DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Clare WO-2008009978-A1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 10, 11, 15, 18, 20, 21 and 23 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Clare WO-2008009978-A1 (hereinafter “Clare”).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Clare discloses a brainwave actuated apparatus, comprising: a removable brainwave sensor (i.e. electrodes) for outputting brainwave signals (e.g. pg. 5, lines 9-24); a removable effector (i.e. stimulus output module) responsive to an input signal to provide stimulus to a user (e.g. pg. 20-21, lines 17-35 and 1-14); a controller operatively connected to an output of the removable brainwave sensor to receive the brainwave signals and a control input to the effector (e.g. Fig. 3, 5 and 8), said controller adapted to: determine brainwave characteristics of the brainwave signal output by the removable brainwave sensor, the characteristics indicative of a brain state (i.e. current neurological state) of the user (e.g. pg. 23, lines 28-36); and derive a control signal to provide stimulus by the removable effector based at least in part on the brain state, wherein the stimulus is selected to entrain a desired brain state (i.e. target neurological state), wherein the desired brain state comprises at least a first brainwave within a first range of frequencies (e.g. alpha/theta frequency band) and a second brainwave within a second range of frequencies (e.g. beta/delta frequency band), wherein entrainment (via hypnosis session) of the desired brain state comprises simultaneously generating a desired level of brainwave activity for each of the first and second brainwaves, the stimulus comprises a first component configured to deliver stimulus within the first range of frequencies and phase locked (e.g. pg. 36, lines 16-20) with the first brainwave and a second component configured to deliver stimulus within the second range of frequencies and phase locked (e.g. col. 36, lines 16-20) with the second brainwave (e.g. pg. 18-19, lines 34-36 and 1-30; col. 23, lines 19-36; col. 27, lines 20-25; Fig. 2, 6 and 8-9).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Clare discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is further adapted to determine that the brain state of the user is a target brain state (e.g. pg. 18-19, lines 34-36 and 1-30; col. 23, lines 19-36; col. 27, lines 20-25; Fig. 2, 6 and 8-9).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Clare discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein intensity of the stimulus within each range is dependent upon the control signal a depth of that range relative to the different ranges of frequencies of brainwaves and the brain state of the user (e.g. pg. 18-19, lines 34-36 and 1-30; col. 23, lines 19-36; col. 27, lines 20-25; Fig. 2, 6 and 8-9).
Regarding claim 10, Clare discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is at least one of a body-borne apparatus, a handheld apparatus, and an apparatus worn on the body (e.g. pg. 5, lines 9-24).
Regarding claim 20, Clare discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the stimulus provided to the third party comprises at least one of electrical stimulus, audio signals, visual signals, thermal stimulation, and vibrotactile feedback (e.g. pg. 5, lines 9-24).
Regarding claims 21 and 23, Clare discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the stimulus provides a periodic excitation (e.g. pg. 18-19, lines 34-36 and 1-30; col. 23, lines 19-36; col. 27, lines 20-25; Fig. 2, 6 and 8-9).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-5, 7, 9, 12-14, 16, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Clare as applied to the claims above, in further view of Pless U.S. PGPub 2007/0213783 (hereinafter “Pless”).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Clare discloses providing a stimulus, but does not explicitly disclose comprising an electrical stimulus to achieve a desired brain state. Regarding claim 3, Clare discloses a removable effector and brainwave sensor, but does not explicitly disclose the removable effector comprising the brainwave sensor. Regarding claims 4-5 and 13-14, Clare does not disclose determining a brain state indicative of pain. Regarding claims 7 and 16, Clare does not further disclose electroanalgesic stimulation. Regarding claims 9 and 19, Clare does not disclose providing the stimulus to a third party.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Pless discloses an apparatus, wherein the stimulus comprises electrical stimulus (e.g. pg. 2, ¶20-24; pg. 4, ¶53; pg. 7-8, ¶81-83; pg. 16-17, ¶150-152; Fig. 4, 5 and 12).
Regarding claim 3, Pless discloses an apparatus, wherein the removable effector comprises the brainwave sensor (e.g. pg. 4, ¶53-55; pg. 7, ¶78-81; Fig. 2 and 4).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Pless discloses an apparatus, wherein the controller is further adapted to determine that the brain state of the user is a brain state indicative of pain (e.g. pg. 4, ¶53-57; pg. 7-8, ¶78-86; pg. 8-9, ¶91-92; pg. 9-10, ¶98-102; pg. 13, ¶125; pg. 16-17, ¶150-152; Fig. 4, 5 and 12).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Pless discloses an apparatus, wherein ranges of desired brainwave entrainment are dependent upon a degree of pain (e.g. pg. 4, ¶53-57; pg. 7-8, ¶78-86; pg. 8-9, ¶91-92; pg. 9-10, ¶98-102; pg. 13, ¶125; pg. 16-17, ¶150-152; Fig. 4, 5 and 12).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Pless discloses an apparatus, wherein the electrical stimulus comprises electroanalgesic stimulation (e.g. pg. 2, ¶20-24; pg. 4, ¶53; pg. 7-8, ¶81-83; pg. 16-17, ¶150-152; Fig. 4, 5 and 12).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Pless discloses an apparatus, wherein the controller is further adapted to provide stimulus to a third party using the control signal (e.g. pg. 9, ¶92; pg. 12, ¶117-119; Fig. 5, 7 and 16).
Regarding claim 17, Pless discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the electroanalgesic stimulation comprises transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) (e.g. pg. 2, ¶20-24; pg. 4, ¶53; pg. 7-8, ¶81-83; pg. 16-17, ¶150-152; Fig. 4, 5 and 12).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use an electrical stimulus to attain a desired brain state, to use stimulus to treat pain and provide a stimulus phase to a third party. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this in order of expand the ways of attaining the desired brain state, expand the brain conditions that are treated via stimulation and allow for treatment for remotely located subjects.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Clare with Pless to obtain the invention as specified in claims 2-5, 7, 9, 11-14, 16, 17 and 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R KASENGE whose telephone number is (571)272-3743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am to 4pm EST.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
CK
February 12, 2026
/CHARLES R KASENGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116