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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/30/2026, are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by the applicant’s claim amendments. The examiner is now citing Weiss et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0236202 A1); hereinafter referred to as “Weiss”, to teach the limitations added to independent claims 1, 9, and 15 as follows:
“Boyle discloses a central electrode and one electrode on each side (e.g. see [0019], [0156], [0175]. Note: The central electrode will be “on the midline of the occipitoparietal cortex” as it will be centered on the patient) but is silent as to at least two right electrodes positioned right of the midline of the occipitoparietal cortex; and at least two left electrodes positioned left of the midline of the occipitoparietal cortex. Weiss teaches it is known to use at least two right electrodes and at least two left electrodes as set forth in figures 11 and 12, element 14, [0077]-[0079] in a transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) device (e.g. see [0057]-[0058]) to enable improved effectiveness and specificity of stimulation via the electrodes (e.g. see [0057]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use two right electrodes and two left electrodes in a tACS device as taught by Weiss in the system/method of Boyle, since said modification would provide the predictable results of improved effectiveness and specificity of stimulation via the electrodes”.
Note that Boyle already teaches the central electrode and a left and right electrode. Weiss is being cited only to illustrate that it is known in tACS stimulation devices to use two electrodes on each side of the central electrode.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-9, 11-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyle et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0256105 A1); hereinafter referred to as “Boyle”, in view of Weiss et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0236202 A1); hereinafter referred to as “Weiss”.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 15, Boyle discloses a method of treating disorders associated with default mode network (DMN) dysfunction in a patient in need thereof (e.g. see [0097]), the method comprising: administering alpha-frequency transcranial alternating current stimulation (α-tACS) to the brain of the patient via at least one electrode (e.g. see [0019]-[0021]. Note: The applicant defines the alpha range as 8-12 Hz. 10 Hz is within that range. Also, the stimulation is transcranial alternating current), wherein the α-tACS (e.g. see [0019]-[0021]) targets a primary rhythm of neural synchrony in the brain (e.g. see [0057], [0041]. Note: [0057] discloses “oscillations in the alpha frequency band (8-13 Hz)” may be used, and that the stimulation may “increase the synchronization of cortical oscillations within a first brain region of a subject's brain, to increase the synchronization of cortical oscillations in a first region of a subject's brain with cortical oscillations in a second region of the subject's brain”) associated with DMN functioning (e.g. see [0097]) to enhance neural synchrony (e.g. see [0057], [0041]), which is effective to regulate DMN dysfunction and treat disorders associated therewith (e.g. see [0097], which teaches treating disorders associated with DMN dysfunction).
Boyle discloses a central electrode and one electrode on each side (e.g. see [0019], [0156], [0175], figure 6C. Note: The central electrode will be “on the midline of the occipitoparietal cortex” as it will be centered on the patient) but is silent as to at least two right electrodes positioned right of the midline of the occipitoparietal cortex; and at least two left electrodes positioned left of the midline of the occipitoparietal cortex. Weiss teaches it is known to use at least two right electrodes and at least two left electrodes as set forth in figures 11 and 12, element 14, [0077]-[0079] in a transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) device (e.g. see [0057]-[0058]) to enable improved effectiveness and specificity of stimulation via the electrodes (e.g. see [0057]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use two right electrodes and two left electrodes in a tACS device as taught by Weiss in the system/method of Boyle, since said modification would provide the predictable results of improved effectiveness and specificity of stimulation via the electrodes.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Boyle discloses the disorder associated with DMN dysfunction is selected from normal or abnormal aging, cognitive impairment, or neuropsychiatric disorders such as Alzheimer's disease, schizophrenia, autism, or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (e.g. see [0097]).
Regarding claim 6, Boyle discloses the plurality of electrodes form a closed-loop circuit (e.g. see [0147]).
Regarding claims 7 and 13, Boyle discloses the α-tACS is administered to the patient's brain for a period at least 10 minutes or least 20 minutes (e.g. see [0171]).
Regarding claims 8, 12, and 18-19, Boyle discloses the α-tACS comprises sinusoidal current up to 3 mA, oscillating at 8 Hz to 12 Hz (e.g. see [0175]).
Regarding claim 11, Boyle discloses the primary rhythm of neural synchrony is the alpha-frequency in the brain (e.g. see [0019]-[0021]).
Regarding claim 20, Boyle discloses the α-tACS comprises a sinusoidal current at 2 mA, oscillating at 10 Hz (e.g. see [0175], “2 mA peak-to-peak 10 Hz sine wave”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Javitt et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0107777 A1), Hermosillo et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0115330 A1), Aboud et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0166109 A1), Lee et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0211159 A1), and Koch et al. (Pub. No.: US 2023/0381512 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP C EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)270-1804. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00-5:00 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, Unsu Jung can be reached at 571-272-8506. 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.
/P.C.E/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/UNSU JUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
