analysis (implemented by, for example, a cross-correlation technique) may be used to determine the magnitude and direction of any shift”; paragraph [0048]).
The cross correlation technique can be used to estimate the delay between the stimulation and the neural response (Rowell, page 22-6, "Cross-correlation is often used in optimal estimation of delay, such as in echolocation (radar, sonar), and in GPS receivers").
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 modify Dinsmoor '769 and Dinsmoor '376 with the teachings of Bradley so that the method comprises using the time or speed for the measured response and the baseline to determine a direction to move the position of the pole configuration in the electrode array, because doing so reduces the difficulty associated with system reprogramming (Bradley, paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 38, the method of claim 37 is obvious over Dinsmoor '769, Dinsmoor '376, Bradley, and Rowell, as explained above. Dinsmoor '769 further discloses that in step (d) the position of the pole configuration is adjusted until the measured response equals the baseline response (Fig. 13, paragraph [0176], block 338; "a template" is analogous to the baseline response).
Regarding claim 43, the method of claim 37 is obvious over Dinsmoor '769, Dinsmoor '376, Bradley, and Rowell, as explained above. Dinsmoor '769 further discloses prior to step (a), determining the baseline response by:
providing stimulation to the patient's tissue using the pole configuration at an initial position in the electrode array (paragraph [0038], "an IMD may start providing stimulation according to an initial therapy parameter set");
measuring a neural response from the pole configuration at the initial position at the one or more sensing electrodes in the electrode array (paragraph [0038]; "An eECAP signal that is generated by one or more nerve fibers as a result of the applied stimulation is sensed"); and
storing at least one feature of the measured neural response as received at each of the one or more sensing electrodes as the baseline response (paragraph [0038], "An eECAP signal…may then be stored as a baseline signal").
Regarding claim 44, the method of claim 43 is obvious over Dinsmoor '769, Dinsmoor '376, Bradley, and Rowell, as explained above. Dinsmoor '769 further discloses that in step (a) the stimulation is first provided using the pole configuration at the initial position (paragraph [0038], "an IMD may start providing stimulation according to an initial therapy parameter set").
Regarding claim 46, the method of claim 37 is obvious over Dinsmoor '769, Dinsmoor '376, Bradley, and Rowell, as explained above. Dinsmoor '769 further discloses that prior to step (a) determining a posture of the patient, wherein the baseline response at the one or more sensing electrodes corresponds to the determined posture of the patient (paragraphs [0056] and [0059]).
Regarding claim 49, the method of claim 37 is obvious over Dinsmoor '769, Dinsmoor '376, Bradley, and Rowell, as explained above. Dinsmoor '769 further discloses that step (d) does not adjust other stimulation parameters of the stimulation that do not affect the position of the pole configuration (paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 50, the method of claim 37 is obvious over Dinsmoor '769, Dinsmoor '376, Bradley, and Rowell, as explained above. Dinsmoor further discloses that there are a plurality of sensing electrodes (paragraph [0106]).
Regarding claim 53, Dinsmoor '769 discloses a system (Fig. 1, paragraph [0046], system 10), comprising:
an implantable stimulation device (IMD 14) comprising an electrode array (paragraph [0045], implantable electrode arrays in the form of stimulation leads 16A and 16B) configured to provide stimulation to a patient's tissue (paragraph [0046]);
an external device (external programmer 20) configured to communicate with the implantable stimulation device (paragraphs [0059] and [0061]); and
an algorithm (method 330) configured to operate at least in part in the implantable stimulation device (paragraph [0174]), wherein the algorithm is configured to:
(a) provide stimulation to the patient's tissue using the pole configuration at a position in the electrode array (Fig. 13, paragraph [0175], block 332);
(b) receive an indication of a symptom of a patient (paragraph [0102], "patient 12 may provide input to programmer 20 that indicates where the patient perceives any symptoms and characteristics of that particular type of symptom. processing circuitry 80 may associate this physiological condition information with the currently detected posture state"; paragraph [0122], "physiological conditions associated with patient posture state information may include physiological symptoms experienced by the patient when in a particular posture state"; the posture state is indicative of the patient's symptoms) at an external device (paragraphs [0056], [0100], accelerometer) in communication with the implantable stimulation device, wherein when the indication is higher or lower than a threshold the following steps are automatically taken (paragraph [0177], "At block 346, IMD 14 may adjust any parameters to the therapy parameters that will be utilized during next stimulation therapy to be applied to the patient, generates the next stimulation therapy, and method 330 then returns to block 332. ... a determination of whether to adjust any therapy parameters may be based at least in part on a detected change in activity level or a detected posture of the patient"):
(1) measure a neural response from the pole configuration at the position at one or more sensing electrodes in the electrode array as a measured response (Fig. 13, paragraph [0175], block 336);
(2) compare the measured response at each of the at least one sensing electrodes to a baseline response at a corresponding one of the sensing electrodes (Fig. 13, paragraph [0176], block 338; "a template" is analogous to the baseline response); and
(3) if the measured response does not equal the baseline response, adjust the position of the pole configuration in the electrode array (Fig. 13, paragraph [0177], block 346; paragraph [0048] lists "electrode configuration" (analogous to "pole configuration") as a programmable stimulation parameter) and repeating steps (1)-(3) until the measured response equals or is closer to the baseline response (Fig. 13, paragraph [0177]).
Dinsmoor '769 does not explicitly disclose comparing a time or speed at which the measured response arrives at each of the one or more sensing electrodes to a baseline, wherein the baseline comprises a time or speed at which a baseline response arrives at each of the one or more sensing electrodes. However, Dinsmoor '376 discloses a method for delivering and adjusting stimulation therapy (Abstract) comprising:
comparing a time at which a measured response arrives at a sensing electrode to a baseline (paragraph [0032], "The detected change in eCMAP biomarker may be ... a change in the location of activation, which may also be determined from the time between application of the stimulation and receipt of the eCMAP. ... the IMD compares a currently detected eCMAP in response to a particular stimulation therapy program to a previously saved eCMAP in response to the same stimulation therapy program."); and
if the time or speed for the measured response does not equal the baseline, using the time or speed for the measured response and the baseline to adjust the position of the pole configuration in the direction in electrode array, and repeating steps (1)-(3) until the time or speed for the measured response equals or is closer to the baseline (paragraph [0032], "If a change in the eCMAP in response to the stimulation program is detected, the IMD may adjust one or more of the stimulation parameters associated with the stimulation therapy program. The IMD may make adjustments in an iterative manner until an eCMAP in response to stimulation parameters is approximately equal to the desired eCMAP."; paragraph [0038], "the parameters for a program that controls delivery of stimulation therapy by IMD 14 may include information identifying which electrodes have been selected for delivery of stimulation according to a stimulation program, the polarities of the selected electrodes, i.e., the electrode configuration for the program"; paragraph [0075], "processor 80 may control the switching circuitry on a selective basis to cause stimulation generator 84 to deliver electrical stimulation to selected electrode combinations and to shift the electrical stimulation to different electrode combinations in a first direction or a second direction when the therapy must be delivered to a different location within patient 12").
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 modify Dinsmoor '769 with the teachings of Dinsmoor '376 to compare a time or speed at which the measured response arrives at each of the one or more sensing electrodes to a baseline; and if the time or speed for the measured response does not equal the baseline, using the time or speed for the measured response and the baseline to adjust the position of the pole configuration in the direction in electrode array, and repeating steps (1)-(3) until the time or speed for the measured response equals or is closer to the baseline, because doing so determines the most appropriate stimulation parameters for relieving the patient's symptoms or conditions while also using the device's energy more efficiently (Dinsmoor '376, paragraph [0026]).
Dinsmoor '376 does not explicitly disclose using the time or speed for the measured response and the baseline to determine a direction to move the position of the pole configuration in the electrode array. However, Bradley teaches an apparatus and methods for detecting migration of implanted leads (paragraph [0009]) comprising:
comparing features between the measured response and the baseline (paragraph [0064], “feature comparison analysis (implemented by, for example, a cross-correlation technique) ... The object is to identify an electrode that produces similar evoked potential data as was produced by an electrode used in the baseline measurements”; paragraph [0048]); and
using the comparison to determine a direction to move the position of the pole configuration in the electrode array (paragraph [0064], “a feature comparison analysis (implemented by, for example, a cross-correlation technique) may be used to determine the magnitude and direction of any shift”; paragraph [0048]).
The cross correlation technique can be used to estimate the delay between the stimulation and the neural response (Rowell, page 22-6, "Cross-correlation is often used in optimal estimation of delay, such as in echolocation (radar, sonar), and in GPS receivers").
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 modify Dinsmoor '769 and Dinsmoor '376 with the teachings of Bradley so that the method comprises using the time or speed for the measured response and the baseline to determine a direction to move the position of the pole configuration in the electrode array, because doing so reduces the difficulty associated with system reprogramming (Bradley, paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 54, the system of claim 53 is obvious over Dinsmoor '769, Dinsmoor '376, Bradley, and Rowell, as explained above. Dinsmoor '769 further discloses that the algorithm is configured to operate wholly in the implantable stimulation device (paragraph [0174]).
Regarding claim 55, the system of claim 53 is obvious over Dinsmoor '769, Dinsmoor '376, Bradley, and Rowell, as explained above. Dinsmoor '769 further discloses that steps (a) and (b) are configured to operate in the implantable stimulation device, and wherein steps (b)(2) and (b)(3) are configured to operate in the external device (paragraph [0067]).
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinsmoor et al. (US Publication No. 20180078769 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Dinsmoor '769, in view of Dinsmoor et al. (US 20160303376 A1), hereinafter Dinsmoor '376, Bradley et al. (US 20140214131 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Bradley, and Rowell (“Lecture 22: Signal Processing: Continuous and Discrete: Mechanical Engineering.” MIT OpenCourseWare, 2008, previously cited), as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Parker (US 10894158 B2, previously cited).
Regarding claim 48, the method of claim 37 is obvious over Dinsmoor '769, Dinsmoor '376, Bradley, and Rowell, as explained above. Dinsmoor does not disclose that in step (d) the measured response and the baseline response are further used to determine a distance for adjusting the position of the pole configuration in the direction. However, Parker teaches a method estimating the distance between an electrode and a nerve using ECAP measurements (column 17, lines 6-9). The difference between the distances derived from the measured response and the baseline response can be used to determine a distance for adjusting the position of the pole configuration in the direction (in paragraph [0006], Dinsmoor explains that the sensed eECAP signal may be analyzed in view of eECAP parameters derived from the eECAP signal).
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 modify Dinsmoor '769, Dinsmoor '376, Bradley, and Rowell with the teachings of Parker to use the measured and baseline responses to determine a distance for adjusting the position of the pole configuration in the direction because when a subject moves or changes posture the distance between the spinal cord and the implanted electrode array varies, resulting in an increase or decrease in the amount of current received by the dorsal columns. These changes in current result in changes to recruitment and paraesthesia, which can reduce the therapeutic effect of SCS and can create side effects including over-stimulation (Parker, column 1, lines 52-63).
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinsmoor et al. (US Publication No. 20180078769 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Dinsmoor '769, in view of Dinsmoor et al. (US 20160303376 A1), hereinafter Dinsmoor '376, Bradley et al. (US 20140214131 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Bradley, and Rowell (“Lecture 22: Signal Processing: Continuous and Discrete: Mechanical Engineering.” MIT OpenCourseWare, 2008, previously cited), as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Su (US Publication No. 20200179688 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 51, the method of claim 50 is obvious over Dinsmoor '769, Dinsmoor '376, Bradley, and Rowell, as explained above. Dinsmoor does not disclose that the sensing electrodes are aligned rostral-caudally in the electrode array. However, Su teaches a method of spinal cord stimulation wherein the sensing electrodes are aligned rostral- caudally in the electrode array (paragraph [0105]). 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 modify Dinsmoor '769, Dinsmoor '376, Bradley, and Rowell with the teachings of Su to align the sensing electrodes rostral-caudally so that the active contacts are at the lumbar segments for spinal cord stimulation (Su, paragraph [0104]).
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinsmoor et al. (US Publication No. 20180078769 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Dinsmoor '769, in view of Dinsmoor et al. (US 20160303376 A1), hereinafter Dinsmoor '376, Bradley et al. (US 20140214131 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Bradley, and Rowell (“Lecture 22: Signal Processing: Continuous and Discrete: Mechanical Engineering.” MIT OpenCourseWare, 2008, previously cited), as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of He et al. (Perception threshold and electrode position for spinal cord stimulation, 1994, previously cited), hereinafter He.
Regarding claim 52, the method of claim 50 is obvious over Dinsmoor '769 and Dinsmoor '376, as explained above. Dinsmoor does not disclose that the sensing electrodes are aligned medio-laterally in the electrode array. He teaches a method of spinal cord stimulation wherein the sensing electrodes are aligned medio-laterally in the electrode array (Measurement of electrode position, page 56, second column).
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 modify Dinsmoor '769, Dinsmoor '376, Bradley, and Rowell with the teachings of He to align the sensing electrodes medio-laterally because He shows that the mediolateral position of the electrode in the spinal canal affects the perception threshold (Table II, page 58, second column).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wu et al. (US 20120271375 A1) discloses a brain stimulator that adjusts stimulation parameters based on automatic detection of a condition (e.g., lack of detection of the bioelectrical resonance response, detection of problematic brain activity, and/or detection of physical symptoms of the condition being treated) (paragraph [0041]).
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 CHRISTINE SISON whose telephone number is (703)756-4661. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 5 pm PT, Mon - Fri.
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 McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/CHRISTINE SISON/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/Jennifer Pitrak McDonald/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796