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 Amendment
The amendment filed on February 17, 2026 was considered by the examiner. Claims 1-5 and 7-25 are pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: an auditory analysis system, and an output device in claim 1; a filtering module, an onset detection module, and a gain control module in claim 2; a light generation module, a light adjustment module, and a filtering component in claim 7; stimulation unit in claim 11; a built-in audio playback system in claim 15; oscillation selection module in claim 19; and oscillation selection module and visual output device in claim 21.
Prong 1: “system”, “device”, “module”, “unit”, and “component” are generic placeholders. See MPEP 2181 §I, subsection A, ¶1.
Prong 2: the transition word “to” is used, followed by functional language:
“auditory analysis system configured to receive an acoustic input”;
“output device… configured to provide the stimulation pattern”;
“a filtering module configured to filter an incoming audio signal”;
“an onset detection module configured to detect an onset of acoustic events in said incoming audio signal”;
“a gain control module configured to adjust a gain of said incoming audio signal”;
“light generation module” (note, no transition word);
“light adjustment module” (note, no transition word);
“filtering component” (note, no transition word);
“one or more stimulation units for generating…”;
“built-in audio playback system” (note, no transition word); and
“selecting, oscillation selection module a most prominent oscillation…” (note, no transition word);
“selecting, oscillation selection module, one or more oscillations…” (note, no transition word);
“displaying said light pattern on a visual output device” (note, no transition word).
Prong 3: there is not sufficient structure to modify the generic placeholders.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The examiner interprets the array of electromagnets or electrodes, LED lights, computer monitor, TV monitor, goggles, virtual reality headsets, augmented reality glasses, smart glasses, gloves, wearable device, smart watch, or mobile device (see specification ¶[0035] and ¶[0050]) to cover the corresponding structure, materials, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof for the output device.
The examiner interprets the generic computer with input, auxiliary audio input, and microphone (see specification ¶[0044] and Figure 3) to cover the corresponding structure, materials, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof for the oscillation selection module.
The examiner interprets the generic computer module implementation (see specification ¶[0035] and ¶[0050]) to cover the corresponding structure, materials, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof for the output device.
There is no structure in the specification for the filtering module.
There is no structure in the specification for the onset detection module.
There is no structure in the specification for the gain control module.
There is no structure in the specification for the light generation module.
There is no structure in the specification for the light adjustment module.
There is no structure in the specification for the filtering component.
The examiner interprets the array of electromagnets or electrodes, gloves, wearable device, smart watch, or mobile device (see specification ¶[0035] and ¶[0050]) to cover the corresponding structure, materials, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof for the stimulation unit.
The examiner interprets the graphical display and input means (see specification ¶[0036]) to cover the corresponding structure, materials, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof for the built-in audio playback system.
The examiner interprets the LED lights, computer monitor, TV monitor, goggles, virtual reality headsets, augmented reality glasses, smart glasses, or mobile device (see specification ¶[0035] and ¶[0050]) to cover the corresponding structure, materials, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof for the visual output device.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 4, line 2: “is” should be inserted before “further”; and
in claim 19, line 2: a comma should be inserted after “module”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “select a most prominent oscillation in the one or more frequency ranges” in lines 16-17. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see ¶[0044] and Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 1, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the selection process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the selection process itself, but only refers to the selection process in a “black box” description, meaning that the selection process is referred to in a general sense, but the specifics of the selection process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “couple a gamma frequency of the processed stimulation signal to a beat and rhythmic structure of music through theta-gamma and delta-theta phase-amplitude coupling (PAC)” in lines 18-20. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see ¶[0044] and Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 1, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the coupling process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the coupling process itself, but only refers to the coupling process in a “black box” description, meaning that the coupling process is referred to in a general sense, but the specifics of the coupling process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention. It is noted that the reference to the article by Lakatos et al. is not connected to the specific algorithm of coupling process in the present application, and thus cannot be the basis for such written description for the coupling process. There is no indication of how the specific algorithm of Lakatos et al. is applied in the different elements of the presently claimed subject matter.
Claims 2-5 and 7-18 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “detect an onset of acoustic events in said incoming audio signal” in lines 3-4. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 2, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the onset detection process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the onset detection process itself, but only refers to the onset detection process in a “black box” description, meaning that the onset detection process is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the onset detection process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 2.
Claim 4 recites “predict frequencies, phases, and amplitudes of a human neural response to music; and wherein said entrainment simulator provides output to said oscillation selection module in the form of one or more network states” in lines 2-5. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see specification ¶[0042]-[0043] and Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 4, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. This is a machine learning/neural network type implementation (see specification ¶[0042]-[0043] and Figure 3), but no specificity is provided with the network, such as training, layers, data propagation, logics, etc. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the prediction/neural state process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the prediction/neural state process itself, but only refers to the prediction/neural state process in a “black box” description, meaning that the prediction/neural state process is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the prediction/neural state process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 4.
Claim 10 recites “one or more selected oscillation states selected by said oscillation selection module” in lines 3-4. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see ¶[0044] and Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 10, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the selection process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the selection process itself, but only refers to the selection process in a “black box” description, meaning that the selection process is referred to in a general sense, but the specifics of the selection process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 recites “selecting, by an oscillation selection module one or more oscillations in one or more predetermined frequency ranges” in lines 2-3. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see ¶[0044] and Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 19, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the selection process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the selection process itself, but only refers to the selection process in a “black box” description, meaning that the selection process is referred to in a general sense, but the specifics of the selection process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 recites “selecting, by the oscillation selection module, a most prominent oscillation in the one or more frequency ranges” in lines 4-5. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see ¶[0044] and Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 19, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the selection process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the selection process itself, but only refers to the selection process in a “black box” description, meaning that the selection process is referred to in a general sense, but the specifics of the selection process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 recites “coupling, by the oscillation selection module, a gamma frequency of the processed stimulation signal to a beat and rhythmic structure of music through theta-gamma and delta-theta phase-amplitude coupling (PAC)” in lines 6-8. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see ¶[0044] and Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 19, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the coupling process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the coupling process itself, but only refers to the coupling process in a “black box” description, meaning that the coupling process is referred to in a general sense, but the specifics of the coupling process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention. It is noted that the reference to the article by Lakatos et al. is not connected to the specific algorithm of coupling process in the present application, and thus cannot be the basis for such written description for the coupling process. There is no indication of how the specific algorithm of Lakatos et al. is applied in the different elements of the presently claimed subject matter.
Claim 19 recites “generating a stimulation pattern using said one or more oscillations” in line 9. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see ¶[0050]-[0051], ¶[0070]-[0072], and ¶[0082]; Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 19, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the generation process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the generation process itself, but only refers to the generation process in a “black box” description, meaning that the generation process is referred to in a general sense, but the specifics of the generation process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 19.
Claim 21 recites “filtering said acoustic signal” in line 3. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see ¶[0038] and ¶[0083]; Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 21, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the filtering process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the filtering process itself, but only refers to the filtering process in a “black box” description, meaning that the filtering process is referred to in a general sense, but the specifics of the filtering process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites “detecting the onset of one or more acoustic events contained within said acoustic signal” in line 4. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 21, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the onset detection process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the onset detection process itself, but only refers to the onset detection process in a “black box” description, meaning that the onset detection process is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the onset detection process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites “simulating neural entrainment to said acoustic signal using an entrainment simulator; generating one or more coupling parameters to couple said one or more oscillations; using adaptive learning algorithms to adjust said one or more coupling parameters or intrinsic parameters” in lines 5-8. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see specification ¶[0042]-[0043] and ¶[0081]; Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 21, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. This is a machine learning/neural network type implementation (see specification ¶[0042]-[0043] and Figure 3), but no specificity is provided with the network, such as training, layers, data propagation, logics, etc. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the prediction/neural state process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the prediction/neural state process itself, but only refers to the prediction/neural state process in a “black box” description, meaning that the prediction/neural state process is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the prediction/neural state process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites “selecting, by the oscillation selection module, one or more oscillations in one or more predetermined frequency ranges for display” in lines 9-10. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see ¶[0044] and Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 21, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the selection process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the selection process itself, but only refers to the selection process in a “black box” description, meaning that the selection process is referred to in a general sense, but the specifics of the selection process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites “selecting, by the oscillation selection module, a most prominent oscillation in the one or more frequency ranges” in lines 11-12. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see ¶[0044] and Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 21, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the selection process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the selection process itself, but only refers to the selection process in a “black box” description, meaning that the selection process is referred to in a general sense, but the specifics of the selection process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites “coupling, by the oscillation selection module, a gamma frequency of the processed stimulation signal to a beat and rhythmic structure of music through theta-gamma and delta-theta phase-amplitude coupling (PAC)” in lines 13-15. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see ¶[0044] and Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 21, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the coupling process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the coupling process itself, but only refers to the coupling process in a “black box” description, meaning that the coupling process is referred to in a general sense, but the specifics of the coupling process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention. It is noted that the reference to the article by Lakatos et al. is not connected to the specific algorithm of coupling process in the present application, and thus cannot be the basis for such written description for the coupling process. There is no indication of how the specific algorithm of Lakatos et al. is applied in the different elements of the presently claimed subject matter.
Claim 21 recites “generating a light pattern using said one or more oscillations” in line 16. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see ¶[0050]-[0051], ¶[0070]-[0072], and ¶[0082]; Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 21, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the generation process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the generation process itself, but only refers to the generation process in a “black box” description, meaning that the generation process is referred to in a general sense, but the specifics of the generation process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 22-25 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 21.
Claim 22 recites “said step of generating a light pattern comprises selecting a light pattern based on said patient profile, and adjusting said light pattern based on said patient profile” in lines 4-5. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see ¶[0050]-[0051], ¶[0070]-[0072], and ¶[0082]; Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 22, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the selection/adjustment process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the selection/adjustment process itself, but only refers to the selection/adjustment process in a “black box” description, meaning that the selection/adjustment process is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the selection/adjustment process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 23 recites “coupling said input using one or more coupling parameters; and using adaptive learning algorithms to adjust said one or more parameters to optimize the frequency, amplitude and phase of one or more outgoing oscillation signals” in lines 4-6. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see specification ¶[0042]-[0043] and ¶[0081]; Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 23, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. This is a machine learning/neural network type implementation (see specification ¶[0042]-[0043] and Figure 3), but no specificity is provided with the network, such as training, layers, data propagation, logics, etc. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the prediction/neural state process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the prediction/neural state process itself, but only refers to the prediction/neural state process in a “black box” description, meaning that the prediction/neural state process is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the prediction/neural state process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 24 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 23.
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 1-5 and 7-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “said entrainment simulator configured to simulate neural entrainment to the acoustic input” in lines 4-5. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. See MPEP § 2173.03. The recitation appears to be requiring stimulation applied to the patient and recording responses; however, no stimulation has been applied to the patient at this point. The inconsistency between what is claimed (i.e., stimulating neural entrainment) and what appears to be required for the neural entrainment (i.e., stimulation applied to the patient) renders claim 1 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the oscillation selection module is further configured to:” in line 15 and “provide output to said brain rhythm stimulator in the form of said one or more oscillations” in lines 21-22. The first recitation appears to suggest that the oscillation selection module is performing additional selection compared to the selection in lines 6-9; however, the second recitation indicates that additional detail of the selection of lines 6-9 is the function as described in lines 18-20. This inconsistency renders claim 1 indefinite. Amending the first recitation to “wherein selecting one or more oscillations in one or more frequency ranges by the oscillation selection module further comprises” would overcome this rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites “couple a gamma frequency of the processed stimulation signal to a beat and rhythmic structure of music through theta-gamma and delta-theta phase-amplitude coupling (PAC)” in lines 18-20. The recitation appears to be taking place with the element of the oscillation selection module and stimulus to be applied to the patient. However, this recitation of coupling brain frequencies appears to be referencing the response to stimulus applied to the subject (see specification ¶[0030]). If the gamma phase is coupled, what is the delta-theta coupling for? It is not clear what is actually required in this recitation. This inconsistency renders claim 1 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-5 and 7-18 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 2 limitation “filtering module” in line 2 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no structure in the specification for the filtering module. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 2 recites “an incoming audio signal” in lines 2-3, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “an acoustic input” in claim 1, line 3. The different phraseology and indefinite article “an” suggest that the recitations are different, but the context of the claim suggests that they are the same. If the recitations are the same, the present recitation should be “the acoustic input”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 2 limitation “onset detection module” in line 3 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no structure in the specification for the onset detection module. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 2 limitation “gain control module” in line 4 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no structure in the specification for the gain control module. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 3 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 2.
Claim 3 recites “an onset signal” in line 2, but it is not clear what this signal is. It is not clear how this signal relates to the input signal, or how this signal relates any detected acoustic events, or the stimulation pattern in claim 1, line 14. This confusion renders claim 3 indefinite. For the purposes of examination, this term is not being given patentable weight. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “one or more network states” in line 5, but it is not clear what the network states are. The specification indicates that the entrainment stimulator is a type of neural network (see specification ¶[0042]-[0043] and Figure 3). However, it is not clear how this network is implemented, or what this network actually does (see above 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection), such that the output (presumably the network state) is not known. While the output is presumed to have relation to predicted frequency bands of neural data, the specific output is not clear (i.e., graphical representation of neural data over time, simple numerical representations, etc.), and the output’s relation to the network state is not stated in the specification. This confusion renders claim 4 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 4.
Claim 7 recites “a light pattern buffer” in line 2; however, it is not clear what exactly the light pattern buffer is. The specification mentions the light pattern buffer in ¶[0050], but does not elaborate on what the light pattern buffer actually is. This confusion renders claim 7 indefinite, as the scope of the claim is not clear. This term is not being given patentable weight for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 limitation “light generation module” in line 2 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no structure in the specification for the light generation module. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 7 limitation “light adjustment module” in line 2 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no structure in the specification for the light adjustment module. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 7 limitation “filtering component” in line 3 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no structure in the specification for the filtering component. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 8-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 7.
Claim 11 recites “said output device comprises one or more stimulation units for generating tactile, vibratory stimuli, thermal stimuli, electrical transcutaneous stimuli, or electromagnetic fields and/or electrical currents to deliver transcranial stimulation” in lines 1-4; however, it is not clear how the stimuli here (i.e., the non-audio/visual stimuli) relate to the claimed system. From claim 1 and the specification, the output device receives the stimulation information/parameters from the brain rhythm stimulator, after being modified by the other components (see specification generally ¶[0041]-[0048]; Figure 3). However, the specification does not detail on where/how the other stimuli (i.e., the non-audio/visual stimuli) are related from the system. Therefore, it is not clear where the input to the other stimuli comes from, or if the claimed system is even capable of deriving such other stimulation parameters needed to implement such stimulation. This confusion renders claim 11 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites “generating tactile, vibratory stimuli, thermal stimuli, electrical transcutaneous stimuli, or electromagnetic fields and/or electrical currents to deliver transcranial stimulation” in lines 2-3, which is grammatically awkward and unclear. The usage of “or” followed by “and/or” is unclear. This confusion renders claim 11 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 11.
Claim 16 limitation “auditory output means” in line 2 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no structure in the specification for the auditory output means. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 19 recites “coupling, by the oscillation selection module, a gamma frequency of the processed stimulation signal to a beat and rhythmic structure of music through theta-gamma and delta-theta phase-amplitude coupling (PAC)” in lines 6-8. The recitation appears to be taking place with the element of the oscillation selection module and stimulus to be applied to the patient. However, this recitation of coupling brain frequencies appears to be referencing the response to stimulus applied to the subject (see specification ¶[0030]). If the gamma phase is coupled, what is the delta-theta coupling for? It is not clear what is actually required in this recitation. This inconsistency renders claim 19 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 19.
Claim 20 recites “wherein said stimulation pattern includes a type of stimulation, the type of simulation including at least one of light patterns, vibro-tactile patterns, or patterns of electrical or magnetic pulses” in lines 1-4; however, it is not clear how the stimuli here (i.e., the non-audio/visual stimuli) relate to the claimed method. From claim 19 and the specification, the method steps performed as indicated in the specification as the output device receives the stimulation information/parameters from the brain rhythm stimulator, after being modified by the other components (see specification generally ¶[0041]-[0048]; Figure 3). However, the specification does not detail on where/how the other stimuli (i.e., the non-audio/visual stimuli) are related to those components/method steps. Therefore, it is not clear where the input to the other stimuli comes from, or if the claimed method is even capable of deriving such other stimulation parameters needed to implement such stimulation. This confusion renders claim 20 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the onset” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the recitation “an onset” would overcome this rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination.
Claim 21 recites “simulating neural entrainment to said acoustic signal using an entrainment simulator” in line 5. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. See MPEP § 2173.03. The recitation appears to be requiring stimulation applied to the patient and recording responses; however, no stimulation has been applied to the patient at this point. The inconsistency between what is claimed (i.e., stimulating neural entrainment) and what appears to be required for the neural entrainment (i.e., stimulation applied to the patient) renders claim 21 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “intrinsic parameters” in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the oscillation selection module” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the recitation “an oscillation selection module” would overcome this rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination.
Claim 21 recites “coupling, by the oscillation selection module, a gamma frequency of the processed stimulation signal to a beat and rhythmic structure of music through theta-gamma and delta-theta phase-amplitude coupling (PAC)” in lines 13-15. The recitation appears to be taking place with the element of the oscillation selection module and stimulus to be applied to the patient. However, this recitation of coupling brain frequencies appears to be referencing the response to stimulus applied to the subject (see specification ¶[0030]). If the gamma phase is coupled, what is the delta-theta coupling for? It is not clear what is actually required in this recitation. This inconsistency renders claim 21 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 22-25 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 21.
Claim 23 recites “providing said input to one or more multi-frequency neural networks; coupling said input using one or more coupling parameters; and using adaptive learning algorithms to adjust said one or more parameters to optimize the frequency, amplitude and phase of one or more outgoing oscillation signals, wherein said one or more outgoing oscillation signals are used to generate and display said light pattern on said visual output device” in lines 3-8. However, claim 21 recites steps related towards the coupling parameters, adjusting those parameters, generating and displaying patterns in lines 5-12. It is not clear how the steps of claim 23 relate to those of claim 21. Are these step part of the process of claim 21, in addition to, or something else? Are the displayed light patterns resulting from the selected one or more oscillations, one or more outgoing oscillation signals, or a combination of both? Further confusion arises from the relationship of the multi-frequency neural networks and the adaptive learning algorithms. Given the claim language, all three are written as different networks/algorithms; however, given the context of the claim and the specification (see ¶[0041]-[0042] and Figure 3), they all appear to be the same. These inconsistencies render claim 23 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
The term “optimize” in claim 23, line 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimize” 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. It is not clear to what degree or standard the frequency, amplitude, and phase should be optimized to. This renders claim 23 indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 23.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-5 and 7-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 1 recites “couple a gamma frequency of the processed stimulation signal to a beat and rhythmic structure of music through theta-gamma and delta-theta phase-amplitude coupling (PAC)” in lines 18-20. If this recitation is directed towards coupling frequencies in brainwaves of the subject (see above 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection), then this recitation would be directed to or encompassing a human organism. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-5 and 7-18 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 19 recites “coupling, by the oscillation selection module, a gamma frequency of the processed stimulation signal to a beat and rhythmic structure of music through theta-gamma and delta-theta phase-amplitude coupling (PAC)” in lines 6-8. If this recitation is directed towards coupling frequencies in brainwaves of the subject (see above 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection), then this recitation would be directed to or encompassing a human organism. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 19.
Claim 21 recites “coupling, by the oscillation selection module, a gamma frequency of the processed stimulation signal to a beat and rhythmic structure of music through theta-gamma and delta-theta phase-amplitude coupling (PAC)” in lines 13-15. If this recitation is directed towards coupling frequencies in brainwaves of the subject (see above 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection), then this recitation would be directed to or encompassing a human organism. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 22-25 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 21.
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.
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.
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 succeeding art rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 below are made with the claims as best understood and interpreted in light of the preceding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 above.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, and 11-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malchano et al. (2019/0314641 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Malchano, and in view of Schiff et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0237296), hereinafter Schiff, and in view of De Ridder (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0136427 – cited in prior action), hereinafter De Ridder.
Regarding Claim 1, Malchano teaches systems and methods for treating cognitive dysfunction in a subject utilizing a light source and speaker for stimulation (see abstract and Fig. 1). Malchano teaches a neural stimulation system (see abstract and Fig. 1; ¶[0244]-[0248] the visual neural stimulation system (NSS) 105, ¶[0311]-[0312] the computing device(s) 700 of the system, ¶[0385] the neural stimulation system (NSS) 905, ¶[0841] the system 3800 for sensing oscillations based on external stimulus, ¶[0912] the combination of the different disclosed features in a single embodiment; Figs. 1, 7A-7B, 9, and 37-38), the system comprising:
an auditory analysis system configured to receive an acoustic input (¶[0388]-[0389] the audio generation module for providing audio for audio stimulation through sound waves, ¶[0400]-[0401] the audio stimulation may include bursts/beats of acoustic waves, ¶[0416]-[0425] the NSS 905 may generate the audio stimulation (i.e., the bursts/beats of acoustic waves) from a musical instrument track, including both voice and musical instruments, with the beats/pulses set according to the beats in the music, the modulation/embedding of the audio signal for entrainment, ¶[0456]-[0458] the feedback component 960 that can receive audio from the microphone 1210, including from the subject, such as audio commands; Figs. 9-11C);
an entrainment simulator operatively connected to said auditory analysis system (¶[0311]-[0312] the computing device(s) 700 of the system including the CPU 721 and the memory 722, ¶[0597] the different components of the simulation systems include the processing and memory functionality of the computing devices, Fig. 7A-7B; ¶[0244]-[0247], ¶[0385]-[0388], and ¶[0834] the different components interface with one another; Figs. 1, 9, and 37-39);
said entrainment simulator configured to simulate neural entrainment to the acoustic input (¶[0388]-[0389] the audio generation module for providing audio for audio stimulation through sound waves, ¶[0400]-[0401] the audio stimulation may include bursts/beats of acoustic waves, ¶[0416]-[0425] the NSS 905 may generate the audio stimulation (i.e., the bursts/beats of acoustic waves) from a musical instrument track, including both voice and musical instruments, with the beats/pulses set according to the beats in the music, the modulation/embedding of the audio signal for entrainment);
an oscillation selection module operatively connected to said entrainment simulator, the oscillation selection module being a part of a computer processing system (¶[0311]-[0312] the computing device(s) 700 of the system including the CPU 721 and the memory 722, ¶[0597] the different components of the simulation systems include the processing and memory functionality of the computing devices, Fig. 7A-7B; ¶[0244]-[0247], ¶[0385]-[0388], and ¶[0834] the different components interface with one another; Figs. 1, 9, and 37-39);
said oscillation selection module configured to select one or more oscillations in one or more frequency ranges for stimulation and provide output to said brain rhythm stimulator in the form of said one or more oscillations (¶[0598]-[0616], ¶[0633]-[0636] the stimuli orchestration component 2310 to perform neural stimulation using multiple modalities of stimulation, including both audio and visual stimulation, utilizing the policy 2325 based on the subject profile and feedback from feedback components 2340 to determine and apply the stimuli, ¶[0638]-[0643] the application of visual and audio stimulation, ¶[0655] the visual and audio stimulus may be synchronized, ¶[0666]-[0668] the system 2600 for selecting dosing parameters of an appropriate stimulation modality (i.e., visual and/or audio stimulation) and delivering the determined neural stimulation, in part based on user profile and feedback, Figs. 23A-26; ¶[0245]-[0250] the light generation module 110 for generating specific visual signals with desired wavelengths and pulses for visual stimulation, ¶[0253]-[0257] the light generation module 110 may generate the pulses so as to target specific brain activity, such as gamma activity, ¶[0848]-[0851] and ¶[0898]-[0909] the output predicted subject stimulus response and/or therapy neural stimulus for the subject, the selected therapy neural stimulus, implemented as the visual light stimulus, is the selected oscillation; Figs. 1, 38, 45, and 46B),
a brain rhythm stimulator operatively connected to said oscillation selection module (¶[0311]-[0312] the computing device(s) 700 of the system including the CPU 721 and the memory 722, ¶[0597] the different components of the simulation systems include the processing and memory functionality of the computing devices, Fig. 7A-7B; ¶[0244]-[0247], ¶[0385]-[0388], and ¶[0834] the different components interface with one another; Figs. 1, 9, and 37-39),
said brain rhythm stimulator configured to generate a stimulation pattern according to the one or more oscillations, the stimulation pattern synchronized with the acoustic input (¶[0245]-[0250] the light generation module 110 for generating specific visual signals with desired wavelengths and pulses, ¶[0253]-[0257] the light generation module 110 may generate the pulses so as to target specific brain activity, such as gamma activity, ¶[0848]-[0851] and ¶[0898]-[0909] the output predicted subject stimulus response and/or therapy neural stimulus for the subject, the selected therapy neural stimulus, ¶[0288] the generation of the specified light stimulus by the light generation module 110 in response to the model; Figs. 1, 38, 45, and 46B); and
an output device operatively connected to said brain rhythm stimulator, said output device configured to provide the stimulation pattern (¶[0247] the visual signaling component 150, such as an LED, for implementing the visual stimulation; Fig. 1);
wherein the oscillation selection module is further configured to couple a gamma frequency of the processed stimulation signal to a beat and rhythmic structure of music (¶[0245]-[0250] the light generation module 110 for generating specific visual signals with desired wavelengths and pulses for visual stimulation, ¶[0253]-[0257] the light generation module 110 may generate the pulses so as to target specific brain activity, such as gamma activity, ¶[0388]-[0389] the audio generation module for providing audio for audio stimulation through sound waves, ¶[0400]-[0401] the audio stimulation may include bursts/beats of acoustic waves, ¶[0416]-[0425] the NSS 905 may generate the audio stimulation (i.e., the bursts/beats of acoustic waves) from a musical instrument track, including both voice and musical instruments, with the beats/pulses set according to the beats in the music, the modulation/embedding of the audio signal for entrainment ¶[0848]-[0851] and ¶[0898]-[0909] the output predicted subject stimulus response and/or therapy neural stimulus for the subject, the selected therapy neural stimulus, implemented as the visual light stimulus, is the selected oscillation; Figs. 1, 9-11C, 38, 45, and 46B).
Malchano does not specifically teach to select a most prominent oscillation in the one or more frequency ranges of the processed stimulation signal.
Schiff teaches systems and methods for monitoring and diagnosis of neurological functions of subjects via measuring neurological responses (see abstract and Figs. 1-2), in which the response a sensory evoked response (SER) of the subject to auditory, visual, or somatosensory stimuli is monitored via EEG, MEG, or ECoG (see ¶[0029]-[0030]), so as to select a most prominent oscillation in the one or more frequency ranges of the processed stimulation signal (¶[0043] the SER magnitude that is best defined, such as identified as those having the most prominent peaks, so as to identify regions of interest producing the best defined SER).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the most prominent peak selection of Schiff with the most prominent oscillation selection because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) Malchano requires an oscillation selection modality and Schiff teaches one such modality; and/or (3) such selection would indicate those that are the best defined (see Schiff ¶[0043]).
The modified Malchano does not specifically teach to couple a gamma frequency of the processed stimulation signal to a beat and rhythmic structure of music through theta-gamma and delta-theta phase-amplitude coupling (PAC).
De Ridder teaches methods for treating a neurological disorder in a patient by adjusting connectivity between network nodes in a brain of a patient (see abstract and Figs. 1A-1B), in which coupling of various combinations of brainwave frequency bands may be utilized (see generally ¶[0070]-[0088]; Figs. 3-4G and 7A-8B), so as to couple a gamma frequency of the processed stimulation signal to a beat and rhythmic structure of music through theta-gamma (see ¶[0070] and ¶[0080]; Figs. 7A-7B) and delta-theta (see ¶[0079]) phase-amplitude coupling (PAC) (¶[0074] the coupling may involve phase-amplitude coupling).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the theta-gamma and delta-theta PAC coupling of De Ridder with the coupling of the modified Malchano because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) the modified Malchano requires coupling and De Ridder teaches one such implementation for coupling; and/or (3) delta-theta coupling may be utilized to facilitate spatial and/or temporal characteristics for memories (see ¶[0079]) and gamma-theta may be utilized to help determine the span of working memory (see ¶[0080]).
Regarding Claim 2, Malchano in view of Schiff and De Ridder teaches the system of claim 1 as stated above. Malchano further teaches said auditory analysis system comprises a filtering module configured to filter an incoming audio signal (¶[0428]-[0429] the unwanted frequency filtering module 920 capable of filtering the audio signals; Fig. 9),
an onset detection module configured to detect an onset of acoustic events in said incoming audio signal (¶[0416]-[0425] the NSS 905 may generate the audio stimulation (i.e., the bursts/beats of acoustic waves) from a musical instrument track, including both voice and musical instruments, with the beats/pulses set according to the beats in the music, the identified beats in the music for the setting of the beats/pulses is the onset, the modulation/embedding of the audio signal for entrainment, see present application specification ¶[0036]; Figs. 9-11C), and
a gain control module configured to adjust a gain of said incoming audio signal (¶[0426] the audio adjustment module 915 that can adjust various aspects of the audio signal, including amplitude; Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 3, Malchano in view of Schiff and De Ridder teaches the system of claim 2 as stated above. Malchano further teaches said auditory analysis system provides output to said entrainment simulator in the form of an onset signal (¶[0416]-[0425] the output modulated/embedded audio signal, ¶[0385]-[0388] the different components interface with one another; Figs. 9-11C).
Regarding Claim 4, Malchano in view of Schiff and De Ridder teaches the system of claim 1 as stated above. Malchano further teaches said entrainment simulator further configured to predict frequencies, phases, and amplitudes of a human neural response to music (¶[0848]-[0849] and ¶[0901]-[0902] the simulated response module 3735 is the entrainment simulator, the simulated response module 3735 includes a model trained off of historical responses of subjects and the subject to indicate the subject’s predicted response given a particular stimulus, ¶[0903]-[0909] the identified stimulus to give the subject based on the predicted subject response; Figs. 38, 45, and 46B); and
wherein said entrainment simulator provides output to said oscillation selection module in the form of one or more network states (¶[0848]-[0851] and ¶[0898]-[0909] the output predicted subject stimulus response and/or therapy neural stimulus for the subject, ¶[0834] the different components interface with one another; Figs. 9-11C, 38, 45, and 46B).
Regarding Claim 5, Malchano in view of Schiff and De Ridder teaches the system of claim 4 as stated above. Malchano further teaches said one or more frequency ranges include delta, theta, and gamma frequency bands (¶[0238]-[0240] the system may measure neural data from the user, such as via EEG, in bands of delta, theta, alpha, beta, and gamma frequency bands).
Regarding Claim 7, Malchano in view of Schiff and De Ridder teaches the system of claim 1 as stated above. Malchano further teaches said brain rhythm stimulator comprises a light pattern buffer, a light generation module, a light adjustment module, and a filtering component (¶[0289]-[0290] the light adjustment module 115 for adjusting a parameter associated with the visual signal, the unwanted frequency filtering module 120 capable of filtering the signal, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections and 112(f) interpretations above; Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Malchano in view of Schiff and De Ridder teaches the system of claim 7 as stated above. Malchano further teaches said output device includes at least one of LED lights, a computer monitor, a TV monitor, goggles, a virtual reality headset, augmented reality glasses, and smart glasses (¶[0247] the visual signaling component 150, such as an LED; Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Malchano in view of Schiff and De Ridder teaches the system of claim 1 as stated above. Malchano further teaches said output device comprises one or more stimulation units for generating tactile, vibratory stimuli, thermal stimuli, electrical transcutaneous stimuli, or electromagnetic fields and/or electrical currents to deliver transcranial stimulation (¶[0586]-[0589] a glove 2114 may be utilized to deliver peripheral nerve stimulation to cause or induce neural oscillations via electrodes 2102a/2102b; Fig. 21A).
Regarding Claim 12, Malchano in view of Schiff and De Ridder teaches the system of claim 11 as stated above. Malchano further teaches said output device is at least one of a wearable device, gloves, a smart watch, a mobile device, or an array of electromagnets or electrodes (¶[0586]-[0589] a glove 2114 may be utilized to deliver peripheral nerve stimulation to cause or induce neural oscillations via electrodes 2102a/2102b; Fig. 21A).
Regarding Claim 13, Malchano in view of Schiff and De Ridder teaches the system of claim 1 as stated above. Malchano further teaches a brain oscillation monitor operatively connected to said entrainment simulator, and with one or more means to sense electrical or magnetic fields in the brain (¶[0109] and ¶[0238]-[0240] the system may measure neural data from the user, such as via EEG, in bands of delta, theta, alpha, beta, and gamma frequency bands, ¶[0438] the feedback monitor 935 in the system may utilize the EEG measurements, ¶[0385]-[0388] the different components interface with one another; Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 14, Malchano in view of Schiff and De Ridder teaches the system of claim 13 as stated above. Malchano further teaches said one or more means to sense electrical or magnetic fields in the brain includes at least one of an electroencephalogram (EEG), an intracranial EEG (iEEG), an electrocorticography (ECoG), or a magnetoencephalography (MEG) (¶[0109] and ¶[0238]-[0240] the system may measure neural data from the user, such as via EEG, in bands of delta, theta, alpha, beta, and gamma frequency bands, ¶[0438] the feedback monitor 935 in the system may utilize the EEG measurements, ¶[0385]-[0388] the different components interface with one another; Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 15, Malchano in view of Schiff and De Ridder teaches the system of claim 1 as stated above. Malchano further teaches said auditory analysis system includes at least one of a built-in audio playback system, an auxiliary audio input or a microphone (¶[0388]-[0389] the audio generation module for providing audio for audio stimulation through sound waves, ¶[0400]-[0401] the audio stimulation may include bursts/beats of acoustic waves, ¶[0416]-[0425] the NSS 905 may generate the audio stimulation (i.e., the bursts/beats of acoustic waves) from a musical instrument track, including both voice and musical instruments, with the beats/pulses set according to the beats in the music, the modulation/embedding of the audio signal for entrainment, ¶[0456]-[0458] the feedback component 960 that can receive audio from the microphone 1210, including from the subject, such as audio commands; Figs. 9-11C).
Regarding Claim 16, Malchano in view of Schiff and De Ridder teaches the system of claim 15 as stated above. Malchano further teaches an auditory output means (¶[0388]-[0392] the audio signaling component 950, for generating sounds waves, such as via a speaker; Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 17, Malchano in view of Schiff and De Ridder teaches the system of claim 1 as stated above. Malchano further teaches a profile manager comprising a processor or internet-enabled software application accessing non-transitory and random-access memory which stores data pertaining to one or more users (¶[0064] and ¶[0291] the profile manager 125, including a processor and memory for storing and managing subject information; Fig. 1),
said data including at least one of identifying information, stored information from previous therapies, a library of audio files, and/or one or more user preferences (¶[0291] the profile information may include historical treatment information, historical brain entrainment information, dosing information, parameters of light waves, feedback, physiological information, environmental information, or other data associated with the systems and methods of brain entrainment).
Regarding Claim 18, Malchano in view of Schiff and De Ridder teaches the system of claim 17 as stated above. Malchano further teaches said profile manager is operatively connected to said entrainment simulator, said auditory analysis system, and said brain rhythm stimulator (¶[0291] the NSS is interfaced with the profile manager 125, ¶[0244]-[0247] the different components interface with one another; Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 19, Malchano teaches systems and methods for treating cognitive dysfunction in a subject utilizing a light source and speaker for stimulation (see abstract and Fig. 1). Malchano teaches a method for neural stimulation (see abstract and Fig. 1; ¶[0244]-[0248] the visual neural stimulation system (NSS) 105, ¶[0311]-[0312] the computing device(s) 700 of the system, ¶[0385] the neural stimulation system (NSS) 905, ¶[0841] the system 3800 for sensing oscillations based on external stimulus, ¶[0912] the combination of the different disclosed features in a single embodiment; Figs. 1, 7A-7B, 9, and 37-38), the method comprising:
selecting, by an oscillation selection module (¶[0311]-[0312] the computing device(s) 700 of the system including the CPU 721 and the memory 722, ¶[0597] the different components of the simulation systems include the processing and memory functionality of the computing devices, Fig. 7A-7B; ¶[0244]-[0247], ¶[0385]-[0388], and ¶[0834] the different components interface with one another; Figs. 1, 9, and 37-39),
one or more oscillations in one or more predetermined frequency ranges (¶[0245]-[0250] the light generation module 110 for generating specific visual signals with desired wavelengths and pulses for visual stimulation, ¶[0253]-[0257] the light generation module 110 may generate the pulses so as to target specific brain activity, such as gamma activity, ¶[0848]-[0851] and ¶[0898]-[0909] the output predicted subject stimulus response and/or therapy neural stimulus for the subject, the selected therapy neural stimulus, implemented as the visual light stimulus, is the selected oscillation; Figs. 1, 38, 45, and 46B);
coupling, by the oscillation selection module, a gamma frequency of the processed stimulation signal to a beat and rhythmic structure of music (¶[0245]-[0250] the light generation module 110 for generating specific visual signals with desired wavelengths and pulses for visual stimulation, ¶[0253]-[0257] the light generation module 110 may generate the pulses so as to target specific brain activity, such as gamma activity, ¶[0388]-[0389] the audio generation module for providing audio for audio stimulation through sound waves, ¶[0400]-[0401] the audio stimulation may include bursts/beats of acoustic waves, ¶[0416]-[0425] the NSS 905 may generate the audio stimulation (i.e., the bursts/beats of acoustic waves) from a musical instrument track, including both voice and musical instruments, with the beats/pulses set according to the beats in the music, the modulation/embedding of the audio signal for entrainment ¶[0848]-[0851] and ¶[0898]-[0909] the output predicted subject stimulus response and/or therapy neural stimulus for the subject, the selected therapy neural stimulus, implemented as the visual light stimulus, is the selected oscillation; Figs. 1, 9-11C, 38, 45, and 46B);
generating a stimulation pattern using said one or more oscillations (¶[0245]-[0250] the light generation module 110 for generating specific visual signals with desired wavelengths and pulses, ¶[0253]-[0257] the light generation module 110 may generate the pulses so as to target specific brain activity, such as gamma activity, ¶[0848]-[0851] and ¶[0898]-[0909] the output predicted subject stimulus response and/or therapy neural stimulus for the subject, the selected therapy neural stimulus, ¶[0288] the generation of the specified light stimulus by the light generation module 110 in response to the model; Figs. 1, 38, 45, and 46B);
providing output to said brain rhythm stimulator in the form of said one or more oscillations; and outputting said stimulation pattern on an output device (¶[0247] the visual signaling component 150, such as an LED, for implementing the visual stimulation; Fig. 1).
Malchano does not specifically teach to select a most prominent oscillation in the one or more frequency ranges of the processed stimulation signal.
Schiff teaches systems and methods for monitoring and diagnosis of neurological functions of subjects via measuring neurological responses (see abstract and Figs. 1-2), in which the response a sensory evoked response (SER) of the subject to auditory, visual, or somatosensory stimuli is monitored via EEG, MEG, or ECoG (see ¶[0029]-[0030]), so as to select a most prominent oscillation in the one or more frequency ranges of the processed stimulation signal (¶[0043] the SER magnitude that is best defined, such as identified as those having the most prominent peaks, so as to identify regions of interest producing the best defined SER).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the most prominent peak selection of Schiff with the most prominent oscillation selection because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) Malchano requires an oscillation selection modality and Schiff teaches one such modality; and/or (3) such selection would indicate those that are the best defined (see Schiff ¶[0043]).
The modified Malchano does not specifically teach to couple a gamma frequency of the processed stimulation signal to a beat and rhythmic structure of music through theta-gamma and delta-theta phase-amplitude coupling (PAC).
De Ridder teaches methods for treating a neurological disorder in a patient by adjusting connectivity between network nodes in a brain of a patient (see abstract and Figs. 1A-1B), in which coupling of various combinations of brainwave frequency bands may be utilized (see generally ¶[0070]-[0088]; Figs. 3-4G and 7A-8B), so as to couple a gamma frequency of the processed stimulation signal to a beat and rhythmic structure of music through theta-gamma (see ¶[0070] and ¶[0080]; Figs. 7A-7B) and delta-theta (see ¶[0079]) phase-amplitude coupling (PAC) (¶[0074] the coupling may involve phase-amplitude coupling).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the theta-gamma and delta-theta PAC coupling of De Ridder with the coupling of the modified Malchano because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) the modified Malchano requires coupling and De Ridder teaches one such implementation for coupling; and/or (3) delta-theta coupling may be utilized to facilitate spatial and/or temporal characteristics for memories (see ¶[0079]) and gamma-theta may be utilized to help determine the span of working memory (see ¶[0080]).
Regarding Claim 20, Malchano in view of Schiff and Malchano teaches the method of claim 19 as stated above. Malchano further teaches said stimulation pattern includes a type of stimulation, the type of stimulation including at least one of light patterns, vibro-tactile patterns, or patterns of electrical or magnetic pulses (¶[0245]-[0250] the light generation module 110 for generating specific visual signals with desired wavelengths and pulses for visual stimulation, ¶[0247] the visual signaling component 150, such as an LED, for implementing the visual stimulation; Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 21, Malchano teaches systems and methods for treating cognitive dysfunction in a subject utilizing a light source and speaker for stimulation (see abstract and Fig. 1). Malchano teaches a method for neural stimulation (see abstract and Fig. 1; ¶[0244]-[0248] the visual neural stimulation system (NSS) 105, ¶[0311]-[0312] the computing device(s) 700 of the system, ¶[0385] the neural stimulation system (NSS) 905, ¶[0841] the system 3800 for sensing oscillations based on external stimulus, ¶[0912] the combination of the different disclosed features in a single embodiment; Figs. 1, 7A-7B, 9, and 37-38), the method comprising:
receiving an auditory input comprising an acoustic signal (¶[0388]-[0389] the audio generation module for providing audio for audio stimulation through sound waves, ¶[0400]-[0401] the audio stimulation may include bursts/beats of acoustic waves, ¶[0416]-[0425] the NSS 905 may generate the audio stimulation (i.e., the bursts/beats of acoustic waves) from a musical instrument track, including both voice and musical instruments, with the beats/pulses set according to the beats in the music, the modulation/embedding of the audio signal for entrainment, ¶[0456]-[0458] the feedback component 960 that can receive audio from the microphone 1210, including from the subject, such as audio commands; Figs. 9-11C);
filtering said acoustic signal (¶[0428]-[0429] the unwanted frequency filtering module 920 capable of filtering the audio signals; Fig. 9);
detecting the onset of one or more acoustic events contained within said acoustic signal (¶[0416]-[0425] the NSS 905 may generate the audio stimulation (i.e., the bursts/beats of acoustic waves) from a musical instrument track, including both voice and musical instruments, with the beats/pulses set according to the beats in the music, the identified beats in the music for the setting of the beats/pulses is the onset, the modulation/embedding of the audio signal for entrainment, see present application specification ¶[0036]; Figs. 9-11C);
simulating neural entrainment to said acoustic signal using an entrainment simulator (¶[0388]-[0389] the audio generation module for providing audio for audio stimulation through sound waves, ¶[0400]-[0401] the audio stimulation may include bursts/beats of acoustic waves, ¶[0416]-[0425] the NSS 905 may generate the audio stimulation (i.e., the bursts/beats of acoustic waves) from a musical instrument track, including both voice and musical instruments, with the beats/pulses set according to the beats in the music, the modulation/embedding of the audio signal for entrainment);
generating one or more coupling parameters to couple said one or more oscillations (¶[0245]-[0250] the light generation module 110 for generating specific visual signals with desired wavelengths and pulses, ¶[0253]-[0257] the light generation module 110 may generate the pulses so as to target specific brain activity, such as gamma activity, ¶[0848]-[0851] and ¶[0898]-[0909] the output predicted subject stimulus response and/or therapy neural stimulus for the subject, the selected therapy neural stimulus, ¶[0288] the generation of the specified light stimulus by the light generation module 110 in response to the model; Figs. 1, 38, 45, and 46B);
using adaptive learning algorithms to adjust said one or more coupling parameters or intrinsic parameters (¶[0848]-[0851] and ¶[0898]-[0909] the output predicted subject stimulus response and/or therapy neural stimulus for the subject, the selected therapy neural stimulus);
selecting, by the oscillation selection module (¶[0311]-[0312] the computing device(s) 700 of the system including the CPU 721 and the memory 722, ¶[0597] the different components of the simulation systems include the processing and memory functionality of the computing devices, Fig. 7A-7B; ¶[0244]-[0247], ¶[0385]-[0388], and ¶[0834] the different components interface with one another; Figs. 1, 9, and 37-39),
one or more oscillations in one or more predetermined frequency ranges for display (¶[0598]-[0616], ¶[0633]-[0636] the stimuli orchestration component 2310 to perform neural stimulation using multiple modalities of stimulation, including both audio and visual stimulation, utilizing the policy 2325 based on the subject profile and feedback from feedback components 2340 to determine and apply the stimuli, ¶[0638]-[0643] the application of visual and audio stimulation, ¶[0655] the visual and audio stimulus may be synchronized, ¶[0666]-[0668] the system 2600 for selecting dosing parameters of an appropriate stimulation modality (i.e., visual and/or audio stimulation) and delivering the determined neural stimulation, in part based on user profile and feedback, Figs. 23A-26; ¶[0245]-[0250] the light generation module 110 for generating specific visual signals with desired wavelengths and pulses for visual stimulation, ¶[0253]-[0257] the light generation module 110 may generate the pulses so as to target specific brain activity, such as gamma activity, ¶[0848]-[0851] and ¶[0898]-[0909] the output predicted subject stimulus response and/or therapy neural stimulus for the subject, the selected therapy neural stimulus, implemented as the visual light stimulus, is the selected oscillation; Figs. 1, 38, 45, and 46B);
coupling, by the oscillation selection module, a gamma frequency of the processed stimulation signal to a beat and rhythmic structure of music (¶[0245]-[0250] the light generation module 110 for generating specific visual signals with desired wavelengths and pulses for visual stimulation, ¶[0253]-[0257] the light generation module 110 may generate the pulses so as to target specific brain activity, such as gamma activity, ¶[0388]-[0389] the audio generation module for providing audio for audio stimulation through sound waves, ¶[0400]-[0401] the audio stimulation may include bursts/beats of acoustic waves, ¶[0416]-[0425] the NSS 905 may generate the audio stimulation (i.e., the bursts/beats of acoustic waves) from a musical instrument track, including both voice and musical instruments, with the beats/pulses set according to the beats in the music, the modulation/embedding of the audio signal for entrainment ¶[0848]-[0851] and ¶[0898]-[0909] the output predicted subject stimulus response and/or therapy neural stimulus for the subject, the selected therapy neural stimulus, implemented as the visual light stimulus, is the selected oscillation; Figs. 1, 9-11C, 38, 45, and 46B);
generating a light pattern using said one or more oscillations (¶[0245]-[0250] the light generation module 110 for generating specific visual signals with desired wavelengths and pulses, ¶[0253]-[0257] the light generation module 110 may generate the pulses so as to target specific brain activity, such as gamma activity, ¶[0848]-[0851] and ¶[0898]-[0909] the output predicted subject stimulus response and/or therapy neural stimulus for the subject, the selected therapy neural stimulus, ¶[0288] the generation of the specified light stimulus by the light generation module 110 in response to the model; Figs. 1, 38, 45, and 46B);
providing output to said brain rhythm stimulator in the form of said one or more oscillations; and displaying said light pattern on a visual output device (¶[0247] the visual signaling component 150, such as an LED, for implementing the visual stimulation; Fig. 1).
Here, the systems 2300/2400/2600 apply the specific stimulus, which includes a visual stimulus, based on the user input/feedback from the user, which includes the modalities of audio input as in system 900 and light stimulus generation as in system 100.
Malchano does not specifically teach to select a most prominent oscillation in the one or more frequency ranges of the processed stimulation signal.
Schiff teaches systems and methods for monitoring and diagnosis of neurological functions of subjects via measuring neurological responses (see abstract and Figs. 1-2), in which the response a sensory evoked response (SER) of the subject to auditory, visual, or somatosensory stimuli is monitored via EEG, MEG, or ECoG (see ¶[0029]-[0030]), so as to select a most prominent oscillation in the one or more frequency ranges of the processed stimulation signal (¶[0043] the SER magnitude that is best defined, such as identified as those having the most prominent peaks, so as to identify regions of interest producing the best defined SER).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the most prominent peak selection of Schiff with the most prominent oscillation selection because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) Malchano requires an oscillation selection modality and Schiff teaches one such modality; and/or (3) such selection would indicate those that are the best defined (see Schiff ¶[0043]).
The modified Malchano does not specifically teach to couple a gamma frequency of the processed stimulation signal to a beat and rhythmic structure of music through theta-gamma and delta-theta phase-amplitude coupling (PAC).
De Ridder teaches methods for treating a neurological disorder in a patient by adjusting connectivity between network nodes in a brain of a patient (see abstract and Figs. 1A-1B), in which coupling of various combinations of brainwave frequency bands may be utilized (see generally ¶[0070]-[0088]; Figs. 3-4G and 7A-8B), so as to couple a gamma frequency of the processed stimulation signal to a beat and rhythmic structure of music through theta-gamma (see ¶[0070] and ¶[0080]; Figs. 7A-7B) and delta-theta (see ¶[0079]) phase-amplitude coupling (PAC) (¶[0074] the coupling may involve phase-amplitude coupling).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the theta-gamma and delta-theta PAC coupling of De Ridder with the coupling of the modified Malchano because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) the modified Malchano requires coupling and De Ridder teaches one such implementation for coupling; and/or (3) delta-theta coupling may be utilized to facilitate spatial and/or temporal characteristics for memories (see ¶[0079]) and gamma-theta may be utilized to help determine the span of working memory (see ¶[0080]).
Regarding Claim 22, Malchano in view of Schiff and Malchano teaches the method of claim 21 as stated above. Malchano further teaches prior to said step of generating a light pattern, the step of reading a patient profile from a profile manager; and wherein said step of generating a light pattern comprises selecting a light pattern based on said patient profile, and adjusting said light pattern based on said patient profile (¶[0598]-[0616], ¶[0633]-[0636] the stimuli orchestration component 2310 to perform neural stimulation using multiple modalities of stimulation, including both audio and visual stimulation, utilizing the policy 2325 based on the subject profile and feedback from feedback components 2340 to determine and apply the stimuli, ¶[0638]-[0643] the application of visual and audio stimulation, ¶[0655] the visual and audio stimulus may be synchronized, ¶[0666]-[0668] the system 2600 for selecting dosing parameters of an appropriate stimulation modality (i.e., visual and/or audio stimulation) and delivering the determined neural stimulation, in part based on user profile and feedback, Figs. 23A-26; ¶[0064], ¶[0291], ¶[0336], and ¶[0339] the profile manager 125, including a processor and memory for storing and managing subject information, can modify/determine type of stimulus based on the profile information/policy; Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 23, Malchano in view of Schiff and Malchano teaches the method of claim 21 as stated above. Malchano further teaches receiving an input from a brain oscillation monitor (¶[0109] and ¶[0238]-[0240] the system may measure neural data from the user, such as via EEG, in bands of delta, theta, alpha, beta, and gamma frequency bands, ¶[0296] the feedback component 160 may be EEG, ¶[0438] the feedback monitor 935 in the system may utilize the EEG measurements, ¶[0385]-[0388] the different components interface with one another; Figs. 1 and 9);
providing said input to one or more multi-frequency neural networks; coupling said input using one or more coupling parameters; and using adaptive learning algorithms to adjust said one or more parameters to optimize the frequency, amplitude and phase of one or more outgoing oscillation signals, wherein said one or more outgoing oscillation signals are used to generate and display said light pattern on said visual output device (¶[0245]-[0250] the light generation module 110 for generating specific visual signals with desired wavelengths and pulses, ¶[0253]-[0257] the light generation module 110 may generate the pulses so as to target specific brain activity, such as gamma activity, ¶[0848]-[0851] and ¶[0898]-[0909] the output predicted subject stimulus response and/or therapy neural stimulus for the subject based on input EEG data, the selected therapy neural stimulus, ¶[0288] the generation of the specified light stimulus by the light generation module 110 in response to the model; Figs. 1, 38, 45, and 46B).
Regarding Claim 24, Malchano in view of Schiff and Malchano teaches the method of claim 21 as stated above. Malchano further teaches said brain oscillation monitor comprises a device configured to sense electrical or magnetic fields in the brain, the device being at least one of an electroencephalogram (EEG), an intracranial EEG (iEEG), an electrocorticography (ECoG), or a magnetoencephalography (MEG) (¶[0109] and ¶[0238]-[0240] the system may measure neural data from the user, such as via EEG, in bands of delta, theta, alpha, beta, and gamma frequency bands, ¶[0296] the feedback component 160 may be EEG, ¶[0438] the feedback monitor 935 in the system may utilize the EEG measurements, ¶[0385]-[0388] the different components interface with one another; Figs. 1 and 9).
Regarding Claim 25, Malchano in view of Schiff and Malchano teaches the method of claim 21 as stated above. Malchano further teaches said auditory input is a musical composition (¶[0416]-[0425] the NSS 905 may generate the audio stimulation (i.e., the bursts/beats of acoustic waves) from a musical instrument track, including both voice and musical instruments, with the beats/pulses set according to the beats in the music, the identified beats in the music for the setting of the beats/pulses is the onset, the modulation/embedding of the audio signal for entrainment, see present application specification ¶[0036]; Figs. 9-11C), and
wherein said musical composition is played in a synchronized fashion with said light pattern (¶[0598]-[0616], ¶[0633]-[0636] the stimuli orchestration component 2310 to perform neural stimulation using multiple modalities of stimulation, including both audio and visual stimulation, utilizing the policy 2325 based on the subject profile and feedback from feedback components 2340 to determine and apply the stimuli, ¶[0638]-[0643] the application of visual and audio stimulation, ¶[0655] the visual and audio stimulus may be synchronized, ¶[0666]-[0668] the system 2600 for selecting dosing parameters of an appropriate stimulation modality (i.e., visual and/or audio stimulation) and delivering the determined neural stimulation, in part based on user profile and feedback; Figs. 23A-26).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malchano in view of Schiff and Malchano as applied to claim 7 above, and in view of Lim (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0387819 – cited in prior action), hereinafter Lim.
Regarding Claim 9, Malchano in view of Schiff and Malchano teaches the system of claim 7 as stated above. Malchano further teaches the use of LED lights (¶[0247] the visual signaling component 150, such as an LED, for implementing the visual stimulation; Fig. 1), said one or more LED lights being operatively connected to said brain rhythm stimulator (¶[0245]-[0250] the light generation module 110 for generating specific visual signals with desired wavelengths and pulses, ¶[0253]-[0257] the light generation module 110 may generate the pulses so as to target specific brain activity, such as gamma activity, ¶[0848]-[0851] and ¶[0898]-[0909] the output predicted subject stimulus response and/or therapy neural stimulus for the subject, the selected therapy neural stimulus, ¶[0288] the generation of the specified light stimulus by the light generation module 110 in response to the model, Figs. 1, 38, 45, and 46B; ¶[0244]-[0247] the different components interface with one another; Fig. 1).
Malchano does not specifically teach that said output device is a visual stimulation ring, and wherein said visual stimulation ring comprises a cylindrical body having one or more LED lights disposed around a circumferentially interior surface thereof.
Lim teaches a self-administrable apparatus for performing non-invasive neurostimulation therapy (see abstract and Figs. 1-6), in which the device utilizes a frame 124 (ring) to support irradiation units 110/112 on the inner circumference of the frame 124 (see ¶[0076]; Figs. 1-6) implemented via LEDs (see ¶[0062]-[0065]), to treat conditions such as dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease as photobiomodulation (PBM) (see ¶[0002]-[0005]), controlled via a controller (see ¶[0065]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the PBM LED device of Lim to implement the stimulation of Malchano because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) Malchano contemplates various light-based LED stimulation modality, and Lim teaches one such light-based LED stimulation modality; and/or (3) the dual LEDs provide more coverage over traditional VNS devices, with no side effects (see Lim ¶[0064]).
Regarding Claim 10, Malchano in view of Schiff, Malchano, and Lim teaches the system of claim 9 as stated above. The modified Malchano further teaches said brain rhythm stimulator provides output to said output device in the form of a control signal, said control signal containing instructions to cause said output device to display a rhythmic light pattern corresponding to one or more selected oscillation states selected by said oscillation selection module (see Malchano ¶[0245]-[0250] the light generation module 110 for generating specific visual signals with desired wavelengths and pulses, ¶[0253]-[0257] the light generation module 110 may generate the pulses so as to target specific brain activity, such as gamma activity, ¶[0288] the generation of the specified light stimulus by the light generation module 110 in response to the model, ¶[0247] the visual signaling component 150, such as an LED, for implementing the visual stimulation, ¶[0244]-[0247] the different components interface with one another, Fig. 1; see Lim ¶[0065] the controller for controlling the LEDs).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, objections to the drawings
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9, filed February 17, 2026, with respect to the objections to the drawings in view of 37 C.F.R. 1.84(b)(1) and 1.84(p)(3) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, claim interpretation
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10, filed February 17, 2026, with respect to the interpretations of claims 1-2, 7, 11, 15, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive with regard to “oscillation selection module”; but are not addressed by amendment or argument with regard to the other interpretations. Therefore, the other claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, claim objections
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10, filed February 17, 2026, with respect to the objections of claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-12, 15-18, and 21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new objections were made in view of Applicant’s amendment filed on February 17, 2026.
Applicant’s arguments, 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10-11, filed February 17, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 2-6, 10, and 19-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) have been fully considered. The arguments/amendments appear to only address some of the rejections, of which the oscillation selection module 112 arguments are found to be persuasive. Therefore, those rejections have been withdrawn. The other 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejections are maintained. Furthermore, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made that were necessitated by Applicant’s amendment filed on February 17, 2026.
Applicant’s arguments, 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10-11, filed February 17, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-18 and 20-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered. The arguments/amendments appear to only address some of the rejections, of which the oscillation selection module 112 arguments are found to be persuasive. Therefore, those rejections have been withdrawn. The other 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections are maintained. Furthermore, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made that were necessitated by Applicant’s amendment filed on February 17, 2026.
Applicant’s arguments, 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 11, filed February 17, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 6 and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection are made that were necessitated by Applicant’s amendment filed on February 17, 2026.
Applicant’s arguments, prior art
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 11-14, filed February 17, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection are made in view of Schiff et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0237296) and De Ridder (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0136427 – cited in prior action).
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 JONATHAN D. MORONESO whose telephone number is (571)272-8055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30AM - 6:00 PM, MST.
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, JENNIFER M. ROBERTSON can be reached at (571)272-5001. 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.
/J.D.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
