DETAILED ACTION
This action is a response to the filing on 5/1/2026. Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to claim 14, the cancellation of claims 18-19, and the addition of new claims 20-21.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 14 include elements of unrejected claim 15, so that the rejection should be withdrawn. Examiner disagrees. There was a previous rejection of claim 15 in the previous Office Action. This would have some merit if the argument was about an amendment of claim 14 to include the limitations of claims 18 and 19. However, this would still be rejected because Applicant has amended claim 14 to include elements of pf previous claim 18 OR 19. Because of the presence of the claim 15 rejection and the OR limitation and the presence of the rejection of claim 19 in the previous action, the previously applied art can be combined in a different manner that still meets the limitations of the claim, as noted in the rejection below. Furthermore, 2009/0318826 (Green et al., hereinafter Green) can be combined with the applied art to obtain the limitations specified in the newly added claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 14, 16, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0056083 (Jin) in view US 2018/0055402 (Izvarina) in view of US 2008/0269652 (Reiner).
In regards to claim 14, 16, 17, and 20, Jin discloses a device and methodology for optimizing stimulation (paragraphs 4-106; figure 3) where the device has the following components:
a controller (309) comprising a processor, an EEG amplifier, and memory (paragraphs 58 and 70; figure 3);
a first electrode (303) configured to detect electrical brain activity and coupled to the controller (paragraphs 36 and 70; figure 3);
a second electrode (306) configured to detect a reference signal and coupled to the controller (paragraphs 36 and 70; figure 3);
wherein the controller is configured to
generate and provide a stimulus to subject through rhythmic stimulation frequencies in or around a desired EEG band (paragraphs 17, 52-54, 58-63, and 69; Administering stimulation requires the generation and providing of a stimulus.);
determine an optimal rhythmic stimulation frequency which optimizes an aspect of an EEG spectrum recorded while the stimulus is being delivered (paragraphs 5, 17, 52-54, 58-63, and 69; Adjustments of stimulation frequency after each pulse train for maximum settling time where maximum settling is correlated to pulse frequency matching resonant frequency); and
estimate the intrinsic frequency of the EEG band based on EEG data received from the subject (paragraphs 17, 52-55, 58-63, and 69).
However, Jin does not state that the electrodes are part of a headband or EEG cap nor does he discloses the visible signals. In a related area, Izvarina discloses methods and system for therapeutic neuromodulation (title and abstract). Of note is paragraph 72, which describes the electrodes used in the device and the use of headbands or caps (thus an EEG cap) to hold the electrodes in place. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Jin to make the electrodes as part of an EEG cap or headband in order to hold the electrodes in place.
Jin and Izvarina do not state that the stimulus is generated by lights, speakers, or pressure applied to skin. In a related area, Reiner discloses a multimodal therapeutic system which uses massage, pulses of light, and pulses of sound (title and abstract; paragraphs 9-36). Reiner discloses the use of a controller (30) that controls speakers (26) to deliver sound, including pulsed sound, to the subject (abstract; paragraphs 6, 17, 25 and 33), light to deliver visible signals including pulsed light (abstract; paragraphs 6, 10, 11, 16, 17, 21, and 24-36; bulbs, light emitting diodes or other light producing material emit the light), and a massage system that exerts pressure on the skin (paragraphs 15, 22, 23, 34, and 35). Reiner states that the combination of stimulation techniques provides stimulation that exceeds the expected results from single or paired techniques (paragraph 9). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Jin to provide light, sound, and pressure stimuli as taught by Reiner in order to provide better stimulation results than individual or paired stimulation and provide better relaxation.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0056083 (Jin) in view US 2018/0055402 (Izvarina) in view of US 2008/0269652 (Reiner) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of US 2009/0318826 (Green et al., hereinafter Green).
In regards to claim 21, Jin, Izvarina, and Reiner disclose the limitations of claim 20. However, they do not show rhythmic video images. In a related area, Green discloses an apparatus that involves neurological feedback systems (see title and abstract). Of note are paragraphs 16, 21, 23, 62, 81, 82, 257-259, and 324-327 which describes the use of video players playing a video file (which can be considered as moving video) to induce specific brainwaves for therapy or game playing. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Jin, Isvarina, and Reiner to include a video display that displays rhythmic video images as taught by Green in order to induce specific brain waves for therapy or game playing.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSHUA DARYL DEANON LANNU whose telephone number is (571)270-1986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 AM - 5 PM, Friday 8 AM -12 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, Charles Marmor can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/JOSHUA DARYL D LANNU/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CARRIE R DORNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights