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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/005,047, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Claim 9 requires receiving, by the device, response data from the particular area of the cerebral cortex produced in response to the electronic stimuli output, analyzing, the response data, and storing, by the device, the response data and related information in an electronic medical record, wherein the steps of the method are performed by the device executing a machine learning algorithm trained on the stored response data and related information for a plurality of patients. Parent Application No. 17/005,047 fails to disclose these limitations (i.e., receiving response data from the cerebral cortex, storing the response data in an electronic medical record for the patient, and performing the method steps by executing a machine learning algorithm trained on the stored response data and related information for a plurality of patients). Accordingly, the instant application does not receive the benefit of the filing date of the ‘047 application. Therefore, the effective filing date of claim 9 is 08/27/2020 (parent Application No. 17/726,989).
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDS document(s) have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). Applicant is invited to point out any particular references in the submitted IDS documents which they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this Office action.
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 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “at least one the auditory cortex” should read --at least one of the auditory cortex--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a process of identifying and analyzing a medical condition, determining electronic stimuli to be output, automatically causing an associated device to produce the stimuli, and causing the device to output the stimuli as a treatment for the condition.
The limitations “identifying…”, “analyzing…”, “automatically causing…to be configured to output…”, and “causing…the…device to output…” (of claim 1, and similar language of claims 13 and 17), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by hand. That is, other than reciting the method of claims 1 and 13 is performed “by a device”, a “processor” of claim 17, and causing the configuration and output to occur via “an associated therapeutic medical device” of claims 1, 13, and 17, no limitations in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind or by hand by a practitioner. For example, the “identifying…” , “analyzing…”, “automatically causing”, and “causing…to output…” steps in the context of the claims may be performed by a practitioner mentally evaluating a patient’s symptoms to identify their medical condition, determine the appropriate type, quantity, and value of electronic stimuli (e.g., light or sound played via a speaker) necessary for treatment of that condition, causing a medical device (e.g., lamp, light array, or speaker device) to be configured for those stimuli parameters, and initiating output of that stimuli. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by hand, but for the recitation of a generic computer (claim 17) then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1, 13, and 17 recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Particularly, claims 1 and 13 recite the additional elements of “a device”, claim 17 recites the additional element of a “processor”, and each of claims 1, 13, and 17 recite the additional element of “an associated therapeutic medical device”. The “device”, “processor”, and “associated therapeutic medical device” are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a processer performing a generic function of analyzing information) such that these limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. These additional elements when considered alone and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 13, and 17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “by a device” of claims 1 and 13, “an associated therapeutic medical device” of claims 1, 13, and 17, and a “processor” of claim 17 amount to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements when considered alone and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, thus do not provide an inventive concept.
Claims 2-8, 10-12, 14-16, and 18-20 include all the limitations of claim 1, 13, or 17, thus are directed to the same abstract idea. These claims further limit steps practically performed by hand, or on paper in the mind of a practitioner in performance of the abstract idea, thus do not provide additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 includes all the limitations of claim 1, thus is directed to the same abstract idea. By the same reasoning applied above, the steps of “receiving…response data…” and “analyzing…the response data…” as drafted, are steps that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation are recited at a high level of generality such that they cover performance of the limitations in the mind or by hand in performance of the abstract idea. Thus, these limitations do not provide additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 additionally recites a step of “storing…the response data and the determined information in an electronic medical record…wherein the steps of the method are performed by the device executing a machine learning (ML) algorithm…”. The step of storing the data in a process that only recites a mental process (as detailed above) is found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, this limitation does not provide an additional element that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, storing patient response and treatment result data in an electronic medical record of the patient is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as shown by Hasan (US 2007/0027722: “a massive amount of information is typically collected in an EMR following an inpatient admission, such as extensive nursing reports, voluminous lab results…”, [0029], [0123]). The limitation “wherein the steps of the method are preformed by the device executing a machine learning (ML) algorithm” is recited at a high level of generality that amounts to at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these limitations do not provide additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 6, 16, and 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 6 recites “to provide a medical treatment to a patient” yet parent claim 1 recites “a medical condition of a patient”. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the medical treatment and patient of claim 6 is intended to be the same as that of claim 1.
The same issue appears in claim 16 with respect to parent claim 13.
Claim 20 recites “a medical treatment” while parent claim 17 recites “a medical treatment”. It is unclear whether the medical treatment of claim 17 is intended to be the same as that of claim 17.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 is dependent on itself, thus fails to further limit a parent claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. For the purposes of examination, claim 3 is interpreted to be dependent upon claim 2.
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 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0271375 (Hyde et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Hyde teaches a method ([0045]-[0046]; [0108]-[0109]) comprising the steps of:
identifying, by a device, a medical condition of a patient, the medical condition comprising a set of symptoms (flow of Figure 2 includes additional steps of Figure 23, [0108]; sensory experience selected based on a diagnosis, defined as “identifying a disease and/or condition by its signs and/or symptoms” (emphasis added), and a symptom, [0109]);
analyzing, by the device, the medical condition, and determining a type, quantity and value of stimuli to be output via the device (artificial sensory experience(s) includes a type, quantity, and value of otherwise undefined stimuli selected based on symptoms/diagnosis, [0109]);
automatically causing, by the device, an associated therapeutic medical device to be configured to output the stimuli according to the determined type, quantity and value, the configuration enabling the stimuli to be directed to the patient (selected by module 106, [0109]); and
causing, by the device, the configured therapeutic medical device to output the stimuli as a medical treatment for the medical condition (artificial sensory environment output to user via otherwise undefined therapeutic medical device, [0049]).
Hyde does not expressly state the stimuli is electronic, and is to be directed to a particular portion of the cerebral cortex of the patient.
However, Hyde teaches an alternative method comprising: determining a type, quantity, and value of electronic stimuli to be output via a device (artificial sensory experience involves auditory and/or visual stimuli, thus is “electronic”, [0104]); automatically causing, by the device, an associated therapeutic medical device to be configured to output the electronic stimuli according to the determined type, quantity and value, the configuration enabling the electronic stimuli to be directed to a particular portion of the cerebral cortex of the patient (visual and/or auditory stimuli in virtual experience output via video monitor, goggles, and/or loudspeakers, thus directed to at least auditory and/or visual processing centers of cerebral cortex, [0104]); and causing, by the device, the configured therapeutic medical device to output the electronic stimuli as a medical treatment ([0104]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stimuli of Hyde Figure 23 to be electronic stimuli directed to a particular portion of the cerebral cortex as taught by Hyde Figure 21, in order to provide an immersive, therapeutic artificial sensory experience ([0104]).
Regarding claim 2, Hyde as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Hyde as modified teaches determining, based on the analysis of the medical condition, a body part of the patient to apply the electronic stimuli, the body part corresponding to the particular portion of the cerebral cortex, wherein the caused output by the therapeutic medical device corresponds to the determined body part (selecting an “experience” which includes auditory and/or visual stimulation encompasses an act of “determining…a body part of the patient to apply the electronic stimuli…” as claimed, [0104]).
Regarding claim 3, Hyde as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 2 (3, see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) above). Hyde as modified teaches the body part corresponds to one of at least one ear and at least one eye of the patient, wherein the portion of the cerebral cortex corresponds to one of the auditory cortex and the visual cortex (visual and/or auditory stimulation via video monitor, goggles, and/or loudspeakers, [0104]).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Hyde as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Hyde as modified teaches determining, based on the analysis of the medical condition, a set of body parts of the patient to apply the electronic stimuli, each body part in the set of body parts corresponding to the particular portion of the cerebral cortex, wherein the caused output by the therapeutic medical device corresponds to the determined body part set; wherein the set of body parts corresponds to one at least one ear and at least one eye of the patient, wherein the portion of the cerebral cortex corresponds to the auditory cortex and the visual cortex (visual and/or auditory stimulation via video monitor, goggles, and loudspeakers indicates set of eyes and/or ears receive stimulation, [0104]).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Hyde as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Hyde as modified teaches receiving, by the device, a request to provide a medical treatment to a patient, the medical treatment comprising instructions related to the electronic stimuli to be output via the therapeutic medical device and delivered to the portion of the cerebral cortex the patient, the treatment instructions further comprising information identifying at least one eye and ear component of the therapeutic medical device to output the electronic stimuli (“selector module 106 may select the at least one artificial sensory experience at least partially based on at least one of a behavior, a symptom, or a diagnosis”, [0109], thus “request to provide a medical treatment…” received by device. The examiner notes the claim does not further define receiving the request such that the software act of selection of the stimuli to be provided meets the claim limitation. “Treatment instructions”, i.e. “sensor experience” instructions, encompasses visual and/or auditory stimuli to be delivered via visual monitor, goggles, and/or loudspeakers, [0104], thus encompasses identifying of eye(s) and/or ear(s) component to output stimuli.); wherein the portion of the cerebral cortex identified in the instructions is at least one of the auditory cortex, visual cortex and auditory and visual cortex (visual and/or auditory stimuli to be delivered via visual monitor, goggles, and/or loudspeakers, [0104]).
Regarding claim 8, Hyde as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Hyde as modified teaches the electronic stimuli comprises at least one of audible stimuli and visible stimuli (visual and/or auditory stimulation via video monitor, goggles, and/or loudspeakers, [0104]).
Regarding claim 10, Hyde as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Hyde teaches the electronic stimuli is output according to at least one of a pattern, rate, shape, letter, frequency, quantity, volume, intensity, brightness, contrast, current and voltage (virtual experience presented to user via loudspeakers, video monitor, and/or googles includes light and/or sound, thus includes at least a pattern, frequency, intensity, brightness, and contrast, [0104]).
Regarding claim 11, Hyde as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Hyde teaches the therapeutic medical device is communicatively coupled to the device ([0044]; [0104]: system 100 operates video monitor, googles, and/or loudspeaker thus are “communicatively coupled”).
Regarding claim 12, Hyde as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Hyde teaches the device is the therapeutic medical device ([0044]; [0104]: system 100 includes video monitor, googles, and/or loudspeaker).
Regarding claim 13, Hyde teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium tangibly encoded with computer-executable instructions, that when executed by a device (system includes computer processor: [0044]-[0046]; [0108]-[0109]; computer program product for implementation: [0131], [0144]), perform a method comprising steps of:
identifying, by the device, a medical condition of a patient, the medical condition comprising a set of symptoms (flow of Figure 2 includes additional steps of Figure 23, [0108]; sensory experience selected based on a diagnosis, defined as “identifying a disease and/or condition by its signs and/or symptoms” (emphasis added), and a symptom, [0109]);
analyzing, by the device, the medical condition, and determining a type, quantity and value of electronic stimuli to be output via the device (artificial sensory experience(s) includes a type, quantity, and value of otherwise undefined stimuli selected based on symptoms/diagnosis, [0109]);
automatically causing, by the device, an associated therapeutic medical device to be configured to output the electronic stimuli according to the determined type, quantity and value, the configuration enabling the electronic stimuli to be directed to a particular portion of the cerebral cortex of the patient (selected by module 106, [0109]); and
causing, by the device, the configured therapeutic medical device to output the electronic stimuli as a medical treatment for the medical condition (artificial sensory environment output to user via otherwise undefined therapeutic medical device, [0049]).
Hyde does not expressly state the stimuli is electronic, and is to be directed to a particular portion of the cerebral cortex of the patient.
However, Hyde teaches an alternative method comprising: determining a type, quantity, and value of electronic stimuli to be output via a device (artificial sensory experience involves auditory and/or visual stimuli, thus is “electronic”, [0104]); automatically causing, by the device, an associated therapeutic medical device to be configured to output the electronic stimuli according to the determined type, quantity and value, the configuration enabling the electronic stimuli to be directed to a particular portion of the cerebral cortex of the patient (visual and/or auditory stimuli in virtual experience output via video monitor, goggles, and/or loudspeakers, thus directed to at least auditory and/or visual processing centers of cerebral cortex, [0104]); and causing, by the device, the configured therapeutic medical device to output the electronic stimuli as a medical treatment ([0104]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stimuli of Hyde Figure 23 to be electronic stimuli directed to a particular portion of the cerebral cortex as taught by Hyde Figure 21, in order to provide an immersive, therapeutic artificial sensory experience ([0104]).
Regarding claim 14, Hyde as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 13. Hyde as modified teaches determining, based on the analysis of the medical condition, a body part of the patient to apply the electronic stimuli, the body part corresponding to the particular portion of the cerebral cortex, wherein the caused output by the therapeutic medical device corresponds to the determined body part (selecting an “experience” which includes auditory and/or visual stimulation encompasses an act of “determining…a body part of the patient to apply the electronic stimuli…” as claimed, [0104]); wherein the body part corresponds to one of at least one ear and at least one eye of the patient, wherein the portion of the cerebral cortex corresponds to one of the auditory cortex and the visual cortex (visual and/or auditory stimulation via video monitor, goggles, and/or loudspeakers, [0104]; computer program product for implementation: [0131], [0144]).
Regarding claims 15, Hyde as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 13. Hyde as modified teaches determining, based on the analysis of the medical condition, a set of body parts of the patient to apply the electronic stimuli, each body part in the set of body parts corresponding to the particular portion of the cerebral cortex, wherein the caused output by the therapeutic medical device corresponds to the determined body part set; wherein the set of body parts corresponds to one at least one ear and at least one eye of the patient, wherein the portion of the cerebral cortex corresponds to the auditory cortex and the visual cortex (visual and/or auditory stimulation via video monitor, goggles, and loudspeakers indicates set of eyes and/or ears receive stimulation, [0104]; computer program product for implementation: [0131], [0144]).
Regarding claim 16, Hyde as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 13. Hyde as modified teaches receiving, by the device, a request to provide a medical treatment to a patient, the medical treatment comprising instructions related to the electronic stimuli to be output via the therapeutic medical device and delivered to the portion of the cerebral cortex the patient, the treatment instructions further comprising information identifying at least one eye and ear component of the therapeutic medical device to output the electronic stimuli (“selector module 106 may select the at least one artificial sensory experience at least partially based on at least one of a behavior, a symptom, or a diagnosis”, [0109], thus “request to provide a medical treatment…” received by device. The examiner notes the claim does not further define receiving the request such that the software act of selection of the stimuli to be provided meets the claim limitation. “Treatment instructions”, i.e. “sensor experience” instructions, encompasses visual and/or auditory stimuli to be delivered via visual monitor, goggles, and/or loudspeakers, [0104], thus encompasses identifying of eye(s) and/or ear(s) component to output stimuli.).
Regarding claim 17, Hyde teaches a device (system includes computer processor: [0044]-[0046]; [0108]-[0109]), comprising:
a processor (computer processor: [0044]-[0046], [0108]-[0109]) configured to:
identify a medical condition of a patient, the medical condition comprising a set of symptoms (flow of Figure 2 includes additional steps of Figure 23, [0108]; sensory experience selected based on a diagnosis, defined as “identifying a disease and/or condition by its signs and/or symptoms” (emphasis added), and a symptom, [0109]);
analyze the medical condition, and determine a type, quantity and value of electronic stimuli to be output via the device (artificial sensory experience(s) includes a type, quantity, and value of otherwise undefined stimuli selected based on symptoms/diagnosis, [0109]);
automatically cause an associated therapeutic medical device to be configured to output the electronic stimuli according to the determined type, quantity and value, the configuration enabling the electronic stimuli to be directed to a particular portion of the cerebral cortex of the patient (selected by module 106, [0109]); and
cause the configured therapeutic medical device to output the electronic stimuli as a medical treatment for the medical condition (artificial sensory environment output to user via otherwise undefined therapeutic medical device, [0049]).
Hyde does not expressly state the stimuli is electronic, and is to be directed to a particular portion of the cerebral cortex of the patient.
However, Hyde teaches an alternative method comprising: determining a type, quantity, and value of electronic stimuli to be output via a device (artificial sensory experience involves auditory and/or visual stimuli, thus is “electronic”, [0104]); automatically causing, by the device, an associated therapeutic medical device to be configured to output the electronic stimuli according to the determined type, quantity and value, the configuration enabling the electronic stimuli to be directed to a particular portion of the cerebral cortex of the patient (visual and/or auditory stimuli in virtual experience output via video monitor, goggles, and/or loudspeakers, thus directed to at least auditory and/or visual processing centers of cerebral cortex, [0104]); and causing, by the device, the configured therapeutic medical device to output the electronic stimuli as a medical treatment ([0104]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stimuli of Hyde Figure 23 to be electronic stimuli directed to a particular portion of the cerebral cortex as taught by Hyde Figure 21, in order to provide an immersive, therapeutic artificial sensory experience ([0104]).
Regarding claim 18, Hyde as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 17. Hyde as modified teaches the processor is further configured to determine, based on the analysis of the medical condition, a body part of the patient to apply the electronic stimuli, the body part corresponding to the particular portion of the cerebral cortex, wherein the caused output by the therapeutic medical device corresponds to the determined body part (selecting an “experience” which includes auditory and/or visual stimulation encompasses an act of “determining…a body part of the patient to apply the electronic stimuli…” as claimed, [0104]); wherein the body part corresponds to one of at least one ear and at least one eye of the patient, wherein the portion of the cerebral cortex corresponds to one of the auditory cortex and the visual cortex (visual and/or auditory stimulation via video monitor, goggles, and/or loudspeakers, [0104]; system includes computer processor: [0044]-[0046]; [0108]-[0109]).
Regarding claim 19, Hyde as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 18. Hyde as modified teaches the processor is further configured to determine, based on the analysis of the medical condition, a set of body parts of the patient to apply the electronic stimuli, each body part in the set of body parts corresponding to the particular portion of the cerebral cortex, wherein the caused output by the therapeutic medical device corresponds to the determined body part set; wherein the set of body parts corresponds to one at least one ear and at least one eye of the patient, wherein the portion of the cerebral cortex corresponds to the auditory cortex and the visual cortex (visual and/or auditory stimulation via video monitor, goggles, and loudspeakers indicates set of eyes and/or ears receive stimulation, [0104]; system includes computer processor: [0044]-[0046]; [0108]-[0109]).
Regarding claim 20, Hyde as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 17. Hyde as modified teaches the processor is further configured to receive a request to provide a medical treatment to a patient, the medical treatment comprising instructions related to the electronic stimuli to be output via the therapeutic medical device and delivered to the portion of the cerebral cortex the patient, the treatment instructions further comprising information identifying at least one eye and ear component of the therapeutic medical device to output the electronic stimuli (system includes computer processor: [0044]-[0046]; [0108]-[0109]; “selector module 106 may select the at least one artificial sensory experience at least partially based on at least one of a behavior, a symptom, or a diagnosis”, [0109], thus “request to provide a medical treatment…” received by device. The examiner notes the claim does not further define receiving the request such that the software act of selection of the stimuli to be provided meets the claim limitation. “Treatment instructions”, i.e. “sensor experience” instructions, encompasses visual and/or auditory stimuli to be delivered via visual monitor, goggles, and/or loudspeakers, [0104], thus encompasses identifying of eye(s) and/or ear(s) component to output stimuli.).
Conclusion
The examiner notes that, though no art has been applied against claim 9 at this time, the claim is not presently allowable. The question of prior art will be revisited upon resolution of the issues noted above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carrie R Dorna whose telephone number is (571)270-7483. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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 at 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.
/CARRIE R DORNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791