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 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: In claim 1 , “ field generating device ” where “device” is a nonce term and is not specific in what the device is (“field generating device for generating the pulsating magnetic field”, paragraph 1, page 6) 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In accordance with the MPEP 2106.04, claims 1-14 have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions. Step 1 Claims 1-14 recites a device for influencing biological processes in a living issue by applying a pulsating magnetic field with a pulse generator being adapted to output a signal sequence, rhythmic signal, a stress pattern, and an amplitude waveform comprising of a mathematical equation. Thus, claims are directed to an abstract idea, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. Step 2A, Prong 1 Each of Claims 1-14 recites at least one step or instruction for applying a pulsating magnetic field with a pulse generator being adapted to output an amplitude waveform comprising of a mathematical equation , which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. The claimed steps of utilizing a mathematical equation and what each variable is equal to, can be practically performed in the human mind using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas. Accordingly, each of Claims 1-14 recites an abstract idea. Specifically, Claim 1 recites a device for influencing biological processes in a living issue, the device for applying a pulsating magnetic field to at least a part of the living tissue, with a field generating device for generating the pulsating magnetic field and a pulse generator for driving the field generating device with a signal sequence , the pulse generator being adapted to output the signal sequence , which is formed from a superposition of at least one sequence of main pulses, a pulse repetition rate of which is between 0.1 and 1000 Hz, or wherein the pulse repetition rate is between 3 and 300 Hz, and a rhythmic signal , Wherein The rhythmic signal comprises a sequence of signal events organized in at least one regular stress pattern; and An amplitude waveform of a main pulse comprising a function y(x) : y(x)=k1+k2∙e^(sin (x^k3 )+sin ((x∙k4)^k5 )+x∙k6) Wherein: x = computational substitute for time t during the main pulse; k1 = offset value; k2 = amplitude factor, k2≠0; k3 = exponent of x, k3≠0; k4 = multiplication factor of x, k4≠0; k5 = exponent of (x*k4), k5≠0; k6 = multiplication factor of x; and wherein k1 – k6 are parameters which are selectable within certain limits to generate different shapes for the amplitude waveform, each main pulse of the main pulses being modulated with sub-pulses by respective selection of the k1 – k6 parameters (grouped as mathematical concepts under the 2019 PEG); Step 2A, Prong 2 The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claim 1), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: the generator being adapted to output the signal sequence, a rhythmic signal comprising a sequence of signal events, and an amplitude waveform of a main pulse comprising a function y(x) , are generically recited computer elements in independent Claim 1 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG. Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., pulse generator output of the signal sequence, a rhythmic signal, a function y(x), etc. as claimed) . In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, independent Claim 1 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG. Step 2B None of Claims 1-14 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons. These claims require the additional elements of: A pulse generator for driving the field generating device with a signal sequence The pulse generator being adapted to output the signal sequence formed from a superposition of at least one sequence of main pulses A rhythmic signal comprising a sequence of signal events An amplitude waveform of a main pulse comprising a function y(x) The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. , Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs. , 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Per Applicant’s specification, A pulse generator for driving the field generating device with a signal sequence ( paragraph 1, page 6 ) The pulse generator being adapted to output the signal sequence formed from a superposition of at least one sequence of main pulses ( paragraph 1, page 6 ) A rhythmic signal comprising a sequence of signal events ( page 9 ) An amplitude waveform of a main pulse comprising a function y(x) ( pages 6-8 ) Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the pulse generator driving the field generating device with a signal sequence, the pulse generator being adapted to output the signal sequence, and an amplitude waveform comprising of a function y(x). This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “ ‘well understood, routine, conventional activit [ ies ]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible ( TLI Communications ). The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-14 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks ( e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea ( e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV , 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto , LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO , Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc. , 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish , LLC v. Microsoft Corp. , 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016) , the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. For at least the above reasons, the apparatus of claim 1 is directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 1-14 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claim 1 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. W hen viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself . Thus, Claims 1-14 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish ), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a proble m in a technical field (as in DDR). Therefore, none of the Claims 1-14 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-14 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. 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. Claim s 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kafka (EP 2050481 A1) in view of Dommes (DE 1020171127353 A1) . Regarding claim 1 , Kafka teaches a device for influencing biological processes in a living tissue, the device applying a pulsating magnetic field to at least a part of the living tissue ( “device for influencing biological processes in a living tissue…applying at least a part of the tissue with a pulsating magnetic field”, claim 1 ) , with a field generating device for generating the pulsating magnetic field and a pulse generator for driving the field generating device (“magnetic field generating device such that the magnetic field consists of a plurality of basic pulses or main pulses”, paragraph [0003]) a pulse repetition rate of which is between 0.1 and 1000 Hz ( “main pulses… whos pulse frequency is usually between 0 and 1000 Hz”, paragraph [0003] ) , or wherein the pulse repetition rate is between 3 and 300 Hz , and An amplitude waveform of a main pulse comprises a function y(x) (“amplitude function y”, paragraph [0034] and [0035]) : y x =k1+k2∙ e sin x k3 + sin x∙k4 k5 +x∙k6 Wherein : x = computational substitute for time t during the main pulse; k1 = offset value (“k1 = numerical value”, paragraph [0019]) ; k2 = amplitude factor, k2 ≠ 0 (“ k2 = multiplication factor for the function”, paragraph [0019]) ; k3 = exponent of x, k3 ≠ 0 (“k3 = exponent of x”, paragraph [0019]) ; k4 = multiplication factor of x, k4 ≠ 0 (“k4 = multiplication factor of x”, paragraph [0019]) ) ; k5 = exponent of (x*k4), k5 ≠ 0 (“k5 = exponent of (x*k4)”, paragraph [0019])) ; k6 = multiplication factor of x; and (“k6 = multiplication factor of x”, paragraph [0019]) wherein k1 – k6 are parameters which are selectable within certain limits to generate different shapes for the amplitude waveform (“k1-k6 are parameters which can be freely selected within certain limits in order to give the amplitude profile different shapes”, paragraph [0020]) , each main pulse of the main pulses being modulated with sub-pulses by respective selection of the k1 – k6 parameters (“temporal modulation…of the signal…of the individual subpulses within a main pulse can be set”, paragraph [0021]) Kafka does not teach the pulse generator driving the field generating device with a signal sequence and a rhythmic signal comprising a sequence of signal events. However, Dommes teaches a device for applying a pulsating magnetic field to at least a part of the living tissue (“coil arrangement…repositioned on the body…organs to be treated…device uses alternating current to generate the magnetic field”, paragraph [0002]), a pulse generator for driving the field generating device with a signal sequence (“at least one generator unit comprises an acoustic signal generator”, paragraph [0020]) the pulse generator being adapted to output the signal sequence , which is formed from a superposition of at least one sequence of main pulses ( “the direct current is superimposed with a carrier signal”, paragraph [0034] ), a rhythmic signal ( “carrier signal is amplitude-modulated with variable frequency….through a wide variety of frequencies, such as music, tones, sound, or even noise”, paragraph [0036] ) , wherein the rhythmic signal comprises a sequence of signal events (“acoustic signals, i.e., sound and noise”, paragraph [0021[) organized in at least one regular stress pattern (“rhythmic and harmonic sounds in particular lead to stress reduction”, paragraph [0008]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the magnetic field generating device of Kafka with the device of Dommes , specifically the pulse generator being able to drive the field generating device with a signal sequence and output signal events such as an auditory sound to stimulate or influence the biological processes, given by the pulsating magnetic field and provide treatment for the patient. Regarding claim 2 , Kafka in view of Dommes teaches the at least one regular stress pattern being formed by a temporally defined occurrence of the signal events ( “restriction of the biological activation possibilities formally predefined by the temporal sequence of amplitude”, paragraph [0023] ) . Regarding claim 3 , Kafka in view of Dommes teaches at least one group of similar signal events from the sequence of signal events occurs periodically (“main pulses 10, which form the pulsed magnetic field…periodically modulated therein”, paragraph [0043]). Regarding claim 4 , Kafka in view of Dommes teaches the at least one regular stress pattern defining a clock measure ( “during the time interval between the beginning t1 and the end t2 of a main pulse”, paragraph [0020] ), based on a selected signal events from the sequence of signal events (“basic time profile of the main pulses”, paragraph [0038]) . Regarding claim 5 , Kafka in view of Dommes teaches a tempo of the clock measure varying be increasing or decreasing . It would be inherent that the tempo or beat of the clock measure of the stress pattern can be increased or decreased depending on what results are desired, for example a falling tempo for relaxing effects and a rising tempo for performance-enhancing effects. Regarding claim 10 , Kafka in view of Dommes teaches the computational substitute x depending linearly on the time t (“y(t), since t is a function of x”, paragraph [0037], “time interval from x=-5 to x=5”, paragraph [0038]). Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kafka in view of Dommes and further in view of Heath (US 20200094066 A1) . Regarding claims 6 and 7 , Kafka in view of Dommes teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach a wherein the at least one regular stress pattern in the rhythmic signal repeats at least 10 times per minute or at least 50 times per minute, and wherein the signal sequence comprises a length between 45 s and 20 min or a length between 90 s and 25 min. However, Heath teaches various durations for delivering magnetic field treatment (“21 min…1 min”, paragraphs [0135]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Kafka in view of Dommes with the device of Heath and provide treatment where at least one regular stress pattern in the rhythmic signal repeats at least 10 times per minute or at least 50 times per minute, and wherein the signal sequence comprises a length between 45 s and 20 min or a length between 90 s and 25 min, as it is also known in the art to go by these time durations. Claim s 8, 9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kafka in view of Dommes and further in view of Dacey Jr . et al. (US 20100234793 A1) . Regarding claim 8 , Kafka in view of Dommes teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach the signal events comprising a frequency range such that a reproduction of the rhythmic signal via an electroacoustic transducer results in an audible sound and/or an infrasound. However, Dacey Jr . et al. teaches the signal events comprising a frequency range (“radio frequency spectrum”, paragraph [0110]) such that a reproduction of the rhythmic signal via an electroacoustic transducer (“ among energy emitters 302 examples include…transducers”, paragraph [0109] ) results in an audible sound (“ response includes generating…an audio”, paragraph [0242] ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Kafka in view of Dommes with the device of Dacey Jr . in order to reproduce the rhythmic signals through an electroacoustic transducer to provide an audible sound for the patient. Regarding claim 9 , Kafka in view of Dommes teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach the signal events being formed by at least one: a breathing sound, a blood flow sound, a sound of a heartbeat, a sound of a percussion instrument, a sound of a stringed instrument, or a sound of a wind instrument. However, Dacey Jr. teaches the signal events being formed by at least one: A breathing sound , a blood flow sound , a sound of a heart beat (“among sensors 442 examples include…acoustic wave sensors…biosensors, blood volume pulse sensors…sound sensors”, paragraph [0191]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Kafka in view of Dommes with the device of Dacey Jr. et al. and utilize sensors to form the signal events based off of a breathing sound, a blood flow sound, or a sound of heartbeat in order to efficiently stimulate or influence biological processes within the body of a patient. Regarding claim 11 , Kafka in view of Dommes teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not each main pulse comprising a pulse length, and the computational substitute x for the time t defined as x=x1+ x2-x1 T i ∙(t-t 0 i ) With x1 = initial value for x x2 = final value for x Ti = pulse length of a main pulse t0i = start time of the main pulse Kafka in view of Dommes does teach x1 and x2 as initial and final values for x, as well as t1 and t2 being the time interval of a main pulse (“during the time interval between the beginning t1 and the end t2 of a main pulse, x passes through the values of x1 to x2, i.e. x1<x<2”, paragraph [0020], Kafka) However, Dacey Jr. et al. teaches a control unit capable of detecting a pulse length of the main pulse (“one or more controllers 402 are configured to automatically control at least one waveform characteristic (e.g., intensity, frequency, pulse intensity, pulse duration, pulse ratio, pulse repetition rate, or the like) associated with the delivery of one or more energy stimuli”, paragraph [0152]; controllers 402) , and is capable of calculating the computational substitute x for the time t based off the function y(x). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Kafka in view of Dommes with the device of Dacey Jr. et al. and determine the initial and final values of x, the pulse length of a main pulse, and the start time of the main pulse in order to find the computational substitute x for the function y(x). Regarding claim 12 , Kafka in view of Dommes teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as well as the signal sequence being formed from a superposition of a first sequence of main pulses, at least one second sequence of main pulses and the rhythmic signal wherein the amplitude waveform of the main pulses comprises of the function y(x), but does not teach each main pulse comprising a pulse length and the pulse length and the pulse repetition rate of the main pulses of the second sequence of main pulses are different from the pulse length and pulse repetition rate of the main pulses of the first sequence of main pulses. However, Dacey Jr. et al. teaches each main pulse comprising a pulse length (“pulse duration”, paragraph [0152]) ; The pulse length and the pulse repetition rate of the main pulses of the second sequence of main pulses are different from the pulse length and the pulse repetition rate of the main pulses of the first sequence of main pulses (“one or more controllers 402 are configured to automatically control at least one waveform characteristic (e.g., intensity, frequency, pulse intensity, pulse duration, pulse ratio, pulse repetition rate, or the like) associated with the delivery of one or more energy stimuli”, paragraph [0152] ; controllers 402 ) Dacey Jr. et al. also teaches a control unit (controllers 402) capable of having th e pulse length of the main pulses of the second sequence of main pulses change monotonically in a time-dependent course by decreasing monotonically or increasing monotonically and the pulse repetition rate of the main pulses of the second sequence of main pulses change monotonically in a time-dependent course opposite to a change in the pulse length by increasing monotonically or decreasing monotonically . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Kafka in view of Dommes with the device of Dacey Jr. et al. and determine the main pulses to be dependent on the pulse length and pulse repetition rate , adjusting for the patients’ needs. Regarding claim 13 , Kafka in view of Dommes and further in view of Dacey Jr. et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 12. Furthermore, Dacey Jr. et al. teaches The main pulses of the first sequence of main pulses following one another directly in the time-dependent course, without a pause The main pulses of the second sequence of main pulses follow ing one another directly in the time-dependent course, without a pause (“controller 402 is configured to control at least one parameter associated with a delivery of the energy stimulus…pulse frequency…an excitation pulse ratio, an excitation pulse intensity, an excitation pulse duration time, an excitation pulse repetition rate…delivery schedule, a delivery pattern”, paragraph [0153]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of Kafka in view of Dommes and further in view of Dacey Jr. et al. and configure the controller that is capable of delivering main pulses of the first and second sequence to be following one another directly in the time-dependent course in order to promote positive effects by the electromagnetic pulses. Regarding claim 14 , Kafka in view of Dommes and further in view of Dacey Jr. et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 12. Furthermore, Dacey Jr. et al. teaches a control unit (controllers 402) capable of having t he pulse length of the main pulses of the first sequence of main pulses change monotonically in a time-dependent course by decreasing monotonically or increasing monotonically and t he pulse repetition rate of the main pulses of the first sequence of main pulses change monotonically in a time-dependent course opposite to a change in the pulse length by increasing monotonically or decreasing monotonically (paragraphs [0152] and [0153]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of Kafka in view of Dommes and further in view of Dacey Jr. et al. and configure the controller to have the pulse length and pulse repetition rate of the main pulses of the first sequence change monotonically depending on the needs of the patient. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LARA LINH TRAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3598 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:30am-5:00pm M-F . 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 Alexander Valvis can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712724233 . 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. /L.L.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /ALEX M VALVIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791