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 .
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 14 January 2026. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8-13 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8-13, as well as the cancellation of claims 2, 4, and 7.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 34-36: “two electical stimulation agents are respectively arranged in the first setting base and the two electrical stimulation agents of the second setting base” should apparently read --two electrical stimulation agents that are respectively arranged in the first setting base and
In claim 10, lines 28-30: “two electical stimulation agents are respectively arranged in the first setting base and the two electrical stimulation agents of the second setting base” should apparently read --two electrical stimulation agents that are respectively arranged in the first setting base and
In claim 10, line 48: “-has” should apparently read --has--.
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 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8-13 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 1 recites the limitation “the top area” in line 15. It is not clear which of the previously recited top areas this refers to. The claim also recites this same limitation in line 18, line 21, and line 23, which may need to be amended in kind.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation "the patient’s head acupoints" in lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation “the acupoint agents” in line 17. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to all of the acupoint agents or only to some of them. Seemingly it is only some of them, as other acupoint agents are later recited to be positioned in other places.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation "the center" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; the claim previously recites a center of the ear portions but not a center of the top area.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation "the finger distance" in lines 23-24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation “patients” in line 25. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the previously recited patient or to other patients.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation “the acupoint agents” in lines 29-30. It is not clear what is meant by this limitation as there is no other language in this clause.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation “the acupoint agents” in line 31. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as only a single acupoint agent has been previously recited to correspond to the Shenting acupoint.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation "the two electrical stimulation agents" in line 35. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; the claim previously recites two electical stimulation agents.
Claim 1 also recites the limitations "the control unit" in line 49 and “the direction” in line 53. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation “a control unit” in line 58. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the control unit recited in line 49 of the claim or to a different unit.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the flashing light displayed by the display and optical frequency-flashed stimulation unit respectively stimulates the eyes of the patient with different optical flash frequency” in lines 3-5. It is not clear what is meant by “different optical flash frequency.” What is the frequency different from? Is this meant to recite only a single frequency or multiple frequencies? Is this intended to recite that each eye is stimulated with a different frequency?
Claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 11-13 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the top area” in line 12. It is not clear which of the previously recited top areas this refers to. The claim also recites this same limitation in line 15, line 17, and line 19, which may need to be amended in kind.
Claim 10 also recites the limitation "the patient’s head acupoints" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 also recites the limitation “the acupoint agents” in line 14. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to all of the acupoint agents or only to some of them. Seemingly it is only some of them, as other acupoint agents are later recited to be positioned in other places.
Claim 10 also recites the limitation "the center" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; the claim previously recites a center of the ear portions but not a center of the top area.
Claim 10 also recites the limitation "the finger distance" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 also recites the limitation “patients” in line 21. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the previously recited patient or to other patients.
Claim 10 also recites the limitation “the acupoint agents” in line 24. It is not clear what is meant by this limitation as there is no other language in this clause.
Claim 10 also recites the limitation “the acupoint agents” in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as only a single acupoint agent has been previously recited to correspond to the Shenting acupoint.
Claim 10 also recites the limitation "the two electrical stimulation agents" in line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; the claim previously recites two electical stimulation agents.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 11-13, as detailed in the previous Office action, none of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests such a display and optical frequency-flashed stimulation unit that is a virtual image manipulation device and that displays such an assessment program executed by the control unit to generate a cognitive self-assessment score and a cognitive result score, in combination with the other recited components. Regarding claim 10, as detailed in the previous Office action, none of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests such a supporting unit, in combination with the other recited components.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the objections to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are mostly persuasive in light of the amendments. Many of the rejections have been withdrawn; however, some persist, as detailed supra, and the amendments have introduced further rejections.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The rejections have been withdrawn.
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 THADDEUS B COX whose telephone number is (571)270-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Jason M. Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/THADDEUS B COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791