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 § 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 6, 8, 9, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 6, 8, 15 , 17, 19, and 21 each recite the term “about” (two instances each). Th is term is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While the specification provides various examples (e.g., tolerances of +/- 1 Hz, +/- 0.5 Hz , and +/- 0. 1 Hz ), it does not limit the tolerance to these examples, nor does it make clear which of these tolerances should be used . Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claimed frequencies are not readily determinable and not clear. Claim 9 recites the limitation “comprises subject the subject” in line 2. This limitation is confusing and not clear. For sake of compact prosecution, this limitation has been taken herein to read -- comprises subject ing the subject -- (as recited by claim 10). Claims 15-17 and 19-21 each recite methods; however, they depend upon device claims, so it is not clear what is intended to be claimed (i.e., a device or a method). Claim 16 recites that it depends upon claim 134. However, claim 134 does not exist, so the scope of claim 16 is not clear. For sake of compact prosecution, claim 16 has been taken herein to depend upon claim 14. 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 , 5, 7, 9-1 4 , 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hargrove (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0307029 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Hargrove discloses a method of modulating a brain activity of a subject (Abstract) , comprising: subjecting the subject to repetitive current or magnetic pulses, wherein the repetitive current or magnetic pulses have a pulse frequency at a first target frequency, and a pulse amplitude that is variable to approximate a sinusoidal signal comprising a second target frequency and a target amplitude ([0006]; [0093]; [0126]; [0167]-[0168]; [0283]) ; and improving a physiological condition or a neuropsychiatric condition of the subject ([0099]; [0102]; [0118]; [0274]) . Regarding claim 5 , Hargrove discloses receiving an intrinsic frequency within a specific EEG band of the subject and setting the second target frequency at the intrinsic frequency within the specified EEG band, or at a harmonic or sub-harmonic of the intrinsic frequency within the specified EEG band of the subject ([0115]; [0134]) . Regarding claim 7 , Hargrove discloses that the first target frequency and the second target frequency are fixed values and the value of the first target frequency is greater than the value of the second target frequency ([0114] -[ 0115]) . Regarding claim 9 , Hargrove discloses subject ing the subject to current pulses and the current pulses are generated using transcranial alternating current stimulation ([0160]) . Regarding claim 10 , Hargrove discloses subjecting the subject to magnetic pulses and the magnetic pulses are generated using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation ([0093]; [0186]; [0283]) . Regarding claim 11 , Hargrove discloses that the neuropsychiatric condition is any one or more of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Alzheimer’s disease, ADHD, schizophrenia, anxiety, depression, coma, Parkinson’s disease, substance abuse, bipolar disorder, a sleep disorder, an eating disorder, tinnitus, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress syndrome, or fibromyalgia ([0099]; [0102]; [0118]; [0274]) . Regarding claim 1 2 , Hargrove discloses providing a device for applying a varying magnetic field, having: a sine-wave generator which creates a sinusoidal signal having a sinusoidal amplitude and sinusoidal frequency, a pulse timing generator which creates a pulse timing signal having a pulse frequency, a driver circuit configured to provide a voltage or current output at an amplitude that is proportional to the sinusoidal amplitude at a time specified by the pulse frequency (comprised by components 8 and 28 of Hargrove; Figs. 1 and 4; [0159] ; [0167]-[0168] ) , and a magnetic field generator 170 which generates a magnetic field with an amplitude proportional to the current or voltage output from the driver ci rcuit, and subjecting the subject to repetitive magnetic pulses with the magnetic field generator of the device (Fig. 13; [0186]) . Regarding claim 1 3 , Hargrove discloses providing a device for applying a varying current , having: a sine-wave generator which creates a sinusoidal signal having a sinusoidal amplitude and sinusoidal frequency, a pulse timing generator which creates a pulse timing signal having a pulse frequency, a driver circuit configured to provide a voltage or current output at an amplitude that is proportional to the sinusoidal amplitude at a time specified by the pulse frequency (comprised by components 8 and 28 of Hargrove; Figs. 1 and 4; [0159]), and two electrodes, which are configured to provide electric current or voltage to the head of the subject with an amplitude proportional to the current or voltage output from the driver circuit, and subjecting the subject to repetitive current pulses with the two electrodes of the device ([0200]; [0210]). Regarding claim 1 4 , Hargrove discloses a device for applying a varying magnetic field to a head of a subject ( Abstract; [0093]) , the device comprising : a sine-wave generator which creates a sinusoidal signal having a sinusoidal amplitude and sinusoidal frequency, a pulse timing generator which creates a pulse timing signal having a pulse frequency, a driver circuit configured to provide a voltage or current output at an amplitude that is proportional to the sinusoidal amplitude at a time specified by the pulse frequency (comprised by components 8 and 28 of Hargrove; Figs. 1 and 4; [0159] ; [0167]-[0168] ), and a magnetic field generator 170 which generates a magnetic field with an amplitude proportional to the current or voltage output from the driver circuit (Fig. 13; [0186]) . Regarding claim 16 , Hargrove discloses that the pulse frequency and the sinusoidal frequency are fixed values and the value of the pulse frequency is greater than the value of the sinusoidal frequency ([0114] -[ 0115]) . Regarding claim 1 8 , Hargrove discloses a device for applying a varying electric current to a head of a subject (Abstract; [0200]; [0210] ) , the device comprising : a sine- wave generator which creates a sinusoidal signal having a sinusoidal amplitude and sinusoidal frequency, a pulse timing generator which creates a pulse timing signal having a pulse frequency, a driver circuit configured to provide a voltage or current output at an amplitude that is proportional to the sinusoidal amplitude at a time specified by the pulse frequency (comprised by components 8 and 28 of Hargrove; Figs. 1 and 4; [0159]), and two electrodes 25 , which are configured to provide electric current or voltage to the head of the subject with an amplitude proportional to the current or voltage output from the driver circuit ( [0160]; [0200]; [0210]). Regarding claim 20 , Hargrove discloses that the pulse frequency and the sinusoidal frequency are fixed values and the value of the pulse frequency is greater than the value of the sinusoidal frequency ([0114] -[ 0115]) . 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hargrove as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Segal (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0018706 A1) . Hargrove discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and further discloses receiving a non-EEG biological metric of the subject ([0192]; e.g., EMG or ECG data). Hargrove fails to disclose setting the first target frequency at the non-EEG biological metric, or a harmonic or sub-harmonic of the non-EEG biological metric. Segal discloses a similar method (Abstract) comprising setting a target stimulation frequency at a received MEG frequency ([0029] -[ 0030]; [0096]; [0125]) in order to enhance and therapeutically stimulate the brain ([0001]). 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 Hargrove by setting the first target frequency at the received MEG frequency , as taught by Segal, in order to enhance and therapeutically stimulate the brain . Claim s 3 , 8, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hargrove as applied to claim s 1 , 16, and 18 above, and further in view of Leuchter et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 201 8 / 0256912 A1 ; hereinafter known as “Leuchter” ) . Regarding claim 3, Hargrove discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose receiving an intrinsic frequency within a specific EEG band of the subject and setting the first target frequency at the intrinsic frequency within the specified EEG band, or a harmonic or sub-harmonic of the intrinsic frequency within the specified EEG band. Leuchter discloses a similar method (Abstract) comprising receiving an intrinsic frequency within a specific EEG band of a subject and setting a first target frequency at the intrinsic frequency within the specified EEG band, or a harmonic or sub-harmonic of the intrinsic frequency within the specified EEG band , in order to improve responsiveness to treatment ([00 70 ] -[ 0076] ). 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 Hargrove by receiving an intrinsic frequency within a specific EEG band of a subject and setting a first target frequency at the intrinsic frequency within the specified EEG band, or a harmonic or sub-harmonic of the intrinsic frequency within the specified EEG band , as taught by Leuchter, in order to improve responsiveness to treatment. Regarding claim s 8, 17, and 21, Hargrove discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and further discloses that the second target frequency /sinusoidal frequency is about 1 Hz ([0115]). Hargrove also teaches that the first target frequency/pulse frequency should preferably be an order of magnitude larger than the second target frequency /sinusoidal frequency ([0114]). Hargrove fails to expressly disclose that the first target frequency/pulse frequency is about 10 Hz. Leuchter discloses a similar method and device (Abstract) comprising setting a first target frequency at an intrinsic frequency that is about 10 Hz in order to improve responsiveness to treatment ([0070] -[ 0076]). 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 Hargrove so that the first target frequency/pulse frequency is about 10 Hz, as taught by Leuchter, in order to improve responsiveness to treatment. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 4 is 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 6, 15, and 19 are would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: regarding claim 4, none of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests setting such a second target frequency of an amplitude-modulating sinusoidal signal based upon a received non-EEG biological metric of the subject, in conjunction with such a method of modulating a brain activity of a subject. Similarly, regarding claim s 6, 15, and 19 , none of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests that the first target/pulse frequency is about an intrinsic frequency within an alpha band of the subject and the second target/ sinusoidal frequency is about a resting heart rate of the subjec t, in conjunction with such a method or device of /for modulating a brain activity of a subject . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT THADDEUS B COX whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5132 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jason M. Sims can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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