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 .
Response to Amendments
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 14 October 2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 3, 8-9, and 12-15 have been amended, claims 2, 4, 5-7, and 11 have been cancelled, claims 16-20 remain withdrawn, claims 1, and claims 21-22 have been newly added. Thus, claims 1,3, 8-9, 12-15, and 21-22 are presently pending and under examination.
Response to Arguments
Response to Arguments Regarding 35 USC § 112
The Applicant’s amendments to claims 3 and 9 have overcome the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejection set forth in the Non-Final Rejection Office Action mailed 14 July 2025.
Response to Arguments Regarding 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant has amended claim to recite the subject matter of now cancelled claims 2, 4-7 and 11 and the newly added limitation of “fusing the simultaneously obtained MRI data and the EEG data of the person…wherein the jICA of the fused MRI and EEG data tracks rapid interactions of widespread cortical networks in the brain of the person necessary for complex cognition and identifies which cortical networks and network interactions of the brain of the person are contributing brain areas with language comprehension…wherein whole-brain spatial and temporal parameters are pulled from the specific person and applied to stimulation of that person”.
Examiner has instead used (1) Widge et al. (US 2017/0042474 A1), hereinafter Widge in view of (2) Grünling, C., Ligges, M., Huonker, R. et al. Dyslexia: the possible benefit of multimodal integration of fMRI- and EEG-data. J Neural Transm 111, 951–969 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-004-0117-z, hereinafter Grünling, further in view of (3)Mijović, Bogdan, et al. "The “why” and “how” of JointICA: results from a visual detection task." NeuroImage 60.2 (2012): 1171-1185., hereinafter Mijović (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Widge discloses a method of individualized, non-invasive brain stimulation for enhancing learning ([0071] “The system 10 may then use a range of invasive or non-invasive brain stimulation technologies to specifically target the brain regions and provide individualized psychiatric treatment”) comprising:
Obtaining brain data of a brain of a person while the person is performing a leaning activity ([0105] “Once the transdiagnostic assessment is administered, the system 10 may record electrical, magnetic, or other physiologically produced activity from the patient's brain and/or body at process block 204 while the patient is performing one or more of the psycho-physical tasks”), wherein the brain data comprises high resolution brain imaging, and obtaining said high resolution brain imaging comprises simultaneously obtaining at least magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and electroencephalogram (EEG) data while the person is performing the learning activity ([0106] explains how multiple forms of electro-magnetic signals are recorded while the patient is performing a task, where the electro-magnetic signals are measured from the brain using one or more of MRI and EEG, “Alternatively, any suitable method or combination of methods for recording the electro-magnetic signals of the brain with sufficient spatial resolution and temporal resolution may be used.”);
identifying one or more particular areas of the brain of the person for stimulation based on brain imaging ([0112]-[0116] Steps 208, 210, and 212)
configuring a non-invasive brain stimulation electrode array specifically for the person to target the one or more particular areas of the brain of the person identified from the brain imaging; and stimulating the identified one or more particular areas of the brain of the person using the non-invasive brain stimulation electrode array specifically configured for the person ([0114] “because the brain imaging data, such as brain imaging data 902 shown in FIG. 15, includes the patient's specific brain anatomy, the system 10 may identify one or more points 904 within the individual patient's brain that are generating the abnormal activity, as shown in FIG. 15”, [0116] “Once the patient's impaired functional domain(s) have been identified and the brain regions and signals correlated to the impairment have been identified, the system 10 may apply stimulation to the identified brain regions at process block 212. In one example, stimulation may be performed with the electrodes 16 (see FIG. 1) having cortical and/or subcortical leads placed near brain regions of the patient. The stimulation may be applied to the brain regions identified at process block 208 in order to alter activity in those regions.”, [0070] “The non-invasive system may include a plurality of scalp or non-contact electrodes and/or neuro-stimulation coils in communication with a software-controlled helmet, cap, or set of electrodes that can stimulate areas of the brain.”, [0118]) wherein the stimulation results in enhanced learning ([0138] “Some are even able to learn new cognitive skills that enable active suppression of symptoms”, [0103]-[0104] “DBS stimulation at correct sites and timing may enhance learning and showing an improvement in overall performance approaching 100% correct.”)
wherein whole-brain spatial and temporal parameters are pulled from the specific person and applied to stimulation of that person ([0071] “The system 10 then may link the patient-specific behavioral measurement to patterns of activation and de-activation across different brain regions, identifying specific structures that are the source of the patient's individual impairment.”, [0106] “while the patient is performing the task(s) of transdiagnostic assessment, multiple forms of electro-magnetic signals may be recorded from the patient during a single session, for example, or during multiple sessions of multiple modalities (i.e., imaging types) done over several days…any suitable method or combination of methods for recording the electro-magnetic signals of the brain with sufficient spatial resolution and temporal resolution may be used”, Abstract: “Patient-specific behavioral measurements are then linked to patterns of activation and de-activation across different brain regions, identifying specific structures that are the source of the patient's individual impairment.”)
Although Widge discloses locating and identifying the particular area of the brain of the person that needs to be stimulated using multiple modalities ([0106]), Widge fails to explicitly disclose fusing the simultaneously obtained MRI data and the EEG data of the person; identifying one or more particular areas of the brain of the person for stimulation based on joint independent component analysis (jICA) of the fused MRI and EEG data of the person data, wherein the jICA of the fused MRI and EEG data tracks rapid interactions of widespread cortical networks in the brain of the person necessary for complex cognition and identifies which cortical networks and network interactions of the brain of the person are contributing brain areas with language comprehension.
However, Grünling teaches neuroimaging methods used for dyslexia wherein the brain imaging tracks rapid interactions of widespread cortical networks in the brain of the person necessary for complex cognition and identifies which cortical networks and network interactions of the brain of the person are contributing brain areas with language comprehension (pg. 952: “The combination of the two techniques could therefore be a fruitful approach to the analysis of the temporal and spatial characteristics of normal and dyslexia specific neuronal language processing”, pg. 965-966: “The fMRI-constrained current source density reconstruction of the dyslexic subject revealed a whole network of areas active at a very early timepoint, with later maxima of activation over frontal regions. These frontal activations last until the end of the segment and seem to indicate much ongoing language processing.”, Figure 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Widge to incorporate the teachings of Grünling as these prior art references are directed to monitoring a patient’s performance and neuronal activity during cognitive tasks using EEG and MRIs. One would be motivated to do this to be able to understand the biological background of dyslexia, a common disorder of the brain.
Widge and Grünling, alone or in combination fail to teach disclose fusing the simultaneously obtained MRI data and the EEG data of the person; identifying one or more particular areas of the brain of the person for stimulation based on joint independent component analysis (jICA) of the fused MRI and EEG data of the person data, wherein the jICA of the fused MRI and EEG data tracks rapid interactions of widespread cortical networks in the brain of the person necessary for complex cognition and identifies which cortical networks and network interactions of the brain of the person are contributing brain areas with language comprehension
However, Mijović teaches multimodal approach of combining electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) using an jointICA algorithm during a visual detection task comprising: fusing the simultaneously obtained MRI data and the EEG data of the person (Introduction, Simultaneous EEG-fMRI: “EEG and BOLD changes can be measured simultaneously to benefit from their complementary properties”, Introduction, Integration approaches: “connect the electrical activations (ERP peaks) to their corresponding chemical (BOLD) brain activation sites”, Materials and Methods, JointICA: “, the JointICA algorithm provides, as an output, independent components, each containing the sources of both modalities (EEG and fMRI). In the Results section, these components are always shown in paired figures, one containing the EEG, and the other one the fMRI information”) wherein identifying one or more particular areas of the brain of the person for stimulation based on joint independent component analysis (jICA) of the fused MRI and EEG data of the person data (Discussion: "we evaluated and presented the performance of JointICA, a recently proposed method for a symmetric integration of EEG and fMRI. To this end, we recorded EEG and fMRI data during a simple visual detection task...The above expectations were consistently confirmed in our study both on simultaneously and non-simultaneously acquired data...Also in Fig. 3, Fig. 4, we find the expected activations."), and wherein the jICA of the fused MRI and EEG data tracks rapid interactions of widespread cortical networks in the brain of the person necessary for complex cognition and identifies which cortical networks and network interactions of the brain of the person are contributing brain areas with language comprehension (Introduction, the present study: “a large part of brain activity is reflected both in EEG and fMRI modalities, and the link between them can be established…providing a better understanding for potential future users”, Introduction,
Simultaneous EEG-fMRI: “simultaneous EEG and fMRI recordings allow for “full reproducibility of the
recording environment for both modalities. This is especially important in cognitive studies in which
habituation, learning processes, arousal state or attention mechanisms play a role...For this reason, the
simultaneous acquisition of both EEG and fMRI is getting more and more popular, as their complementarity can provide deeper insight into function and dysfunction of brain dynamics”).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brain imaging of Widge and Grünling to incorporate the teachings of Mijović to fuse the simultaneously obtained MRI data and the EEG data of the person, identify one or more particular areas of the brain of the person for stimulation based on joint independent component analysis (jICA) of the fused MRI and EEG data of the person data, and have the jICA of the fused MRI and EEG data track rapid interactions of widespread cortical networks in the brain of the person necessary for complex cognition and identifies which cortical networks and network interactions of the brain of the person are contributing brain areas with language comprehension, as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to monitoring brain activations during task performances. One would be motivated to do this as jointICA method provides both fine spatial and temporal resolution for detecting brain activations, as recognized by Mijović (Abstract).
To summarize, Widge has been used to teach a personalized brain stimulation system based on patient’s personal performance and anatomy during a variety of cognitive tasks; Grünling has been used to teach a concept of gathering brain imaging data to determine the origin during a language comprehension task, and Mijović has been used to teach an effective method of fusing/analyzing the brain imaging data to determine specific brain target sites.
Therefore, claims 1, 3, 8, 12, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 USC 103 (as shown in detail below).
No additional specific arguments were presented with previous 35 USC 103 rejections of dependent claims 9-10 and 13-15, nor specifically with respect to the previously cited Mijovic, Cichy, Bentwich, Shakour, Ruffini, and Vosskuhl.
Therefore, claims 9-10 and 13-15 are rejected as described below under 35 USC 103.
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, 8-10, 12-15, and 21-22 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 fused MRI and EEG data" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 3, 8-10, and 12-15 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the closest spatial match " in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the jICA targets" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the jICA outputs" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 12, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widge et al. (US 2017/0042474 A1), hereinafter Widge in view of Grünling, C., Ligges, M., Huonker, R. et al. Dyslexia: the possible benefit of multimodal integration of fMRI- and EEG-data. J Neural Transm 111, 951–969 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-004-0117-z, hereinafter Grünling, further in view of Mijović, Bogdan, et al. "The “why” and “how” of JointICA: results from a visual detection task.” NeuroImage 60.2 (2012): 1171-1185., hereinafter Mijović (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Widge discloses a method of individualized, non-invasive brain stimulation for enhancing learning ([0071] “The system 10 may then use a range of invasive or non-invasive brain stimulation technologies to specifically target the brain regions and provide individualized psychiatric treatment”) comprising:
Obtaining brain data of a brain of a person while the person is performing a leaning activity ([0105] “Once the transdiagnostic assessment is administered, the system 10 may record electrical, magnetic, or other physiologically produced activity from the patient's brain and/or body at process block 204 while the patient is performing one or more of the psycho-physical tasks”), wherein the brain data comprises high resolution brain imaging, and obtaining said high resolution brain imaging comprises simultaneously obtaining at least magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and electroencephalogram (EEG) data while the person is performing the learning activity ([0106] explains how multiple forms of electro-magnetic signals are recorded while the patient is performing a task, where the electro-magnetic signals are measured from the brain using one or more of MRI and EEG, “Alternatively, any suitable method or combination of methods for recording the electro-magnetic signals of the brain with sufficient spatial resolution and temporal resolution may be used.”);
identifying one or more particular areas of the brain of the person for stimulation based on brain imaging ([0112]-[0116] Steps 208, 210, and 212)
configuring a non-invasive brain stimulation electrode array specifically for the person to target the one or more particular areas of the brain of the person identified from the brain imaging; and stimulating the identified one or more particular areas of the brain of the person using the non-invasive brain stimulation electrode array specifically configured for the person ([0114] “because the brain imaging data, such as brain imaging data 902 shown in FIG. 15, includes the patient's specific brain anatomy, the system 10 may identify one or more points 904 within the individual patient's brain that are generating the abnormal activity, as shown in FIG. 15”, [0116] “Once the patient's impaired functional domain(s) have been identified and the brain regions and signals correlated to the impairment have been identified, the system 10 may apply stimulation to the identified brain regions at process block 212. In one example, stimulation may be performed with the electrodes 16 (see FIG. 1) having cortical and/or subcortical leads placed near brain regions of the patient. The stimulation may be applied to the brain regions identified at process block 208 in order to alter activity in those regions.”, [0070] “The non-invasive system may include a plurality of scalp or non-contact electrodes and/or neuro-stimulation coils in communication with a software-controlled helmet, cap, or set of electrodes that can stimulate areas of the brain.”, [0118]) wherein the stimulation results in enhanced learning ([0138] “Some are even able to learn new cognitive skills that enable active suppression of symptoms”, [0103]-[0104] “DBS stimulation at correct sites and timing may enhance learning and showing an improvement in overall performance approaching 100% correct.”)
wherein whole-brain spatial and temporal parameters are pulled from the specific person and applied to stimulation of that person ([0071] “The system 10 then may link the patient-specific behavioral measurement to patterns of activation and de-activation across different brain regions, identifying specific structures that are the source of the patient's individual impairment.”, [0106] “while the patient is performing the task(s) of transdiagnostic assessment, multiple forms of electro-magnetic signals may be recorded from the patient during a single session, for example, or during multiple sessions of multiple modalities (i.e., imaging types) done over several days…any suitable method or combination of methods for recording the electro-magnetic signals of the brain with sufficient spatial resolution and temporal resolution may be used”, Abstract: “Patient-specific behavioral measurements are then linked to patterns of activation and de-activation across different brain regions, identifying specific structures that are the source of the patient's individual impairment.”)
Although Widge discloses locating and identifying the particular area of the brain of the person that needs to be stimulated using multiple modalities ([0106]), Widge fails to explicitly disclose fusing the simultaneously obtained MRI data and the EEG data of the person; identifying one or more particular areas of the brain of the person for stimulation based on joint independent component analysis (jICA) of the fused MRI and EEG data of the person data, wherein the jICA of the fused MRI and EEG data tracks rapid interactions of widespread cortical networks in the brain of the person necessary for complex cognition and identifies which cortical networks and network interactions of the brain of the person are contributing brain areas with language comprehension.
However, Grünling teaches neuroimaging methods used for dyslexia wherein the brain imaging tracks rapid interactions of widespread cortical networks in the brain of the person necessary for complex cognition and identifies which cortical networks and network interactions of the brain of the person are contributing brain areas with language comprehension (pg. 952: “The combination of the two techniques could therefore be a fruitful approach to the analysis of the temporal and spatial characteristics of normal and dyslexia specific neuronal language processing”, pg. 965-966: “The fMRI-constrained current source density reconstruction of the dyslexic subject revealed a whole network of areas active at a very early timepoint, with later maxima of activation over frontal regions. These frontal activations last until the end of the segment and seem to indicate much ongoing language processing.”, Figure 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Widge to incorporate the teachings of Grünling as these prior art references are directed to monitoring a patient’s performance and neuronal activity during cognitive tasks using EEG and MRIs. One would be motivated to do this to be able to understand the biological background of dyslexia, a common disorder of the brain.
Widge and Grünling, alone or in combination fail to teach disclose fusing the simultaneously obtained MRI data and the EEG data of the person; identifying one or more particular areas of the brain of the person for stimulation based on joint independent component analysis (jICA) of the fused MRI and EEG data of the person data, wherein the jICA of the fused MRI and EEG data tracks rapid interactions of widespread cortical networks in the brain of the person necessary for complex cognition and identifies which cortical networks and network interactions of the brain of the person are contributing brain areas with language comprehension
However, Mijović teaches multimodal approach of combining electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) using an jointICA algorithm during a visual detection task comprising: fusing the simultaneously obtained MRI data and the EEG data of the person (Introduction, Simultaneous EEG-fMRI: “EEG and BOLD changes can be measured simultaneously to benefit from their complementary properties”, Introduction, Integration approaches: “connect the electrical activations (ERP peaks) to their corresponding chemical (BOLD) brain activation sites”, Materials and Methods, JointICA: “, the JointICA algorithm provides, as an output, independent components, each containing the sources of both modalities (EEG and fMRI). In the Results section, these components are always shown in paired figures, one containing the EEG, and the other one the fMRI information”) wherein identifying one or more particular areas of the brain of the person for stimulation based on joint independent component analysis (jICA) of the fused MRI and EEG data of the person data (Discussion: "we evaluated and presented the performance of JointICA, a recently proposed method for a symmetric integration of EEG and fMRI. To this end, we recorded EEG and fMRI data during a simple visual detection task...The above expectations were consistently confirmed in our study both on simultaneously and non-simultaneously acquired data...Also in Fig. 3, Fig. 4, we find the expected activations."), and wherein the jICA of the fused MRI and EEG data tracks rapid interactions of widespread cortical networks in the brain of the person necessary for complex cognition and identifies which cortical networks and network interactions of the brain of the person are contributing brain areas with language comprehension (Introduction, the present study: “a large part of brain activity is reflected both in EEG and fMRI modalities, and the link between them can be established…providing a better understanding for potential future users”, Introduction,
Simultaneous EEG-fMRI: “simultaneous EEG and fMRI recordings allow for “full reproducibility of the
recording environment for both modalities. This is especially important in cognitive studies in which
habituation, learning processes, arousal state or attention mechanisms play a role...For this reason, the
simultaneous acquisition of both EEG and fMRI is getting more and more popular, as their complementarity can provide deeper insight into function and dysfunction of brain dynamics”).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brain imaging of Widge and Grünling to incorporate the teachings of Mijović to fuse the simultaneously obtained MRI data and the EEG data of the person, identify one or more particular areas of the brain of the person for stimulation based on joint independent component analysis (jICA) of the fused MRI and EEG data of the person data, and have the jICA of the fused MRI and EEG data track rapid interactions of widespread cortical networks in the brain of the person necessary for complex cognition and identifies which cortical networks and network interactions of the brain of the person are contributing brain areas with language comprehension, as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to monitoring brain activations during task performances. One would be motivated to do this as jointICA method provides both fine spatial and temporal resolution for detecting brain activations, as recognized by Mijović (Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Widge in view of Grünling further in view of Mijović teaches the method of claim 1 (as shown above). Widge further discloses wherein the learning activity is a specific learning activity such as factual learning, or skill learning ([0075] “a fear learning and extinction task”, [0079] “aversion reward conflict task”, [0084] “an emotion conflict resolution (ECR) task”, [0092] “gambling task”, [0096]-[0097] “a multi-source interference task… the multi-source interference task, the patient may be provided a group of numbers 602 and asked to select one number from the group of numbers 602 that is different from the others.”, [0100] “an associative learning task…measuring the functional domain of cognitive capacity…patient’s speed to learn new items, memory, number of items that the patient can perform correctly at some criterion (e.g., 80% consistent correct), speed to detect a reversal when it happens (i.e., to notice that what was correct is now wrong), and perseverative thinking”)
Regarding claim 8, Widge in view of Grünling further in view of Mijović teaches the method of claim 1 (as shown above). Widge and Grünling, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the jICA or other analysis identified one or more detailed MRI spatial maps and corresponding time courses, leading to an understanding of brain processes.
However, Mijović teaches wherein the jICA or other analysis identifies one or more detailed MRI spatial maps and corresponding time courses (Figure 2-5 and 7-8 show the fMRI activation and the corresponding ERP), leading to an understanding of brain processes (pg. 1173, The present study: “a large part of brain activity is reflected both in EEG and fMRI modalities, and the link between them can be established…providing a better understanding for potential future users”, pg. 1172, Introduction, Simultaneous EEG-fMRI: simultaneous EEG and fMRI recordings allow for “full reproducibility of the recording environment for both modalities. This is especially important in cognitive studies in which habituation, learning processes, arousal state or attention mechanisms play a role…For this reason, the simultaneous acquisition of both EEG and fMRI is getting more and more popular, as their complementarity can provide deeper insight into function and dysfunction of brain dynamics”).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the neuroimaging of Widge and Grünling to incorporate the teachings of Mijović to have the jICA or other analysis identified one or more detailed MRI spatial maps and corresponding time courses, leading to an understanding of brain processes, as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to monitoring brain activations during task performances. One would be motivated to do this as the MRI spatial maps and the corresponding time courses can help one understand brain activity as these data forms reflect brain dynamics, as recognized by Mijović (pg.1172-1173).
Regarding claim 12, Widge in view of Grünling further in view of Mijović teaches the method of claim 1 (as shown above). Widge further discloses configuring the non-invasive brain stimulation electrode array specifically for the person to target the one or more particular areas of the brain of the person identified from the brain imaging ([0114] “because the brain imaging data, such as brain imaging data 902 shown in FIG. 15, includes the patient's specific brain anatomy, the system 10 may identify one or more points 904 within the individual patient's brain that are generating the abnormal activity, as shown in FIG. 15”, [0116] “Once the patient's impaired functional domain(s) have been identified and the brain regions and signals correlated to the impairment have been identified, the system 10 may apply stimulation to the identified brain regions at process block 212. In one example, stimulation may be performed with the electrodes 16 (see FIG. 1) having cortical and/or subcortical leads placed near brain regions of the patient. The stimulation may be applied to the brain regions identified at process block 208 in order to alter activity in those regions.”, [0070] “The non-invasive system may include a plurality of scalp or non-contact electrodes and/or neuro-stimulation coils in communication with a software-controlled helmet, cap, or set of electrodes that can stimulate areas of the brain.”, [0118]) is done by using stimulation targeting software ([0070] "The non-invasive system may include a plurality of scalp or non-contact electrodes and/or neuro-stimulation coils in communication with a software-controlled helmet, cap, or set of electrodes that can stimulate areas of the brain. The embedded software may steer the amount and polarity of energy sent to each electrode, thus shaping the E-fields and allowing accurate targeting of specific cortical areas. "
Widge and Grünling, alone or in combination, fail to teach the one or more particular areas of the brain of the person identified from the jICA of the fused MRI/EEG analysis.
However, Mijović teaches the one or more particular areas of the brain of the person identified from the jICA of the fused MRI/EEG analysis (Discussion: "we evaluated and presented the performance of JointICA, a recently proposed method for a symmetric integration of EEG and fMRI. To this end, we recorded EEG and fMRI data during a simple visual detection task...The above expectations were consistently confirmed in our study both on simultaneously and non-simultaneously acquired data...Also in Fig. 3, Fig. 4, we find the expected activations.").
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the brain imaging of Widge to incorporate the teachings of Mijović to have the one or more particular areas of the brain of the person identified from the jICA of the fused MRI/EEG analysis, as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to monitoring brain activations during task performances. One would be motivated to do this as jointICA method provides both fine spatial and temporal resolution for detecting brain activations, as recognized by Mijović (Abstract).
Regarding claim 21, Widge in view of Grünling further in view of Mijović teaches the method of claim 1 (as shown above). Widge fails to teach wherein complex cognition while performing the learning activity is identified by early signals centered in a hippocampus and bilateral anterior temporal lobes (ATL) of the person closely followed by and overlapping with ATL coupled with a broader fronto-temporal language network.
However, Grunling teaches “Activation of current source densities in both subjects can be observed after 130 ms. In contrast to the control subject, who shows small patches of activation in inferior temporal and angular areas, the dyslexic subject starts to activate a huge network involving the extrastriate, temporal and large parts of the frontal region. Most interestingly, in the time range between 130 and 800 ms the control subject successively activates parts of fusiform, temporal and parietal regions until finally the subject activates a complete language network including the posterior, temporal, parietal and frontal regions. Clearly maximal activations are observed in temporal (temporo-parietal and angular) regions. The dyslexic subject also activates a whole network of brain areas, but maxima are localized primarily in the frontal regions. Most interestingly, from 800 ms onwards current source densities for the control subject only show slight activities in inferior frontal and middle regions of the premotoric areas, whereas the dyslexic subject shows heavy ongoing activations in mostly frontal regions up to the end of the segment, at about 2000 ms” (pg. 959-962).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Widge to incorporate the teachings of Grünling to have wherein complex cognition while performing the learning activity is identified by early signals centered in a hippocampus and bilateral anterior temporal lobes (ATL) of the person closely followed by and overlapping with ATL coupled with a broader fronto-temporal language network, as these prior art references are directed to monitoring brain neuronal activity when the user is performing a cognitive task. One would be motivated to do this because it would allow a user to determine when and which regions of the brain are activated during a specific cognitive task.
Regarding claim 22, Widge in view of Grünling further in view of Mijović teaches the method of claim 1 (as shown above).
Widge and Mijović, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein the learning activity is reading.
However, Grünling teaches wherein the learning activity is reading (Figure 1: D reading of pseudowords, pg. 954: “Subjects had to decide whether two items that were visually presented at the same time were identical or not. Each decision required a key press, so that responses were registered through a key press of either index (stimuli are the same) or middle finger (stimuli are not the same) of the right hand. These stimuli consisted of: (A) slash patterns (baseline condition needed for fMRI data-analysis, e.g. ==== nnnn), (B) letter strings (e.g. dddcd ddccd), (C) highfrequent words (e.g. Baum Bein), (D) reading of pseudowords (e.g. Bilza Bilaz) and (E) rhyming of pseudowords (e.g. Jurde Surde).”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Widge and Mijović to incorporate the teachings of Grünling to have the learning activity be reading, as these prior art references are directed to monitoring brain imaging/neural activity during cognitive tasks. One would be motivated to do this as reading is an important part of language comprehension which can be affected my learning disabilities, such as dyslexia.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widge in view of Grünling in view of Mijović as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Cichy RM, Oliva A. A M/EEG-fMRI Fusion Primer: Resolving Human Brain Responses in Space and Time. Neuron. 2020 Sep 9;107(5):772-781. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2020.07.001. Epub 2020 Jul 27. PMID: 32721379; PMCID: PMC7612024., hereinafter Cichy (previously cited) and Agichtein et al. (US 2012/0059282 A1), hereinafter Agichtein.
Regarding claim 9, Widge in view of Grünling further in view of Mijović teaches the method of claim 8 (as shown above). Widge, Grünling, and Mijović, alone or in combination, fail to teach the method further comprising identifying one of the one or more detailed MRI spatial maps and/or corresponding time courses is most predictive of the subject's successful learning of information using online learning resources.
However, Cichy teaches linking multivariate response patterns of the human brain recorded with fMRI and with EEG based on representational similarity (Abstract) wherein the fused EEG with fMRI data reveal “a processing cascade from sensory to parietal regions and further in frontal regions (Fig. 5A). In a second step the authors took M/EEG-fMRI analysis up one level by making its results the starting point for further analysis. After conducting M/EEG-fMRI fusion based on cortical parcels (Fig. 5B), they compared the parcel-specific M/EEG-fMRI time courses themselves for similarity (Fig. 5C). Visual inspection of the similarity relations between the parcel-specific EEG-fMRI time courses suggested 8 clusters (Fig. 5D) that were used for a discrimination analysis. Four discriminative functions explained 95% of the variance across areas. Their coefficients are plotted in Fig. 5E across time and Fig. 5F across space. The functions reveal large-scale pattern of spatiotemporal dynamics across networks that the authors interpret as four different spatiotemporal components of attention.” (pg. 7, 6. The spatiotemporal dynamics of higher-level cognition and Figure 5F).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Widge, Grünling, and Mijović to incorporate the teachings of Cichy to identifying one of the one or more detailed MRI spatial maps and/or corresponding time courses is most predictive of the subject's successful learning of information, as these prior art references are directed to brain imaging and recording method for studying cognitive processes. One would be motivated to do this as this develops a quantitative spatiotemporal model of attentional processing in the human brain and reveal larger-scale networks of brain responses across space and time reminiscent of different cognitive tasks, as recognized by Cichy (Figure 5).
Widge, Grünling, Mijović, and Cichy, alone or in combination, fail to teach using online learning resources.
However, Agichtein teaches method of identifying patients with cognitive impairment ([0003]) which comprises “performing an internet or web based cognitive diagnostics using a visual based comparison task comprising blurring an object with a low pass filter” ([0029]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the visual task of Cichy with the online learning resources based visual task, as these prior art references are directed to measuring cognitive ability. One would be motivated to do this as online learning resources do not require any special purpose hardware and eliminates the need for patients to come to a clinic, as recognized by Agichtein ([0017]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widge in view of Grünling in view of Mijović, and further in view of Bentwich (US 2009/0105521 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Bentwich.
Regarding claim 10, Widge in view of Grünling further in view of Mijović teaches the method of claim 8 (as shown above).
Widge, Grünling, and Mijović , alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein the identified one detailed MRI spatial map and corresponding time course is used to identify one or more greatest contributing brain areas of learning (based either on weighting value of the area through various statistical metrics, or a priori characterization of the region).
However, Bentwich teaches a system and method for diagnosing and treating various brain-related conditions and/or modifying at least one cognitive, behavioral, or affection functions or skills in individuals wherein the brain map is used to identify one or more greatest contributing brain areas of learning (based on a priori characterization of the region) ([0020]-[0021] “INDIVIDUAL BRAIN REGIONS 100 that are pathological functional or structural brain features, or cognitive performance features in an individual, which are associated with a specific brain-related disease that is identified by a NEURODIAGNOSTICS MODULE 101 (FIG. 1). NEURODIAGNOSTICS MODULE 101 measures the functional activation or structural maps, or corresponding cognitive performance in an individual for a particular task (or tasks) or during a resting period. NEURODIAGNOSTICS MODULE 101 transfers this information to REGIONS OF INTEREST COMPUTATIONAL MODULE 102, which identifies those particular brain regions in an individual whose structure, function, or cognitive functions are deviant from their corresponding statistically-established health norms, or from their corresponding statistical norms for cognitively enhanced performance in a particular task. REGIONS OF INTEREST COMPUTATIONAL MODULE 102 outputs these identified statistically-deviant or cognitively-enhanced brain regions in a given individual for analysis in a BRAIN TRAIT COMPUTATION MODULE 103. The BRAIN TRAIT COMPUTATION MODULE 103 determines whether or not any of these identified brain regions statistically fits within known structural, functional, or cognitive pathophysiology of a particular brain-related disease. Alternatively, BRAIN TRAIT COMPUTATION MODULE 103 determines whether or not any of these identified brain regions statistically fits within established norms for enhanced or excellent cognitive or behavioral performance (in a particular task or skill or skills).”).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Widge, Grünling, and Mijović to incorporate the teachings of Bentwich to use the brain map to identify one or more greatest contributing brain areas of learning (based either on weighting value of the area through various statistical metrics, or a priori characterization of the region), as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to studying and enhancing cognitive function. One would be motivated to do this to be able to provide a precise individual-based brain stimulation, and corresponding cognitive stimulation parameters, needed to stimulate the identified disease-related brain loci, or to enhance an identified cognitive skill or function, as recognized by Bentwich ([0017]).
Widge, Grünling, and Bentwich, alone or in combination, fail to explicitly teach the brain map to be an identified detailed MRI spatial map and corresponding time course.
However, Mijović teaches a multimodal approach of combining electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to determine the brain activation during a visual detection task wherein “the activation of a particular brain area consists of the synchronized firing of a subpopulation of neurons in that area, involved in processing information or executing a particular task. This synchronized relevant neural firing can be measured with the electroencephalogram (EEG) as event-related potentials (ERP). The neural activity is additionally accompanied by a regional increase in cerebral blood flow. These regional cerebral blood flow changes can be measured directly as the blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) signal with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).” (Introduction, Simultaneous EEF-fMRI) which is used to create a detailed MRI spatial map and corresponding time course (Results, Application of JointICA – simultaneously recorded data: “In Fig. 2, the JointICA decomposition is shown for the down-left visual field stimuli. The ERP data were derived from the electrode PO8, on which the P1, N1, and P2 ERP peaks are clearly visible, and the corresponding fMRI IC activations obtained from JointICA are shown.”, Figure 2 and 3)
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substitute the brain map of Bentwich with the detailed MRI spatial map and corresponding time course of Mijović, as these prior art references are directed to studying cognition. One would be motivated to do this as a detailed MRI spatial map and corresponding time course as these maps provide both a fine spatial and temporal resolution and can provide a deeper insight into function and dysfunction of brain dynamics, as recognized by Mijović (Abstract, pg. 1172 Simultaneous EEG-fMRI).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widge in view of Grünling in view of Mijović, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Ruffini et al. (US 2020/0129119 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Ruffini.
Regarding claim 13, Widge in view of Grünling in view of Mijović teaches the method of claim 12 (as shown above).
Widge, Grünling, and Mijović , alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein using stimulation targeting software to configure the electrode array comprises contributing an algorithm to the software that iteratively tests electric field maps (e.g. the simulated impact of stimulation from an electrode array) to find the electrode array with the closest spatial match to the jICA targets.
However, Ruffini teaches methods for evaluating the effects of transcranial neurostimulation (Abstract) and can be used to evaluate the effects of neurostimulation in improving one or more of memory, cognition, and/or motor functions in health and/or diseased individuals ([0010]) wherein using stimulation targeting software to configure the electrode array comprises contributing an algorithm to the software that iteratively tests electric field maps (e.g. the simulated impact of stimulation from an electrode array) to find the electrode array with the closest spatial match to the targets. ([0023] “the optimization of currents, electrode locations and electrode numbers can employ extended, weighted cortical pattern target maps based on brain activity data and/or neuroimaging data. The target maps define desired values for the electric field at multiple points for stimulation. Targets can be defined based on a coordinate system relative to the cortical surface, with target values for normal and/or tangential components of electric field. The process can use algorithms to optimize currents as well as the number and location of electrodes given appropriate constraints, such as the maximum current at any electrode and the maximum total injected current. For example, M1 can be determined using a target map of a cortical surface specifying desired values for the electric field at each point. Further, determination of M1 can employ a weight map providing the degree of relative importance of each location in the target map, and a set of constraints on the number of electrodes and their currents. In some embodiments, the weighted target map of the cortical surface is generated by prioritizing the areas in the target map for optimization purposes. For example, a higher weight is given to those brain areas considered to be more important for the particular application of neurostimulation”).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Widge, Grünling, and Mijović to incorporate the teaching of Ruffini to have using stimulation targeting software to identify a best fit electrode array comprises contributing an algorithm to the software that iteratively tests electric field maps (e.g. the stimulated impact of stimulation from an electrode array) to find the electrode array with the closest spatial match to the target, as these prior art references and the instant application studying and enhancing cognitive functions. One would be motivated to do this to identify the electrode montage with a specified fitness for stimulating the one or more cortical targets, as recognized by Ruffini ([0007]).
Widge, Grünling, and Ruffini, alone or in combination, fail to teach jICA targets.
However, Mijović teaches a multimodal approach of combining electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to determine the brain activation during a visual detection task marking jICA targets (Introduction, Simultaneous EEF-fMRI : “the activation of a particular brain area consists of the synchronized firing of a subpopulation of neurons in that area, involved in processing information or executing a particular task. This synchronized relevant neural firing can be measured with the electroencephalogram (EEG) as event-related potentials (ERP). The neural activity is additionally accompanied by a regional increase in cerebral blood flow. These regional cerebral blood flow changes can be measured directly as the blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) signal with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).”, Figure 4: results of JointICA for simultaneously recorded data from the electrode, panel a shows the ERP wave containing the C1 peak. The corresponding fMRI activations are in the right upper lingual gyrus, around the calcarine sulcus — primary visual cortex (BA17, MNI [7 −93 5]). In panel b, the early N1 component is present. The active fMRI areas are the right cuneus (BA7, MNI [18 −72 46]) and right lingual gyrus (BA18, MNI [28, −75 −9]). The late N1-related component (panel c), shows fMRI activations in the somatosensory cortex (BA3, 1 and 2) and primary motor cortex (BA4). The component in panel d shows P2 ERP activation, and the fMRI shows activity in the right cuneus (BA7, MNI [25 −63 53]).).
Although, Mijović doesn’t explicitly mention these brain activations found from jICA algorithm to be jICA target, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have interpreted the marked activations to be the target regions as they are associated with the cognitive task.
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substitute the target of Ruffini with jICA targets of Mijović, as these prior art references are directed to studying cognition. One would be motivated to do this as the jICA targets provide both a fine spatial and temporal resolution and can provide a deeper insight into function and dysfunction of brain dynamics, as recognized by Mijović (Abstract, pg. 1172 Simultaneous EEG-fMRI).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widge in view of Grünling in view of Mijović, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vosskuhl, Johannes, Daniel Strüber, and Christoph S. Herrmann. "Non-invasive brain stimulation: a paradigm shift in understanding brain oscillations." Frontiers in human neuroscience 12 (2018): 211. (previously cited).
Regarding claim 14, Widge in view of Grünling further in view of Mijović teaches the method of claim 1 (as shown above). Widge, Grünling, and Mijović, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein a specific peak frequency value within each frequency band from the EEG is used as another parameter in non-invasive brain stimulation of the person.
However, Vosskuhl teaches the effects of transcranial alternating current stimulation to interfere with ongoing brain oscillations and the relationship between cognitive functions wherein a specific peak frequency value within each frequency band from EEG is used as another parameter in non-invasive brain stimulation of the person (pg. 10, Frequency: “stimulating participants either slightly below or above their individual frequency”, It further also talks about theta and gamma bands, and explains the correlation between the bands, the stimulation parameter, and an effect on cognitive processes).
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Widge, Grünling, and Mijović to incorporate the teachings of Vosskuhl as these prior art references are directed to providing brain stimulation during cognitive tasks. One would be motivated to do this as it has been noted that the frequency of a brain oscillation within a specific frequency band has been assumed to be relevant for many cognitive functions (pg. 9-10, Frequency) and thus since brain stimulation can manipulate brain oscillation (pg. 2-3, Introduction) it can also lead to better cognitive functions (pg. 11, Frequency, paragraph 1), as recognized by Vosskuhl.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widge in view of Grünling further in view of Mijović as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Bentwich (US 2012/0221075 A1), hereinafter Bentwich’075.
Regarding claim 15, Widge in view of Grünling further in view of Mijović teaches the method of claim 8 (as shown above). Widge, Grünling, and Mijović, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein stimulation for stimulating the identified one or more areas of the brain comprises both spatial and temporal variation of stimulation, which is linked to the jICA outputs.
However, Bentwich’075 teaches a method capable of modulating the brain through stimulation modalities to improve/optimize brain conditions (Abstract) wherein stimulation for stimulating the identified one or more areas of the brain comprises both spatial and temporal variation of stimulation ([0002] “The BRAIN TRAIT IDENTIFIER 100 determines the targeted brain functions and/or cognitive and/or behavioral and/or neurophysiological traits and/or values and/or criteria and/or criterion that need to be altered and/or enhanced and/or normalized and/or treated and/or improved and/or enhanced etc. and/or associated with a particular brain region and/or regions and/or functional and/or structural and/or neurophysiological patterns and/or values and/or targets and/or criteria/criterion.”, [0054] “the ALGORITHM COMPUTATION 502 is capable of determining for each of single or multiple PROBABLE DISEASE TRAIT/S 500 (of FIG. 5) including but not limited to any single or multiple neural or neuronal or cognitive or behavioral or brain region/s or cell/s or neuronal network/s etc. what is the necessary stimulation parameters including but not limited to: electrical or electromagnetic or electrophysiological or neuronal or cognitive or behavioral etc. stimulation or intensity, frequency, location, or spatial or temporal or spatial-temporal stimulation parameter/s or protocol, duration, length, interval adjustment, fine-tuning (including based on the neuronal of cognitive or behavioral response to stimulation etc., which will be further discussed below).”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Widge, Grünling, and Mijović to incorporate the teachings of Bentwich’075 to have wherein stimulation for stimulating the identified one or more areas of the brain comprises both spatial and temporal variation of stimulation, as these prior art references are directed to cognitive impairments and monitoring. One would be motivated to do this to have precise and effective stimulation.
Widge, Grünling, and Bentwich’075, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein stimulation for stimulating the identified one or more areas of the brain comprises both spatial and temporal variation of stimulation, which is linked to the jICA outputs.
However, Mijović teaches a multimodal approach of combining electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to determine the brain activation during a visual detection task marking jICA outputs (Introduction, Simultaneous EEF-fMRI : “the activation of a particular brain area consists of the synchronized firing of a subpopulation of neurons in that area, involved in processing information or executing a particular task. This synchronized relevant neural firing can be measured with the electroencephalogram (EEG) as event-related potentials (ERP). The neural activity is additionally accompanied by a regional increase in cerebral blood flow. These regional cerebral blood flow changes can be measured directly as the blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) signal with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).”, Figure 4: results of JointICA for simultaneously recorded data from the electrode, panel a shows the ERP wave containing the C1 peak. The corresponding fMRI activations are in the right upper lingual gyrus, around the calcarine sulcus — primary visual cortex (BA17, MNI [7 −93 5]). In panel b, the early N1 component is present. The active fMRI areas are the right cuneus (BA7, MNI [18 −72 46]) and right lingual gyrus (BA18, MNI [28, −75 −9]). The late N1-related component (panel c), shows fMRI activations in the somatosensory cortex (BA3, 1 and 2) and primary motor cortex (BA4). The component in panel d shows P2 ERP activation, and the fMRI shows activity in the right cuneus (BA7, MNI [25 −63 53]).).
Although, Mijović doesn’t explicitly mention these brain activations found from jICA algorithm to be jICA outputs, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have interpreted the marked activations to be the target regions as they are associated with the cognitive task.
It would have been prima facia obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify Widge, Grünling, and Bentwich’075to incorporate the teachings of Mijović to have the variation of stimulation be linked to the jICA outputs, as these prior art references are directed to studying cognition. One would be motivated to do this as the jICA outputs provide both a fine spatial and temporal resolution and can provide a deeper insight into function and dysfunction of brain dynamics, as recognized by Mijović (Abstract, pg. 1172 Simultaneous EEG-fMRI).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widge in view of Grünling further in view of Mijović as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Danilov et al. (US Patent 11,185, 696 B1), hereinafter Danilov.
Regarding claim 22, Widge in view of Grünling further in view of Mijović teaches the method of claim 1 (as shown above).
Widge, Grünling, Mijović, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein the learning activity is reading.
However, Danilov teaches a non-invasive neurostimulation method to enhance a subject’s attention span, concentration, multitasking ability, or alertness and treat neurological impairments wherein the learning activity is reading (Column 9, lines 40-44: “Such tasks could include commonly available “brain-training” exercises or games, e.g., computerized or non-computerized exercises or games designed to require use of attention span, memory/recollection, reading comprehension, etc.”
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Widge, Grünling, and Mijović to incorporate the teachings of Danilov to have the learning activity be reading, as these prior art references are directed to monitoring brain imaging/neural activity during cognitive tasks. One would be motivated to do this as it can result in rehabilitation of impaired cognitive (e.g. attention, memory, learning, multitasking, etc.) function may be improved by providing stimulation during tasks designed to exercise perceptual and cognitive skills or to increase proficiency in these types of mental/physical activities, as recognized by Danilov (Column 9, lines 36-40 and Column 10, lines 10-13).
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 ATTIYA SAYYADA HUSSAINI whose telephone number is (703)756-5921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Niketa Patel can be reached at 5712724156. 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.
/ATTIYA SAYYADA HUSSAINI/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/MICHAEL W KAHELIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792