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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “...that contain an of the subject...” in line 5 should be amended to read –that contain an image of the subject--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “...adjusted detection criterion applied to the one or more change parameters...” in line 20 should be amended to read – adjusted detection criterion applied to one or more change parameters --. Appropriate correction is required.
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 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orlosky et al. (US 2018/0271364; hereinafter Orlosky), in view of Shandong Agricultural University (CN 112656406; relied on English translation), in view of Muthuswamy (US2021/0275091).
Regarding claim 24, Orlosky discloses a method and apparatus for detecting ocular movement disorders. Orlosky shows a computer-implemented method of machine recognition of a physiological condition of a subject (see abstract, fig. 2 and 8), the method comprising: obtaining a video stream of the subject using a video data source (see par. [0027]); identifying, using processing circuitry, one or more areas within image frames of the view stream that contain an image of subject (see fig. 2 and 6; par. [0022], [0027], [0059]); analyzing video data of the identified area in the image frames using the processing circuity to detect change of a physiological feature of the subject (see fig. 2 and 6; par. [0027], [0059], [0060], [0062]); determining one or more change parameters of the physiological feature from the video data (see fig. 2 and 6; par. [0027], [0059], [0060], [0062]) and generating an indication of a symptom of Parkinson’s Disease according to a detection criterion applied to the one or more change parameters (see fig. 2 and 6; par. [0027], [0059], [0060], [0061], [0062]), receiving, by the processing circuitry, feedback of accuracy of detection of the symptom of Parkinson's Disease using the detected change in the physiological feature (see fig. 2 and 8), and inputting the feedback into a machine learning algorithm (see fig. 2 and 8; par. [0036], [0049], [0053]), receiving adjusted detection criterion applied to the one or more change parameters of the physiological feature and generating the indication of a symptom of Parkinson’s Disease according to the adjusted detection criterion applied to the one or more change parameters (see fig. 2 and 6; par. [0027], [0059], [0060], [0061], [0062]).
But, Orlosky fails to explicitly state receiving adjusted detection criterion applied to the one or more change parameters of the physiological feature from the machine learning algorithm; and generating the indication of a symptom of Parkinson's Disease according to the adjusted detection criterion applied to the one or more change parameters; and changing, by the processing circuitry, a parameter of neurostimulation provided to the subject to reduce the symptom of Parkinson's Disease
Shandong Agricultural University discloses a wearable sensor-based lower limp movement detection method for Parkinson’s disease. Shandong Agricultural University also teaches feedback of accuracy of detection of the symptom of Parkinson's Disease using the detected change in the physiological feature (see abstract), and inputting the feedback into a machine learning algorithm (see abstract), and further teaches receiving adjusted detection criterion applied to the one or more change parameters of the physiological feature from the machine learning algorithm (see abstract; fig. 1 and 3); and generating the indication of a symptom of Parkinson's Disease according to the adjusted detection criterion applied to the one or more change parameters (see abstract; fig. 1 and 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of receiving adjusted detection criterion applied to the one or more change parameters of the physiological feature from the machine learning algorithm in the invention of Orlosky, as taught by Shandong Agricultural University, to verify the accuracy of the classification model to provide a more accurate detection of Parkinson’s disease
But, Orlosky and Shandong Agricultural University fail to explicitly state changing, by the processing circuitry, a parameter of neurostimulation provided to the subject to reduce the symptom of Parkinson's Disease.
Muthuswamy discloses a rapid assessment of microcirculation in patient to realize closed-loop systems. Muthuswamy teaches changing, by the processing circuitry, a parameter of neurostimulation provided to the subject (see par. [0047], [0048], [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have utilized changing, by the processing circuitry, a parameter of neurostimulation provided to the subject in the invention of Orlosky and Shandong Agricultural University, as taught by Muthuswamy, to improve the accuracy of electrode placement in DBS surgery and potentially reduce surgery time, optimize the delivery of electrical stimulation, increase battery life of implantable DBS systems, reduce post-surgical visits to medical practitioners and improve the quality of life of patients. The examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Orlosky to incorporate the teaching of Muthuswamy would provide reducing the symptom of Parkinson’s disease.
Regarding claim 25, Orlosky discloses a method and apparatus for detecting ocular movement disorders. Orlosky shows an electronic device (see abstract, fig. 2 and 8), comprising: a video data source configured to obtain a video stream that includes image frames of video data (see par. [0027]); processing circuitry (see fig. 2 and 6); and a memory storing instruction that, when performed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform operations including: identifying one or more areas within the image frames of the video stream that contain an image of a subject ((see fig. 2 and 6; par. [0022], [0027], [0059]); analyzing video data of the identified one or more areas in the image frames to detect a change in a physiological feature of the subject (see fig. 2 and 6; par. [0027], [0059], [0060], [0062]); generating an indication of a symptom of Parkinson’s Disease according to a detection criterion applied to the detected change in the physiological feature (see fig. 2 and 6; par. [0027], [0059], [0060], [0061], [0062]); receiving feedback of accuracy of detection of the symptom of Parkinson's Disease using the detected change in the physiological feature (see fig. 2 and 8), and inputting the feedback into a machine learning algorithm (see fig. 2 and 8; par. [0036], [0049], [0053]), receiving adjusted detection criterion applied to the one or more change parameters of the physiological feature and generating the indication of a symptom of Parkinson’s Disease according to the adjusted detection criterion applied to the one or more change parameters (see fig. 2 and 6; par. [0027], [0059], [0060], [0061], [0062]).
But, Orlosky fails to explicitly state receiving adjusted detection criterion applied to the one or more change parameters of the physiological feature from the machine learning algorithm; and generating the indication of a symptom of Parkinson's Disease according to the adjusted detection criterion applied to the one or more change parameters; and changing, by the processing circuitry, a parameter of neurostimulation provided to the subject according to the detected change in the physiological features to reduce the symptom of Parkinson’s disease
Shandong Agricultural University discloses a wearable sensor-based lower limp movement detection method for Parkinson’s disease. Shandong Agricultural University also teaches feedback of accuracy of detection of the symptom of Parkinson's Disease using the detected change in the physiological feature (see abstract), and inputting the feedback into a machine learning algorithm (see abstract), and further teaches receiving adjusted detection criterion applied to the one or more change parameters of the physiological feature from the machine learning algorithm (see abstract; fig. 1 and 3); and generating the indication of a symptom of Parkinson's Disease according to the adjusted detection criterion applied to the one or more change parameters (see abstract; fig. 1 and 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of receiving adjusted detection criterion applied to the one or more change parameters of the physiological feature from the machine learning algorithm in the invention of Orlosky, as taught by Shandong Agricultural University, to verify the accuracy of the classification model to provide a more accurate detection of Parkinson’s disease.
But, Orlosky and Shandong Agricultural University fail to explicitly state changing, by the processing circuitry, a parameter of neurostimulation provided to the subject according to the detected change in the physiological features to reduce the symptom of Parkinson's Disease.
Muthuswamy discloses a rapid assessment of microcirculation in patient to realize closed-loop systems. Muthuswamy teaches changing, by the processing circuitry, a parameter of neurostimulation provided to the subject according to the detected change in the physiological features (see par. [0047], [0048], [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have utilized changing, by the processing circuitry, a parameter of neurostimulation provided to the subject according to the detected change in the physiological features in the invention of Orlosky and Shandong Agricultural University, as taught by Muthuswamy, to improve the accuracy of electrode placement in DBS surgery and potentially reduce surgery time, optimize the delivery of electrical stimulation, increase battery life of implantable DBS systems, reduce post-surgical visits to medical practitioners and improve the quality of life of patients. The examiner notes that upon modification of prior art Orlosky to incorporate the teaching of Muthuswamy would provide reducing the symptom of Parkinson’s disease.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 19 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. Claims 5-8, 11 and 14 are objected and allowable as they depend from claim 1, and claims 21-23 are objected and allowable as they depend from claim 25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/07/2026, with respect to claims 24-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any rejection applied in the prior Office action of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Applicant on page 8 states that claims 24 and 25 are rewritten in independent to form to include the features of the base claims as original filed and are believed to be in allowable form, the examiner respectfully disagrees. In the previous office action dated 11/05/2025, the examiner objected claims 24-25 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 examiner notes that currently claims 24-25 which are rewritten as independent claim, however, claim 24 does not recite all the claim limitations of claim 1 and claim 24 does not recite all the claim limitations of claim 19.
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 SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED whose telephone number is (571)270-3134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am to 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, Anne M Kozak can be reached at (571)270-0552. 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.
/SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights