DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10, 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson et al. (US 2020/0151439, from IDS filed on 05/15/2023, hereinafter Johnson ‘439).
In re claims 1, 12, 14, 15, Johnson ‘439 teaches an attention bias modification treatment (ABM) system, comprising: a controller (0042: computing device) configured to send a control signal indicative of an ABM task (0080, 0087); a stimulation device configured to apply at least one sensory stimulus over a human subject in response to the control signal (0043, 0060, 0080, 0087), said at least one sensory stimulus being associated with at least one attentional bias, wherein the at least one attentional bias represents impaired attentional engagement with or disengagement from a sensory stimulus (0004, 0087-0089); a measuring device configured to measure at least one behavioural response of the human subject to the at least one applied sensory stimulus (0042: camera); and a neural brain response monitoring device (0043, EEG) configured to monitor a brain activation metric of the human subject to the at least one applied sensory stimulus (0043, cognitive bias or an affective state of the emotion or affective state in the user), wherein the controller is configured to modify the at least one applied sensory stimulus in the ABM task according to the monitored brain activation metric (0044).
In re claims 2 and 13, Johnson ‘439 teaches wherein the controller is further configured to add a neurofeedback task to the ABM task based on the monitored brain activation metric, wherein in the neurofeedback task the human subject is instructed to attempt to lower or increase the brain activation metric of the human subject to the at least one applied sensory stimulus (0058-0061, auditory, tactile are feedbacks, 0075).
In re claim 3, Johnson ‘439 teaches further comprising: a neurofeedback device configured to generate a feedback signal for instructing the human subject to attempt to lower or increase the brain activation metric of the human subject to the at least one applied sensory stimulus (0058-0061, 0075).
In re claim 4, Johnson ‘439 teaches wherein the feedback signal is presented by a second modality that is different from a first modality for presenting the at least one sensory stimulus (0058-0061, auditory and tactile are two different, 0075).
In re claim 5, Johnson ‘439 teaches wherein the controller is configured to modify at least one of the following parameters to adapt the ABM task: intensity of the at least one applied sensory stimulus; valence of the at least one applied sensor stimulus; or content and/or semantics of the at least one applied sensor stimulus (0079, 0087-0089).
In re claim 6, Johnson ‘439 teaches wherein the neural brain response monitoring device is configured to monitor at least one of: (i) one or more specific brain areas, (ii) brain activation networks, or (iii) connectivity between brain areas that are related to specific forms of affective behavioural states to determine the brain activation metric of the human subject to the at least one applied sensory stimulus (0084).
In re claim 8, Johnson ‘439 teaches wherein the neural brain response monitoring device comprises a neuroimaging device (0055).
In re claim 10, Johnson’439 teaches further comprising: a behavioural response feedback device configured to provide an attentional bias feedback based on the at least one measured behavioural response (0075).
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson’439 in view of Bernstein (WO 2013/157012, from IDS filed on 05/15/2023, hereinafter Bernstein ‘012).
In re claim 7, Johnson’439 fails to teach wherein the controller is configured such that any changes in the neurofeedback response to the human subject are timed between ABM tasks, such that the human subject is less distracted from the ABM tasks.
Bernstein ‘012 teaches wherein the controller is configured such that any changes in the neurofeedback response to the human subject are timed between ABM tasks, such that the human subject is less distracted from the ABM tasks (0050, 0057, 0064-0067).
In re claim 11, Bernstein ‘012 teaches wherein the at least one measured behavioural response of the human subject comprises at least one of: reaction time response to the ABM task; gaze time, gaze position, and/or gaze location; or a number of fault responses to the ABM task (0038, 0048, 0056, 0062, 0065, 0070-0071, 0074).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Johnson’439 to include the features of Bernstein ‘012 in order to allow subjects to practice their awareness to their attention allocation associated with the specific attentional bias, ultimately for improving their control over their response to stimuli associated with cues that are related to the specific attentional bias.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson’439 in view of Flaeschner et al. (US 2020/0170534, hereinafter Flaeschner ‘534)
In re claim 9, Johnson’439 fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to determine at least one of the following based on the monitored brain activation metric: whether to continue the ABM task or abort the ABM task; or whether to adapt the ABM task.
Flaeschner ‘534 teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine at least one of the following based on the monitored brain activation metric: whether to continue the ABM task or abort the ABM task; or whether to adapt the ABM task (0109, 0115, 0126).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Johnson’439 to include the features of Flaeschner ‘534 in order to improve Neurofeedback training by presenting various stimuli and measuring their effect on brain activity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BO JOSEPH PENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at (571) 270-0552. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BO JOSEPH PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797