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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Species I directed to claims 1-6, 17-18, 21-27, and 29 in the reply filed on 05/21/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 8-11 are withdrawn.
The Restriction between Groups I, II, III, and IV has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 6, and 18 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 3 recites the limitation "selected from the group" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret as "selected from a group" and suggests amending.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the fimbria fornix or at the septo-hippocampus" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret as "a fimbria fornix or at a septo-hippocampus" and suggests amending.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the hippocampus" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret as "a hippocampus" and suggests amending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 17-18, 21-27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0224990 Goldwasser et al., hereinafter “Goldwasser”, in view of US 2019/0232047 Chu et al., hereinafter “Chu”.
Regarding claim 1, Goldwasser discloses a method of modulating empathy in a human (Abstract, Para 59, and 61; “the cognitive effects evoked by the apparatuses described herein may be positive cognitive effects; positive cognitive effects refers to […] an increase in empathy”), comprising: modulating type 2 theta oscillations in a brain region of the human (Para 1081; all theta waves are modulated).
Even if Goldwasser does not disclose modulating type 2 theta oscillations in a brain region of the human.
Chu discloses a method/device to modulate empathy (Abstract and Para 539) and teaches modulating type 2 theta oscillations in a brain region of the human (Para 402, 475, and 514 all discuss modifying a waveform , the waveform being a theta waveform in the frequency of 4-8Hz which is known in the art to be type 2 that operates at a lower frequency than type 1 which operates at 7-12 Hz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have explicitly disclosed modulating type 2 theta oscillations as taught by Chu, in the invention of Goldwasser, in order to produce a state of empathy in a user (Chu; Para 514 and 557).
Regarding claim 2, Goldwasser discloses modulating empathy comprises increasing empathy in the human (Para 61 “increase in empathy”), wherein the human has suboptimal empathy (Para 60 discusses the cognitive effects of an emotional state, the emotions listed include anger, envy, disgust, hatred, etc… all these emotions that require a positive cognitive effect, as listed in Para 61, are emotions that point to a human having suboptimal empathy).
Regarding claim 3, Goldwasser discloses the suboptimal empathy in the human is caused by a psychiatric or neurological condition selected from a group consisting of Alzheimer's disease, autism spectrum disorder, dementia, addiction, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), alexithymia, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), psychopathy, Parkinson's disease, and epilepsy (Para 60 discloses depression and anxiety).
Regarding claim 4, Goldwasser discloses modulating type 2 theta oscillations comprises optogenetic treatment (Para 29 and 703) with or without entrainment (Para 1081 discloses entraining or the reference can be interpreted without entrainment).
Regarding claim 17, Goldwasser discloses the brain region is: hippocampus, septo-hippocampus, anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), basolateral amygdala (BLA), midline thalamus, insulate regions, medial septum (MS), or fimbria fornix (Para 722; hippocampus is disclosed).
Regarding claim 18, Goldwasser discloses the type 2 theta oscillations are synchronized in a hippocampus, ACC, or BLA (Para 700, 722, and 1081; para 700 discloses synchrony of the waves in deep brain which is disclosed in Para 722 as the hippocampus).
Regarding claim 21, Goldwasser discloses the modulating is increasing type 2 theta oscillations (Para 1081 discloses modulating a brain rhythm, it also discloses strengthening the brain rhythm; Para 253 discloses increasing and decreasing waveform parameters, see also Para 1022).
Regarding claim 22, Goldwasser discloses the modulating is decreasing type 2 theta oscillations (Para 1081 discloses modulating a brain rhythm, it also discloses strengthening the brain rhythm; Para 253 discloses increasing and decreasing waveform parameters, see also Para 1022).
Regarding claim 23, Goldwasser discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Goldwasser does not disclose the modulating of type 2 theta oscillations does not induce modulation of type 1 theta oscillations.
However, Chu teaches the modulating of type 2 theta oscillations does not induce modulation of type 1 theta oscillations (Para 475 discloses that the theta waves are within 4 to 8 HZ, which is the range of type 2, modulation is shown in Para 513-514 which shows a decrease in theta waves, which does not induce type 1 which falls in the frequency of 7-12 Hz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have explicitly disclosed modulating type 2 theta oscillations as taught by Chu, in the invention of Goldwasser, in order to produce a state of empathy in a user (Chu; Para 514 and 557).
Regarding claim 24, Goldwasser discloses a device (Device shown in Figures 28A, 28B, and abstract) configured to modulate type 2 theta oscillations in a brain region of the human (Para 1081; all theta waves are modulated).
Even if Goldwasser does not disclose configured to modulate type 2 theta oscillations in a brain region of the human.
Chu discloses a method/device to modulate empathy (Abstract and Para 539) and teaches configured to modulate type 2 theta oscillations in a brain region of the human (Para 402, 475, and 514 all discuss modifying a waveform , the waveform being a theta waveform in the frequency of 4-8Hz which is known in the art to be type 2 that operates at a lower frequency than type 1 which operates at 7-12 Hz; device is shown in Figure 33A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have explicitly disclosed modulating type 2 theta oscillations as taught by Chu, in the invention of Goldwasser, in order to produce a state of empathy in a user (Chu; Para 514 and 557).
Regarding claim 25, Goldwasser discloses the device is configured to increase empathy (Para 61 “increase in empathy”) in a human having suboptimal empathy (Para 60 discusses the cognitive effects of an emotional state, the emotions listed include anger, envy, disgust, hatred, etc… all these emotions that require a positive cognitive effect, as listed in Para 61, are emotions that point to a human having suboptimal empathy).
Regarding claim 26, Goldwasser discloses the device is an optogenetic device (Para 29 and 703) comprising a light source operationally coupled to a light transmitter configured and positioned to deliver light to the brain region (Para 29; the light is transmitted to the neurons via a light transmitter, i.e. the optical fiber).
Regarding claim 27, Goldwasser discloses the device is an electrical stimulation device (Para 614 and device in Figure 26) comprising an electrical current generator (Figure 26, element 2615) operationally coupled to at least one electrode (Figure 26, current circuit 2613 is connected to electrode 2655) configured and positioned to deliver electrical stimulation to the brain region (Para 665).
Regarding claim 29, Goldwasser discloses the brain region is: hippocampus, septo-hippocampus, ACC, BLA, midline thalamus, insulate regions, medial septum, fimbria fornix, amygdala, or a combination thereof (Para 722 discloses hippocampus and amygdala)
Claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0224990 Goldwasser et al., hereinafter “Goldwasser”, in view of US 2019/0232047 Chu et al., hereinafter “Chu”, further in view of US 2019/0126043 Cullen et al., hereinafter “Cullen”.
Regarding claim 5, Goldwasser discloses all the limitations of claim 4.
Goldwasser does not disclose the optogenetic treatment comprises stimulating GABAergic neurons.
However, Cullen discloses a method/device for brain modulation (Abstract, Para 95, and 139) and teaches the optogenetic treatment (Para 7) comprises stimulating GABAergic neurons (Para 7 and 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed stimulating GABAergic neurons as taught by Cullen, in the invention of Goldwasser, in order to modulate pathways that are exerting too much influence and causing detrimental functional effects (Cullen; Para 159).
Regarding claim 6, Goldwasser discloses all the limitations of claim 5.
Goldwasser does not disclose the GABAergic neurons are located at a fimbria fornix or at a septo-hippocampus.
However, Cullen teaches the GABAergic neurons are located at a fimbria fornix or at a septo-hippocampus (Para 164 discloses that the GABAergic neurons are triggered with electrodes implanted on the path of a fimbria fornix).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed stimulating GABAergic neurons as taught by Cullen, in the invention of Goldwasser, in order to modulate pathways that are exerting too much influence and causing detrimental functional effects (Cullen; Para 159).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYA ZIAD BAKKAR whose telephone number is (313)446-6659. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 5:00 pm M-Th.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached (571) 270-5213. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AYA ZIAD BAKKAR/
Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/Benjamin J Klein/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights