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 .
Notice of Reply
This communication is responsive to the amendment(s) and/or argument(s) filed 2/17/26. The previous ground(s) of objection and/or rejection is/are withdrawn. The following new and/or reiterated ground(s) of rejection is/are set forth hereinbelow.
Information Disclosure Statement
The accompanying information disclosure statement (IDS) submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-13, 15-16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “deeply located brain region” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “deeply located brain region” 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 indeterminate what necessarily may be expressly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required and/or excluded to be considered a “deeply located brain region”, additionally the degree or extent of “deep”-ness is unclear. In light of the instant Specification one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention given the ambiguity and infinite brain regions locations encompassed. Depending claims 3-13, 16, and 21 inherit and do not remedy the indefiniteness. The examiner respectfully notes that claim 14 appears to remedy the indefiniteness.
The term “reducing a perceived quality level” and/or “modifying said perceived quality of said degraded audio signal” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “reducing a perceived quality level” and/or “modifying said perceived quality of said degraded audio signal” 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 indeterminate what necessarily may be expressly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required and/or excluded to be considered a “reduced perceived quality level” and/or a sufficient “modification of said perceived quality of said degraded audio signal”, additionally the degree or extent of “reduction” and/or “modification” is unclear. In light of the instant Specification one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention given the ambiguity and infinite audio quality levels encompassed, let alone the perception thereof. Depending claims 3-16 and 21 inherit and do not remedy the indefiniteness.
The term “suitable to improve a perceived quality” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “suitable to improve a perceived quality” 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 indeterminate what necessarily may be expressly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required and/or excluded to be considered a “suitable to improve a perceived quality”, additionally the degree or extent of “suitable”-ness is unclear. In light of the instant Specification one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention given the ambiguity and infinite possibilities of suitability.
The term “pleasurable music” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “pleasurable” 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 indeterminate what necessarily may be expressly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required and/or excluded to be considered a “pleasurable music”, additionally the degree or extent of “pleasure” is unclear. One of ordinary skill recognizes infinite possibilities relating to the personal subjectivity regarding every individuals desired music taste and pleasure. In light of the instant Specification one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention given the ambiguity and infinite possibilities of subjectivity regarding “pleasurable music”.
The term “more pleasurable” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “pleasurable” 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 indeterminate what necessarily may be expressly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required and/or excluded to be considered a “pleasurable music”, additionally the degree or extent of “pleasure” is unclear. One of ordinary skill recognizes infinite possibilities relating to the personal subjectivity regarding every individuals desired music taste and pleasure. In light of the instant Specification one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention given the ambiguity and infinite possibilities of subjectivity regarding “pleasurable audio”.
The term “musical pleasantness” in claim 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “pleasantness” 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 indeterminate what necessarily may be expressly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required and/or excluded to be considered “musical pleasantness”, additionally the degree or extent of “pleasant” is unclear. One of ordinary skill recognizes infinite possibilities relating to the personal subjectivity regarding every individuals desired music taste and pleasing considerations. In light of the instant Specification one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention given the ambiguity and infinite possibilities of subjectivity regarding “musical pleasantness”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-16, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Quattrocki et al. (WO 2010/053976 A2, hereinafter Quattrocki).
For claim 1, Quattrocki discloses a neurofeedback method, using an audio signal having a quality level (Fig 14) (Pgs 2-4, 7-13, 23-31) (especially Pg 27, music or International affective digital sounds library), comprising:
recording electrical signals by at least one electrode (EEG electrode or fMRI sensing coil scan electrode(s)) from at least one brain network of a subject comprising at least one deeply located brain region, wherein changes in said recorded electrical signals over time indicate changes in an activity level of said at least one deeply located brain region (Fig 14) (Pgs 2-4, 7-13, 23-31);
degrading an audio signal by reducing a perceived quality level of said audio signal (Fig 14) (Pgs 2-4, 7-13, 23-31);
modifying said degraded audio signal by modifying said perceived quality of said degraded audio signal based on said recorded electrical signals and according to an activity level of said at least one deeply located brain region (Fig 14) (Pgs 2-4, 7-13, 23-31) (especially Pg 27, music or International affective digital sounds library); and
delivering said modified degraded audio signal to the subject during said recording (Fig 14) (Pgs 2-4, 7-13, 23-31) (especially Pg 27, music or International affective digital sounds library).
For claim 3, Quattrocki discloses the method according to claim 1, comprising instructing said subject to perform while said modified degraded audio signal is provided, a mental or a cognitive exercise suitable to improve a perceived quality of said degraded audio signal (Fig 14) (Pgs 2-4, 7-13, 23-31).
For claim 4, Quattrocki discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein said audio signal comprises music(Pgs 7-9, 27-31) (especially Pg 27, music or International affective digital sounds library), and wherein said degrading comprises reducing a perceived quality level of said music (Pgs 7-9, 27-31) (especially Pg 27, music or International affective digital sounds library).
For claim 5, Quattrocki discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein said music is a music selected by the subject as a pleasurable music prior to said degrading (Pgs 7-9, 27-31) (especially Pg 27, music or International affective digital sounds library).
For claim 6, Quattrocki discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein said music is a music affecting mood in said subject (Pgs 7-9, 27-31) (especially Pg 27, music or International affective digital sounds library).
For claim 7, Quattrocki discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein said at least one brain network is a brain network having an activity that is affected by application of said music (Pgs 7-9, 27-31).
For claim 9, Quattrocki discloses the method according to claim 1, comprising: identifying an increase in activation of said at least one deeply located brain region based on the recorded electrical signals (Fig 14) (Pgs 2-4, 7-13, 23-31); changing said perceived degraded quality level of said audio signal by improving said quality level of said audio signal according to said identified increase (Fig 14) (Pgs 2-4, 7-13, 23-31), and wherein said delivering comprises delivering said audio signal with said improved quality level to the subject during said recording (Fig 14) (Pgs 2-4, 7-13, 23-31).
For claim 10, Quattrocki discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein said delivering comprises delivering continuously said audio signal to the subject during said recording (Fig 14) (Pgs 2-4, 7-13, 23-31).
For claim 11, Quattrocki discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein said brain network comprises a mesolimbic brain network (Fig 14) (Pgs 2-4, 7-13, 23-31).
For claim 13, Quattrocki discloses the method according to claim 1, comprising: identifying an increase in activation of said at least one deeply located brain region based on the recorded electrical signals (Fig 14) (Pgs 2-4, 7-13, 23-31); changing said perceived degraded quality level of said audio signal by improving said quality level of said audio signal according to said identified increase (Fig 14) (Pgs 2-4, 7-13, 23-31), and wherein said delivering comprises delivering said audio signal with said improved quality level to the subject during said recording (Fig 14) (Pgs 2-4, 7-13, 23-31).
For claim 14, Quattrocki discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein said at least one deeply located brain region comprises a ventral striatum (VS) (Fig 14) (Pgs 2-4, 7-13, 23-31), and wherein said method comprises processing said recorded electrical signals for measuring EEG signals (Fig 14) (Pgs 2-4, 7-13, 23-31), and using a fingerprint indicating a relation between fMRI- BOLD activity of said ventral striatum and said EEG signals for determining an activity level of said VS or changes thereof (Fig 14) (Pgs 2-4, 7-13, 23-31).
For claim 15, Quattrocki discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein said recording comprises recording said electrical signals from a brain of a subject diagnosed with anhedonia (Fig 14) (Pgs 2-4, 7-13, 23-31), and wherein said method comprising: instructing said subject to perform at least one mental exercise shown to increase the activity level of the mesolimbic brain network during said recording (Fig 14) (Pgs 2-4, 7-13, 23-31), and modifying said audio signal having a perceived degraded quality level to a more pleasurable audio signal if activity level of said mesolimbic brain network is increased (Fig 14) (Pgs 2-4, 7-13, 23-31).
For claim 16, Quattrocki discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein said recording comprises recording said electrical signals from a brain of a subject diagnosed with apathy (Fig 14) (Pgs 2-4, 7-13, 23-31), and wherein said method comprising: instructing said subject to perform at least one mental exercise shown to increase the activity level of the mesolimbic brain network during said recording (Fig 14) (Pgs 2-4, 7-13, 23-31), and modifying said audio signal having a perceived degraded quality level to a more pleasurable audio signal if activity level of said mesolimbic brain network is increased (Fig 14) (Pgs 2-4, 7-13, 23-31).
For claim 21, Quattrocki discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein said audio signal comprises music, wherein said degrading comprises acoustically distorting said music in a way affecting musical pleasantness, and wherein said modifying comprises modifying said degrading by reducing a distortion level of said music if activity of said at least one deeply located brain region is increased based on said recorded electrical signals.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-16, and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 2/17/26, with respect to the amended claims obviating the 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see page 8, filed 2/17/26, with respect to the anticipatory rejection of the amended claims under Quattrocki have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the following:
The Applicant argues that Quattrocki appears to teach away from using signals recorded by at least one electrode to identify activity of at least one deeply located brain region, as claim 1 now describes. Quattrocki appears to explain why functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) should be used and not EEG, "because EEG measures averaged electrical activity at the scalp, traditional neurofeedback is neither anatomically specific nor able to monitor regions deep below the outer surface of the brain. Recent improvements in processing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data and diminishing artifacts has now allowed real-time analysis of fMRI signals, with high spatial and temporal resolution, to replace EEG as the basis of the feedback signal and has opened tip a whole new field of self-modulation of brain activation through real-time fMRI neurofeedback", (page 8 lines 10-16 of Quattrocki, emphasis added).
Furthermore, the Applicant argues that Quattrocki does not appear to describe "degrading an audio signal by reducing a perceived quality level of said audio signal", and "modifying said degraded audio signal by modifying said perceived quality of said degraded audio signal", as claim 1 describes.
In response the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the following:
Regarding (a), the Examiner does not disagree regarding the teachings of Quattrocki. However, there mere fact that Quattrocki prefers fMRI as an EEG replacement does not preclude the disclosure of the EEG from being relied upon as set forth hereinabove. The Examiner respectfully notes teaching away is commonly an argument for combinations of references and 103 obvious-type rejections and not anticipatory rejections under 102.
Regarding (a), the Examiner notes Quattrocki explicitly states inter alia the following:
(page 2): “In these methods, the agent can be or include at least one of d-cycloserine, d- alanine, d-serine, glycine, or sarcosine. In certain embodiments, the first level of the subject's neuronal activity within the selected brain region can be measured using a brain imaging technology, e.g., at least one of functional magnetic resonance imaging, electroencephalography, magnetoencephalography, positron emission tomography, and single photon emission computed tomography. Data from the brain imaging can be analyzed in real time. In some embodiments, the feedback is provided to the subject by presenting to the subject a representation of a level of the subject's neuronal activity within the selected brain region at a first time; providing the subject with a set of instructions configured to modify the subject's neuronal activity within the selected brain region; and presenting to the subject a representation of a level of the subject's neuronal activity within the selected brain region at a second time. For example, the representation can be or include a visual, olfactory, auditory, or tactile stimulus, and an interval between the first and second times can be about 100 ms to 10 seconds.”
(page 36): “4. The method of claim 3, wherein the brain imaging technology comprises at least one of functional magnetic resonance imaging, electroencephalography, magnetoencephalography, positron emission tomography, and single photon emission computed tomography.”
Regarding (b), the Examiner notes the following:
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Assuming arguendo Applicant clearly pointed out and argued the patentability of the amended claims distinguishing from Quattrocki, the Examiner notes Quattrocki explicitly states (pages 26-28) inter alia the following:
“Each subject has two separate training sessions scheduled 1 to 2 weeks apart, with a third follow-up evaluation, so that this study also shows that D-cycloserine can more effectively consolidate the learning achieved with rt-fMRI neurofeedback. Repeated measures analysis and group comparisons are conducted to determine D-cycloserine's effect on the persistence of the rt-fMRI neurofeedback training.”
“9) Real-time fMRI neurofeedback instructions. 10) Real-time fMRI neurofeedback training sessions (5-7 sessions, each lasting 5-7 minutes). 11) Repeat of the mood/anxiety rating scales and, if completed prior to scanning, repeat completion of the cognitive task.“
“During the fMRI localizing scan and during feedback, subjects are presented with one or more of a visual, auditory, or olfactory stimulus. Alternatively or in addition, subjects are asked to perform one or more of a mood induction, a rating scale, a simple motor task, a continuous performance task, a Stroop interference task, a facial emotion discrimination task, or a rapid visual information processing task.
The subjects are instructed to perform tasks that will engage the brain areas under investigation. If visual stimulation is conducted, different images will be either projected onto a video screen that can be seen in a mirror, or presented in a set of special goggles. During the presentation of the images, the subject is asked to think about the stimuli or cues presented, and to try to avoid thinking about other things, as this may complicate the interpretation of the scans. They are asked to respond to or rate the visual cues in an effort to activate the area of the brain being targeted by the neurofeedback training. The images are pictures of people with different facial expressions, images of food, smoking, or beverages, or of scenes from the international affective picture system (LAPS). Auditory cues may be music or musical notes, mechanical sounds, human or animal vocalizations, or selections from the International affective digital sound library. Olfactory cues are odorants characterized to illicit pleasant, unpleasant, or craving responses. Tactile cues range from barely discernable to painful, but not harmful, vibrations, pressure, temperature changes, or other tactile sensations. These cues are initially used to induce brain activation in the region to be targeted by neurofeedback. The cue-induced activation of a region refines and individualizes the anatomical region selection and assists the subject's self- modulating efforts by initiating activity in a given region of interest.
The stimulus presentation computer is located in the scanner control room. The video signal is sent to a projector that projects the pictures onto a screen located at the back of the scanner. The subject views the pictures on the screen by looking at a mirror that is mounted on the head coil, directly in front of the subject's eyes. For studies of brain regions involved in emotional processing, subjects are asked to attempt to experience different types of moods while they are in the scanner. This involves remembering emotional events in their lives. Both positive and negative events may be remembered. The brain's response in a given region or circuit to stimuli such as the cues described above or tasks such as mood induction is determined during the course of the scan, and subjects are given an indication of the strength of this response in the form of a feedback signal. The feedback signal is a representation of the neuronal activity in a given region or circuit of the brain. The feedback signal is transmitted to the subject via either visual, auditory, tactile, or olfactory modalities. This indication is given by a change in the level of a line graph, or the color, shape, speed or size of an object they can see on the video screen, by changing the tone, volume, or frequency of a sound that they hear over the headphones, by adjusting an odor administered via an MRI compatible olfactometer, or by varying the temperature, vibration, pressure, or some other characteristic of a tactile stimulus.
Subjects are asked to rate their mood, level of anxiety, sense of craving, and/or general sense of well being before and after rt-fMRI neurofeedback. They are also asked to perform some psychological tasks to get either baseline measurements or to assess the effects of biofeedback such as the continuous performance task, the Stroop interference task, the emotional facial discrimination task, and the rapid visual information processing task. They are asked to perform these tasks both before and after the scan to help monitor the effects of the rt-fMRI neurofeedback. These tasks last between 15 and 30 minutes.“
Thus, Quattrocki is expressly concerned with presenting pleasant and unpleasant cues including auditory cues of music, which necessarily includes at least “degraded” and “modified” “perceived quality level” by a subject being trained for neurofeedback and especially as broadly and indefinitely as claimed as noted hereinabove.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jeffrey G. Hoekstra whose telephone number is (571)272-7232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday from 5am-3pm 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, Charles A. Marmor II can be reached at (571)272-4730. 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.
Jeffrey G. Hoekstra
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/JEFFREY G. HOEKSTRA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights