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 .
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0360715 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lim discloses a method (Abstract) comprising: identifying an activity being performed by a subject ([0185]-[0188]); and administering sensory stimulation to said subject during said activity to induce gamma oscillations in a brain region of said subject ([0185]-[0188]; claims 18-21).
Regarding claim 2, Lim discloses that said subject has a disease or disorder associated with white brain matter atrophy, demyelination, or a combination thereof ([0002]; [0031]; claim 14).
Regarding claim 5, Lim discloses that said sensory stimulation comprises a frequency of between 10 and 100 Hertz ([0186]-[0188]).
Regarding claim 11, Lim discloses that said administering comprises causing a change in neurotic behavior, anxious behavior, depressive behavior, addictive behavior, food-seeking behavior, or sleeping behavior of said subject ([0018]; [0178]).
Regarding claim 15, Lim discloses that said activity comprises meditating, sleeping, reading, or consuming a substance ([0185]; [0188]).
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Malchano et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0133507 A1; hereinafter known as “Malchano”).
Regarding claim 1, Malchano discloses a method (Abstract) comprising: identifying an activity being performed by a subject ([0335]; [0354]-[0355]; [0375]; [0706]-[0708]; [0753]-[0754]; [0768]-[0770]); and administering sensory stimulation to said subject during said activity to induce gamma oscillations in a brain region of said subject ([0240]; [0254]; [0349]; [0858]).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Malchano discloses that said subject has a disease or disorder associated with white brain matter atrophy, demyelination, or a combination thereof and further comprising administering one or more of an active agent to treat said disease or disorder ([0049]; [0107]-[0108]; [0926]-[0927]).
Regarding claim 4, Malchano discloses that said sensory stimulation comprises one or more of: mechanical stimulation, auditory stimulation, and visual stimulation ([0004]-[0008]).
Claims 1, 6-9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Venturino et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0095907 A1; hereinafter known as “Venturino”).
Regarding claim 1, Venturino discloses a method (Abstract) comprising: identifying an activity being performed by a subject ([0037]; [0088]; [0169]-[0170]); and administering sensory stimulation to said subject during said activity to induce gamma oscillations in a brain region of said subject ([0033]-[0036]; [0040]; [0070]-[0073]).
Regarding claim 6, Venturino discloses that said activity involves a cognitive process ([0135]-[0136]; [0169]-[0170]).
Regarding claim 7, Venturino discloses that said cognitive process comprises one or more of an executive function ([0135]-[0136]; [0169]-[0170]).
Regarding claim 8, Venturino discloses that said executive function comprises emotional control, cognitive flexibility, goal-directed persistence, metacognition, organization, planning/prioritization, response inhibition, stress tolerance, sustained attention, task initiation, time management, working memory, or a combination thereof ([0135]-[0136]; [0169]-[0170]).
Regarding claim 9, Venturino discloses that said activity involves one or more cognitive processes selected from: memory encoding, memory consolidation, memory recall, perception, attention, knowledge formation, problem solving, concept formation, pattern recognition, association, decision making, motor coordination, task planning, language expression, or language comprehension ([0135]-[0136]; [0169]-[0170]).
Regarding claims 12-14, Venturino discloses that said administering comprises improving a cognitive skill, wherein said cognitive skill comprises: perceptual reasoning, sustained attention, selective attention, divided attention, long-term memory, working memory, logic and reasoning, auditory processing, visual processing, visual-motor planning and processing, visual spatial planning and processing, auditory memory, visual memory, task planning, task sequencing, task initiation, task completion, visual encoding and decoding, auditory encoding and decoding, sensory encoding and decoding, language expression, language comprehension, processing speed, cognitive control, cognitive inhibition, declarative memory, procedural memory, episodic memory, auditory memory, visual memory, semantic memory, or autobiographical memory, wherein said processing speed comprises one or more of: visual processing speed, language processing speed, auditory processing speed, and motor processing speed ([0135]-[0136]; [0169]-[0170]).
Claims 1, 18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aharonovitch et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0139112 A1; hereinafter known as “Aharonovitch”).
Regarding claim 1, Aharonovitch discloses a method (Abstract) comprising: identifying an activity being performed by a subject ([0217]-[0223]); and administering sensory stimulation to said subject during said activity to induce gamma oscillations in a brain region of said subject ([0032]; [0039]-[0040]).
Regarding claims 18, 21, and 22, Aharonovitch discloses that said activity comprises a physical activity, wherein said activity comprises operating heavy machinery, wherein said operating heavy machinery comprises an automobile or an aircraft ([0217]-[0223]).
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.
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.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malchano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carstensen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0134047 A1; hereinafter known as “Carstensen”). Malchano discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to expressly disclose that said administering comprises slowing neurodegeneration. Carstensen discloses a similar method (Abstract) wherein administering sensory stimulation to induce gamma oscillations in a brain of the subject also comprises slowing neurodegeneration associated with Alzheimer’s ([0001]-[0004]). 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 invention of Malchano by slowing neurodegeneration, as taught by Carstensen, in order to further treat/prevent Alzheimer’s.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests identifying that the subject is bathing or showering and then administering sensory stimulation to the subject during the bathing/showering to induce gamma oscillations in a brain region of the subject. Ogura et al. (JP 2003/038603 A) teaches a bath for applying a pressurized stream of water at a frequency of 8-13 Hz but does not administer this stimulation to induce gamma oscillations in a brain of a subject. Similarly, Yamashita (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0151192 A1) teaches a bathing device that generates ultrasound and/or audible sound at 25-50 Hz but does not administer this stimulation to induce gamma oscillations in a brain of a subject.
Conclusion
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