Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/222,114

CLASSICAL CONDITIONING OF NEUROMODULATION WITH SYNCHRONIZED MUSICAL STIMULATION

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jul 14, 2023
Examiner
RODDEN, JOANNE M
Art Unit
3794
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
The Florida State University Research Foundation, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
152 granted / 239 resolved
-6.4% vs TC avg
Strong +49% interview lift
Without
With
+48.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
256
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
12.6%
-27.4% vs TC avg
§103
46.5%
+6.5% vs TC avg
§102
12.7%
-27.3% vs TC avg
§112
26.3%
-13.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 239 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
CTNF 18/222,114 CTNF 91939 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1-2, 6, 8 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 1, the claim states “at least one of rhythm, harmonic element or melodic element…”; however, this should read “at least one of a rhythm element, a harmonic element or a melodic element…”. Regarding claim 2, 8 and 19, “the motor cortex region of the brain” should be “a motor cortex region of a brain”. Regarding claim 6, “an electromyographic equipment” should read “electromyographic equipment” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 9, 12-14 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. Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is a method claim which depends off of claim 7. The claim states “wherein the acoustic stimulation can be subsequently performed…”. However, using the language “can be” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the subsequently performed stimulation is actively part of the claimed method or an optional part of the method that needs not be performed. Regarding claim 12-14 are rejected similar to claim 9 due to their dependency. Regarding claim 18, claim 18 sets forth that the phase offset for the audio waveform to synchronize with the TMS can be done dependent off of claim 17 which does the opposite. This appears to be in error as the specification sets forth these two different synchronizations as different embodiments. Therefore, this is seen as indefinite. For examination purposes, this is seen as separate from each other. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-5, 7-13, 15-16 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ewers, “Classical conditioning of paired-pulse TMS induced intracortical facilitation – a proof of concept”, herein referred to as “Ewers” . Regarding claim 1, Ewers teaches: A system comprising: a transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) device configured to generate a localized magnetic field waveform at a brain region (page 8; Transcranial magnetic stimulation; the TMS pulses applied via a figure-of-eight coil connected to two serially linked TMS devices and applied at the skull thus for a region of the brain) ; and an acoustic controller configured to generate an audio waveform having at least one of rhythm, harmonic element, or melodic element synchronized to the localized magnetic field waveform (page 8; Conditioning phase: specifically the acoustic stimuli being applied together with the TMS and Experimental setup: controlled by a laptop computer for paired auditory-TMS stimulations) . Regarding claim 7, Ewers teaches: A method to perform a transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment, the method comprising: generating, via a transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) device, a localized magnetic field stimulation at a brain region of a patient; and concurrent with the localized magnetic field stimulation (Fig. 1 and page 8; specifically TMS) , generating, via an acoustic controller, an acoustic stimulation having at least one of rhythm, harmonic element, or melodic element synchronized to the localized magnetic field stimulation (Fig. 1 and page 8; specifically conditioning phase) . Regarding claim 15, Ewers teaches: A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon (page 8; Experimental Setup) , wherein execution of the instructions by a processor causes the processor to: cause, a transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) device, to generate a localized magnetic field waveform at a brain region (page 8; Experimental setup; paired auditory-TMS stimulations are controlled by a laptop using data acquisition unit and “signal” software and TMS) ; and cause, an acoustic controller, to generate an audio waveform having at least one of rhythm, harmonic element, or melodic element synchronized to the localized magnetic field waveform (page 8; Experimental setup; paired auditory-TMS stimulations are controlled by a laptop using data acquisition unit and “signal” software and Conditioning phase) . Regarding claims 2, 8 and 19, Ewers teaches: wherein the brain region is the motor cortex region of the brain (page 8; specifically TMS is applied over the skull at the motor cortex) . Regarding claim 3 , Ewers teaches: further comprising: a TMS controller, wherein the TMS controller is configured to generate a TMS waveform from a TMS waveform file, wherein the TMS waveform is amplified and subsequently applied to one or more TMS coils to generate the localized magnetic field waveform (page 8; specifically Experimental setup; paired auditory-TMS stimulations as well as MEP recording were controlled by a laptop computer which uses data acquisition unit with Signal software and TSM/Conditioning phase on how the signals are applied) . Regarding claim 4, Ewers teaches: wherein the TMS controller is configured to adjust a phase offset of the TMS waveform to synchronize the TMS waveform with the audio waveform (page 8-9; specifically synchronizing TMS and audio which is seen as adjusting a phase offset of both TMS and audio in order to synchronize with one another in conditioning and testing phase) . Regarding claim 5, Ewers teaches: wherein the acoustic controller is configured to adjust a phase offset of the audio waveform to synchronize the audio waveform with the TMS waveform (page 8-9; specifically synchronizing TMS and audio which is seen as adjusting a phase offset of both TMS and audio in order to synchronize with one another in conditioning and testing phase) . Regarding claim 9, Ewers teaches: further comprising: repeating the localized magnetic field stimulation and the concurrent and synchronized acoustic stimulation over a plurality of treatment sessions to establish entrainment or conditioning, wherein the acoustic stimulation can be subsequently performed to invoke a conditioned response or entrainment response without presence of the localized magnetic field stimulation (Fig. 1 and page 8; specifically conditioning phase) . Regarding claim 10 , Ewers teaches: wherein the localized magnetic field stimulation is used to treat pain (this is seen as the result of using the method and Ewers shows this is possible as seen in the Introduction) . Regarding claim 11, Ewers teaches: wherein the localized magnetic field stimulation is used to treat chronic pain. (this is seen as the result of using the method and Ewers shows this is possible as seen in the Introduction) . Regarding claim 12, Ewers teaches: further comprising: receiving, via the TMS device, a TMS file; receiving, via the acoustic controller, an audio file (page 8; experimental setup) ; and adjusting a phase offset of a TMS waveform generated from the TMS file to synchronize the TMS waveform with the audio waveform, wherein the TMS waveform is amplified and subsequently applied to one or more TMS coils to generate the localized magnetic field waveform (page 8-9; specifically synchronizing TMS and audio which is seen as adjusting a phase offset of both TMS and audio in order to synchronize with one another in conditioning and testing phase and page 5: amplification of amplitudes) . Regarding claim 13, Ewers teaches: further comprising: receiving, via the TMS device, a TMS file; receiving, via the acoustic controller, an audio file (page 8: experimental setup) ; and adjusting a phase offset of the audio waveform generated from the audio file to synchronize the audio waveform to the TMS waveform, wherein the TMS waveform is amplified and subsequently applied to one or more TMS coils to generate the localized magnetic field waveform (page 8-9; specifically synchronizing TMS and audio which is seen as adjusting a phase offset of both TMS and audio in order to synchronize with one another in conditioning and testing phase and page 5: amplification of amplitudes) . Regarding claim 16, Ewers teaches: wherein the instructions further causes the processor to: receive a TMS waveform file; and generate a TMS waveform to be amplified and subsequently applied to one or more TMS coils to generate the localized magnetic field waveform (page 8; specifically Experimental setup; paired auditory-TMS stimulations as well as MEP recording were controlled by a laptop computer which uses data acquisition unit with Signal software and TSM/Conditioning phase on how the signals are applied) . Regarding claim 17, Ewers teaches: wherein the instructions further causes the processor to: adjust a phase offset of the TMS waveform to synchronize the TMS waveform with the audio waveform (page 8-9; specifically synchronizing TMS and audio which is seen as adjusting a phase offset of both TMS and audio in order to synchronize with one another in conditioning and testing phase) . Regarding claim 18, Ewers teaches: wherein the instructions further causes the processor to: adjust a phase offset of the audio waveform to synchronize the audio waveform with the TMS waveform (page 8-9; specifically synchronizing TMS and audio which is seen as adjusting a phase offset of both TMS and audio in order to synchronize with one another in conditioning and testing phase) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ewers in view of Goldwasser et al., US 20170224990, herein referred to as “Goldwasser” . Regarding claim 6, Ewers does disclose that the system includes recording MEPs for the TMS and audio pairing as seen in Figure 1 during operation of the TMS and acoustic controller. Ewers does not explicitly disclose that EMG was used for recording MEPS. However, Goldwasser discloses: further comprising: an electromyographic equipment configured to acquire an electromyography (EMG) measurement during operation of the system ([0699]; specifically using physiological measurement for controlling functionalities one of which is EMG) . It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the recording of MEPs for the TMS and audio pairing as seen in Ewers to include recording physiological measurements including EMG as seen in Goldwasser. The motivation being replacing one known measurement and recording for MEPS with another known physiological measurement using EMG with the predictable result of measuring signals from musculature. Regarding claim 14, Ewers does disclose that recording MEPs for the TMS and audio pairing as seen in Figure 1 during operation. Ewers does not explicitly disclose that EMG was used for recording MEPS. However, Goldwasser discloses: further comprising: acquiring an electromyography (EMG) measurement during operations of the generation of the localized magnetic field waveform and the acoustic stimulation ([0699]; specifically using physiological measurement for controlling functionalities one of which is EMG) . It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the recording of MEPs for the TMS and audio pairing as seen in Ewers to include recording physiological measurements including EMG as seen in Goldwasser. The motivation being replacing one known measurement and recording for MEPS with another known physiological measurement using EMG with the predictable result of measuring signals from musculature. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOANNE M RODDEN whose telephone number is (303)297-4276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM-5:00 PM MST. 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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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. /JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/222,114 Page 2 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/222,114 Page 3 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/222,114 Page 4 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/222,114 Page 5 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/222,114 Page 6 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/222,114 Page 7 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/222,114 Page 8 Art Unit: 3794 Application/Control Number: 18/222,114 Page 9 Art Unit: 3794
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 14, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12390666
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DETECTING A CONNECTION TERMINAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 19, 2025
Patent 11253156
IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO ULTRASOUND IMAGING OF THE FOOT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 22, 2022
Patent 11241213
ULTRASOUND POSITIONING DEVICE, SYSTEM, AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 08, 2022
Patent 11229712
IN VIVO DETECTION OF A XENON-BINDING CAGE MOLECULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 25, 2022
Patent 11219483
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR REAL-TIME PLANNING AND MONITORING OF ABLATION NEEDLE DEPLOYMENT IN TISSUE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 11, 2022
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+48.7%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 239 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month