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/Restriction Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: I. Claims 1-30, drawn to a stimulation device, classified in H01F7/06. II. Claims 3 1-41, drawn to a method of stimulating an auricular branch of a Vagus nerve, classified in A61N2/00. The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because: Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case , the method can be practiced by another materially different apparatus as there are no structural limitations present in the claim. The method only requires generating a magnetic field across an auricular branch of a Vagus Nerve so any magnetic field generating device could meet the limitations of the claim . Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: (A) Separate classification thereof : Invention I is clearly within one classification. However, Invention II is so broad as to encompass multiple possible classifications which would potentially be in different classifications depending on how the Applicant amends the claims associated with claim II. (B) A separate status in the art when they are classifiable together : Invention I is clearly within one classification. However, Invention II is so broad as to encompass multiple possible classifications which would potentially be in different classifications depending on how the Applicant amends the claims associated with claim II. These would also be potentially different devices and methods than one associated with Invention I. (C) A different field of search : Invention I is clearly within one classification. However, Invention II is so broad as to encompass multiple possible classifications which would require the search of several different classes and subclasses and different search queries than that of Invention I. Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention . The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. During a telephone conversation with Stephen French on 3/23/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of I , claim s 1-30 . Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim s 31-40 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i). The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/16/2023 and 6/15/2023 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 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 limitation(s) is/are: “clamp mechanism” in claim s 17 and 29 . Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. 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. Based on Applicant’s specification, the clamp mechanism is disclosed in paragraph 49 in as first and second parts connected with a connector that can clamp (see figure 6). 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 4, 5, 7-8, 21-23 , and 25-26 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 4 recites the term “about” with a range in line 3. This make the claim unclear as the specification does not specify what degree outside of the range is encompassed by the term “about”. Claim 5 recites the limitation " the relative positions " and “the relative orientations” in lines 2-3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 recites the limitation “the ferrite piece being positionable…is excluded” in lines 2-4. This is unclear as the claim appears to claim a ferrite piece then makes claims about its exclusion. Claim 8 inherits the deficiencies of claim 7 and is likewise rejected. Claim 21 recites the limitation “by discharging one or more capacitors through the first transmission coil” in lines 2-3. It is not clear if the capacitors are supposed to be part of the claimed invention or not. Claims 22-23 inherit the deficiencies of claim 21 and are likewise rejected. Claim 22 recites the term “about” with a range in line 2. This make the claim unclear as the specification does not specify what degree outside of the range is encompassed by the term “about”. Claim 25 and 26 recite the term “about” with a range in lines 2-4. This make the claim unclear as the specification does not specify what degree outside of the range is encompassed by the term “about”. 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. Claim(s) 1 -5 , 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 19, 20, 27, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 108066890A (Jiang et al., hereinafter Jiang) . In regards to claims 1 , 19, and 27, Jiang discloses an ear V agus N erve magnetic stimulation device (see abstract; translation; full document (specifically executing examples section) ; figures 1-5). Jiang discloses the following: a first transmitting coil (figures 2 and 5 are described as having an electromagnetic wave generator in the form of a coil 102 and 302 ); and a drive circuit electrically coupled to the first transmitting coil and configured to drive the first transmitting coil ; a control circuit configured to control operations of the drive circuit (device includes a controller 103 such as a computer, mobile phone, notebook computer, or other electronic equipment that controls the electromagnetic wave generator, which would require the presence of a control circuit and a drive circuit) , the first transmitting coil being configured, when the device is in proximity to a person's ear and the first transmitting coil is driven with a time-varying electric current providable by the drive circuit, to generate at least part of a magnetic field providing a time-varying magnetic flux across an auricular branch of a Vagus Nerve (ABVN) sufficient to activate the ABVN (device is placed by a person’s ear around the location of the ABVN as shown in figure 3 and the stimulation described is an electromagnetic wave, which would require a time-varying electric current) . It can also be seen in figure 3 that the coil can be positioned and oriented so that an axis of the coil crosses an ABVN. In regards to claims 2 and 28, Jiang discloses the limitations of claims1 and 27. In addition, as shown in figures 4 and 5, the stimulator can have multiple coils (202 and 302 ; see executing examples section ). If there is more than one coil, then there would be a second transmitting coil positionable on a different side of a part of the person’s ear to the first transmitting coil and can be driven with respective time-varying electric currents. In regards to claim s 3 and 4 , Jiang discloses the limitations of claim 2. Furthermore, without knowing what axis orientations are being referred to, an axis of the first transmitting coil can be considered as aligned with an axis of the second transmitting coil and intersect at an angle between 90 degrees and 180 degrees. In regards to claim 5, Jiang discloses the limitations of claim 2. In addition, because the user can control the placement of the device (as shown in figure 3 ; see executing examples section ), the device is configured to directionally control a magnetic field by controlling the relative position or orientation of the first and second transmission coils with respect to each other. In regards to claim 7, Jiang discloses the limitations of claim 1. Jiang further states that the electromagnetic device is a coil with an iron core (see executing examples section) . Due to the 112 issues of claim 7, Jiang would meet the limitations of the claim. In regards to claim 8, Jiang discloses the limitations of claim 7. Without further specifics about how the ferrite piece extends around the ear, Jiang’s iron core can be considered as shaped to at least partially extend around the part of the person’s ear as a section of the iron core that faces the ear would be enough to meet the limitation of the claim. In regards to claims 9 and 10, Jiang discloses the limitations of claim 1. In addition, based on how one orients the coil, the two ends of the transmission coil would be on different sides of a part of a person’s ear. Jiang further states that the coil can also be circular or annular (see executing examples section). In regards to claims 12 and 15, Jiang discloses the limitations of claim 1. It can further be shown in figures 4 and 5 that there are embodiments that use more than one transmitting coil, in this case as many as five coils on a same side of a person’s ear (see executing examples section). In regards to claim 20, Jiang discloses the limitations of claim 19. In addition, Jiang states the use of a pulse generator that outputs the electrical signal/pulse current to the coil (see executing examples section and claim 9). Claim(s) 1 -4 and 27 -28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 11,298,535 (Simon et al., hereinafter Simon) . In regards to claims 1 and 27, Simon discloses non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (title and abstract; figures 1 and 10). Simon discloses the following: a first transmitting coil (stimulator 340 may be coils or electrodes; column 10, line 48-column 12, line 25); and a drive circuit (330) electrically coupled to the first transmitting coil and configured to drive the first transmitting coil (control unit is a general-purpose computer, which would require a drive circuit for controlling the stimulator; column 11, line 26-column 12, line 25), the first transmitting coil being configured, when the device is in proximity to a person's ear and the first transmitting coil is driven with a time-varying electric current providable by the drive circuit, to generate at least part of a magnetic field providing a time-varying magnetic flux across an auricular branch of a Vagus Nerve (ABVN) sufficient to activate the ABVN ( column 10, line 48-column 12, line 25 and figure 2 describe feedback control of power levels, frequencies and train duration, which would make the current time-varying and figure 10 shows the device being in proximity to a person’s ear ). It can also be seen in figure 10 that the coil of the device can be positioned and oriented so that an axis of the coil crosses an ABVN. In regards to claim s 2 and 28, Simon discloses the limitations of claim s 1 and 27. In addition, as shown in figures 3A-B, the stimulator has two stimulator heads (column 20, lines 43-column 21, line 3). While the embodiment shown in figure 3A uses electrodes, column 10, lines 48-63 state that coils or electrodes can be used for the stimulation. If each head is a coil, then there would be a second transmitting coil positionable on a different side of a part of the person’s ear to the first transmitting coil. In regards to claims 3 and 4, Simon discloses the limitations of claim 2. Furthermore, without knowing what axis orientations are being referred to, an axis of the first transmitting coil can be considered as aligned with an axis of the second transmitting coil and intersect at an angle between 90 degrees and 180 degrees. 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. 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. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,298,535 (Simon et al., hereinafter Simon) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2009/0099623 (Bentwich). In regards to claim 6, Simon discloses the limitations of claim 2. Simon further discloses the presence of a control unit (330) that generates a signal for each of the device’s coils or electrodes (column 11, lines 27-40) but does not explicitly state that each coil is being selectively or differentially driven. In a related area, Bentwich discloses a system that uses multiple stimulators with individual control of each stimulator (title and abstract) , which could be considered as the selective or differential driving of the second third coil . Paragraphs 138-139 and 184-186 state that individual control of stimulators allows for control and optimization of magnetic fields for convergence for treatment as well as temperature control of coils. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Simon to have individual control of magnetic coil stimulators, as taught by Bentwich, in order to allow for control and optimization of magnetic fields for convergence for treatment as well as temperature control of coils. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 108066890A (Jiang et al., hereinafter Jiang). In regards to claim 11, Jiang discloses the limitations of claim 9. In addition, the limitation of making the distance between two ends adjustable is not considered inventive (see MPEP 2144.04 (V)(D) Making adjustable). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Jiang to make the distance between two ends adjustable because there would have been a recognizable need for adjustment in distances of the lengths of transmitting coils to optimize and adjust the distances for patient treatments and the optimization and adjustment of distances for treatment optimization for patient therapies, which would have been considered obvious. Claim(s) 13-14 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 108066890A (Jiang et al., hereinafter Jiang) as applied to claim s 1 and 12 above, and further in view of US 2009/0099623 (Bentwich). In regards to claim 13, Jiang discloses the limitations of claim 12 but does not explicitly state that each coil is being selectively or differentially driven. In a related area, Bentwich discloses a system that uses multiple stimulators with individual control of each stimulator (title and abstract), which could be considered as the selective or differential driving of the second and/or third coil. Paragraphs 138-139 and 184-186 state that individual control of stimulators allows for control and optimization of magnetic fields for convergence for treatment as well as temperature control of coils. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Jiang to have individual control of magnetic coil stimulators, as taught by Bentwich, in order to allow for control and optimization of magnetic fields for convergence for treatment as well as temperature control of coils. In regards to claim 14, Jiang and Bentwich disclose the limitations of claim 13. Bentwich further mentions in paragraph 184 that the intensity/amplitude of each coil is controlled by a computer with paragraph 131 stating that intensity, duration, and frequency are the parameters being controlled in the stimulation. Paragraph 108 further shows the application of different frequencies being applied together using magnetic stimulation for treatment (which requires respective time varying electric currents to be applied to the coils). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Jiang and Bentwich to have individual control of magnetic coil stimulators including driving with respective time-varying electric currents and different amplitudes, as taught by Bentwich, in order to allow for control and optimization of magnetic fields for convergence for a specific treatment as well as temperature control of coils. In regards to claim 21 -23 , Jiang discloses the limitations of claim 1 but does not state that the magnetic field is made by discharging capacitors . In a related area, Bentwich discloses a system that uses multiple stimulators with individual control of each stimulator (title and abstract). The magnetic stimulation performed is a pulsed magnetic stimulation paradigm called transcranial magnetic stimulation (see paragraph 106), which as one of ordinary skill would know uses capacitors and discharges them to generate the magnetic field and would require an inductor-capacitor circuit, thus meeting the limitation of claim 23. Paragraph 189 states pulse widths of about 0.5 to 10 milliseconds, which meets the limitations of claim 22. Paragraphs 138- 139 and 184-186 state that individual control of stimulators allows for control and optimization of magnetic fields for convergence for treatment as well as temperature control of coils. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Jiang to have individual control of magnetic coil stimulators, as taught by Bentwich, in order to allow for control and optimization of magnetic fields for convergence for treatment as well as temperature control of coils. Claim(s) 16-18 , 24, 26, and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,298,535 (Simon et al., hereinafter Simon) as applied to claim s 1 and 27 above, and further in view of US 2021/0085974 (Bouton et al., hereinafter Bouton) . In regards to claims 16-18 and 29-30 , Simon discloses the limitations of claim s 1 and 27 . However, Simon does not state that the device is fixedly coupled to the person’s ear. In a related area, Bouton discloses an auricular stimulation device (title and abstract; figures 1-5 and 8; paragraphs 6-91). Bouton shows a clamping mechanism (a pivot pin (41) with a biasing member (42) that holds inner and outer probes (first and second parts) and allows them to clamp tissue; paragraphs 46-49, 55, 84, 85, and 89 ) . Bouton states in paragraph 23 that the clamp allows for stimulating the nerve within the auricle of the ear that is clamped between the two stimulator electrodes (paragraphs 9, 18, and 23), which would make the first and second parts of the clamp be positioned on different sides of a person’s ear. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the placement of the coil stimulating elements of Simon to be placed on a clamping mechanism as taught by Bouton in order to allow for stimulating of the nerve within the auricle of the ear. In regards to claim 24, Simon discloses the limitations of claim 1. However, Simon does not state the presence of a temperature sensor that measures a temperature of the first transmitting coil and a control circuit coupled to the temperature sensor. In a related area, Bouton discloses an auricular stimulation device (title and abstract; figures 1-5 and 8; paragraphs 6-91). Of note is paragraphs 78 and 87 which discloses monitoring of the temperature of the stimulation device (which requires a temperature sensor) and controlling the operation such that when circuit temperatures exceed a maximum allowed temperature the control circuit ceases operation as a type of safety check. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Simon to include a temperature sensor and a control circuit coupled to the temperature sensor as taught by Bouton in order to keep the device operating within safe parameters. In regards to claims 26, Simon and Bouton disclose the li m itat ions of claim 24. While Simon and Bouton disclose the general concept of temperature thresholds of the transmission coils , they do not explicitly state the temperature threshold of the transmission coil. However, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to determine specific temperature thresholds of operation to optimize and determine safe operating parameters of the device. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claimed threshold because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to determine specific temperature thresholds of operation to optimize and determine safe operating parameters of the device. Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,298,535 (Simon et al., hereinafter Simon) and US 2021/0085974 (Bouton et al., hereinafter Bouton) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of US 2013/0150653 (Borsody) . In regards to claim 25, Simon and Bouton disclose the limitations of claim 24 but do not state the presence of a temperature sensor the measures a temperature of a portions of the person’s ear. In a related area Borsody discloses modulation of neural structures near the ear (title and abstract). Borsody states in paragraphs 55, 63, 84, and 95 disclose the use of temperature sensors to measure ear temperature and coil temperatures and is used to adjust the stimulus provided to the subject. As noted by Bouton in the rejection of claim 24, the temperature sensors are used in order to keep the device operating within safe parameters. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Simon and Bouton to include a temperature sensor that measures a temperature of a portion of a person’s ear as taught by Borsody in order to keep the device operating within safe parameters as taught by Bouton. While Simon, Bouton, and Borsody disclose the general concept of temperature thresholds of the person’s ear, they do not explicitly state the temperature threshold of the person’s ear. However, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to determine specific temperature thresholds of operation to optimize and determine safe operating parameters of the device. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claimed threshold because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to determine specific temperature thresholds of operation to optimize and determine safe operating parameters of the device. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JOSHUA DARYL DEANON LANNU whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1986 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday 8 AM - 5 PM, Friday 8 AM -12 PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Charles Marmor can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /JOSHUA DARYL D LANNU/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /CARRIE R DORNA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791