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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. However, it appears that there is no priority in the provisional documents for brain stimulation or the like or not having sensors/electrodes placed on the head. T herefore, for claims dealing with these limitations , a priority date of 8/02/2023 is given. Claim Objections Claims 1, 9, 11-12, 14-15, 17, and 20-26 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 1, in line 4, the claim reads “the input system comprises a set of sensors placed on a user’s body part…” This should read “the input system comprises a set of sensors configured to be placed on a user’s body part…” . In line 11-12, the claim reads “actuators placed in contact…” This should read “actuators configured to be placed in contact…” Regarding claim s 9 , 11-12, 14-15, 17 and 22-25 , the claims state “comprising…” This should read “further comprising…” Regarding claim 19, the claim states “ from an input system comprises…” in lines 8-9; which should read “from an input system comprising…” Regarding claim 20, the claim states “wherein the computer program product comprises” in line 4; this should read “the computer program product comprising…” Regarding claim 21, the claim states “sensor’s” in line 6; however, this should not be possessive, but rather plural as in “sensors”. Regarding claim 26, the claim reads “claim 21, the performed tasks…” This should read “claim 21, wherein the performed tasks…”. Appropriate correction is required. 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. 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: “kinesthetic feedback device” in claim 9 which is seen as having electrodes for vibration or similar thereof as seen in the specification on page 7 in the first full sentence ; “exoskeletal stabilization unit” in claim s 12-13 which is seen as hardware associated with assisting with attachment of the exoskeletal elements such as a collar as seen in Fig. 11a-c and the supporting specification for these figures ; “audio device” in claim 14 which is seen as “ Such audio devices may be e.g., speakers, headphones, earbuds, bone conduction devices, etc .” in the specification ; “thermal device” in claim 15 which is seen as different devices that can induce heat such as lasers, fluids or the like as seen in the specification on page 25 ; “ brain modulation and/or brain stimulation device” in claim 17 is shown as just a box in fig. 10C see 112b below ; “control unit” i n claim 19 is seen as a microprocessor or microcontroller or the like as seen on page 39 of the specification ; “computer program means for…” in claim 20 ; however, the specification only mentions the computer program means for on pages 9 and 39 without hardware or hardware associated with software . 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 § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 20 uses the limitation “computer program means for” which invokes a 112(f) interpretation. Since this is seen as a computer implemented means the requirements for the 112(f) are found in MPEP 2181 II B. The MPEP in this section states that the computer implemented means should have hardware (computer elements) associated with software or algorithmic activity. There is a requirement for a specific algorithm to be recited in the specification. However, the specification puts forth rather broadly what the algorithm does not necessarily what the algorithm is. The specification mentions code for, and means for language which shows the implementation but not the physical code or algorithm. Therefore, the specification is seen as lacking written description for the means plus function limitation of claim 20. This appears to an issue due to the nature of how the computer readable medium claim is written. It is suggested that the CRM claim be claimed in a style similar to the following examples: “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed, cause one or more processors to at least: ” or “ A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors of a base station (BS), cause the BS to perform operations, the operations comprising ”. 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 1-26 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. Regarding claims 1, 19, 20 and 21, the claims state that the body part is anything but the head. However, on page 2 of specification its states that its any body part but the brain. Therefore, this is seen as indefinite as it is unclear if the head is meant to mean the brain or vice versa. Claims 2-18 and 22-26 are rejected similarly due to their dependencies. Regarding claim 7, it is unclear how an array of sensors can be a single haptic display. For examination purposes this is only seen as just a “haptic display”. Regarding claim 8 , in line 2, the claim states “the electrodes”. However, “the electrodes” lacks antecedent basis as there are no electrodes claimed in claim 1 from which claim 8 depends. It appears that this claim should be dependent off of claim 5 rather than claim 1. For examination purposes this is seen as “electrodes…” rather than “the electrodes…”. Regarding claim 18 , the claim states in lines 2-3 that the tasks “is/are” at least one of…”. However, it is unclear based on “is/are” if there is at least one or more than one task or should be a single task. Furthermore “tasks” lacks antecedent basis as only “a task” is claimed in claim 1 from which claim 18 depends. Regarding claim 19 , claim 19 recites “a control unit configured to…” in lines 1 and 3 followed by steps for which the unit performs. However, a claim should have a preamble, transitional phrase and body. There appears to be a lack of transitional phrase, for example “comprising”. Therefore, the claim is seen as indefinite as it is unclear what constitutes the body of the claim and what the unit actual comprises. Usually these types of claims are a controller comprising a memory and processor wherein the processor is configured to… or the like. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as the above example. Furthermore, it is suggested when rewriting the claim to be aware that the claim could lead to 101 abstract idea territory. As written now, since there is no boundaries for what is the body/preamble of the claim or boundaries of what is being claimed, the examiner is not able to make a rejection over 101 abstract idea. Regarding claim 19, the claim states in line 9 “to a user”; however, there is already a previous user claimed and it is unclear if this is the same or a different user. Regarding claim 20 , the claim is a CRM claim type; however, the program product only consists of code. The specification does not clarify what the code is merely that the code is for doing a task. It is unclear what the “code” is as it only has a function rather than instructions and particulars needed for software . Regarding claim s 17 and 20 , the limitation “brain modulation and/or brain stimulation device ” and “computer program means for” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification points to the device being in Fig. 10C; however, the figure only shows a box and that it can be associated with circuitry. There is no hardware mentioned in the specification. The specifications on pages 9 and 39 describe the action of the computer program means for but do not mention hardware or computer hardware associated with software. It is unclear what theses devi c e s would be hardware wise and hardware associated with software wise . For examination under 112(f), “brain modulation and/or brain stimulation device” is not being interpreted as a computer implemented means; however, the lack of hardware to perform the function renders the claim indefinite. For examination under 112(f) “computer program means for” is being interpreted as a computer implemented means see MPEP 2181, II. B. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim s 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims encompass a human organism. Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism. Claim s 1 -26 FILLIN "Pluralize \“Claim\” if necessary, insert claim number(s), and insert \“is\” or \“are\” as appropriate." are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability , 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim s 1 , 19 - 2 1 state that the sensors are place on a user’s body and the actuators are placed in contact with the user’s body. It appears that the user’s body is actively being claimed due to the claim language. Therefore, the claim is seen as encompassing/directed to a human organism . Claims 2-18 and 22-26 are rejected similarly due to their dependency. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-11, 14, 16, 18-21 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" as being anticipated by Ortiz Catalan , US 20180082600, herein referred to as “ Ortiz Catalan ”. Regarding claim 1 , Ortiz Catalan teaches: A system (100) for functional rehabilitation and/or pain rehabilitation due to sensorimotor impairment (abstract) , comprising: an input system (102) for providing control to a user to perform a task in a training environment (104) () , the input system comprises a set of sensors placed on a user's body part, other than the head , adjacent to an affected body part or being the affected body part itself or adjacent a missing body part, for collecting signals indicative of intended motions of the affected body part or the missing body part to perform the task in the training environment ( Fig. 1-2; [0008]; specifically the electrodes for acquiring electrical signals from a body for signals for intent to move a limb which is seen as perform the task in the training environment ) , and a processing circuitry configured to operate a motor volition decoder for decoding the signals to infer the intended motions ( [0008]; specifically the controller which is used to see intent to move which is used for decoding via pattern recognition ) , the system (100) further comprises a n array of actuators placed in contact with the user's body part for providing tactile stimulation to the user based on an output from the training environment related to the performed task ( [0016], [0031]-[0032] ; specifically the feedback system for tactile feedback which gives information back to user ) ; wherein the processing circuitry is configured to control at least one element of the training environment based on the decoded signals ( [0030]; specifically ability to control interactive environment which is the video game ) . Regarding claim 2, Ortiz Catalan teaches: wherein the motor volition decoder is configured to decode the signals and infer the intended motions by the user according to a model ([0008]; specifically pattern recognition which is seen as according to a model) . Regarding claim 3, Ortiz Catalan teaches: wherein the sensors are electrodes arrangeable on a user's skin for recording electric signals ([0008]; specifically the electrodes and [0034]; specifically that the electrodes can be on the skin ) . Regarding claim 4, Ortiz Catalan teaches: wherein the sensors are electrodes that are implantable into the user's body for recording electric signals ([0031]; specifically that the electrodes can be implantable) . Regarding claim 5, Ortiz Catalan teaches: further comprising an array of electrodes placeable on the user's body part for providing the somatosensory stimulation ( [0008] and [0031]; specifically the electrode feedback of movement which is used for nerve feedback/by stimulating nerves ) . Regarding claim 6, Ortiz Catalan teaches: wherein the array of actuators provides a tactile representation of the training environment to the user ( [0016]; specifically the tactile feedback from sensor elements ) . Regarding claim 7, Ortiz Catalan teaches: wherein the array of actuators is a haptic display ([0017]; specifically the display that shows feedback which is seen as haptic) . Regarding claim 8, Ortiz Catalan teaches: wherein the at least one electrode electrodes for providing the somatosensory stimulation comprises electrodes implantable into the user's body part ([0031]; specifically that the electrodes can be implantable) . Regarding claim 9, Ortiz Catalan teaches: comprising kinesthetic feedback device configured to provide kinesthetic feedback to the user's body based on the outcome of the decoded signals ([0016]-[0017] and [0030]-[0032]) . Regarding claim 10, Ortiz Catalan teaches: wherein the output from the training environment is directly or indirectly related to input provided by the user to the training environment for performing the task ([0016]-[0017] and [0030]- [003 2 ]) . Regarding claim 11, Ortiz Catalan teaches: comprising a display for providing visual feedback from the training environment ([0017]; specifically the display that shows feedback) . Regarding claim 14, Ortiz Catalan teaches: comprising an audio device for providing auditory feedback to the user based on a further output from the training environment ([0016]; specifically audio feedback) . Regarding claim 16, Ortiz Catalan teaches: wherein the training environment is a virtual training environment ([0033]) . Regarding claim 18 and 26, Ortiz Catalan teaches: wherein the tasks is/are at least one of motor, sensory, and/or sensorimotor training tasks ([0007]-[0009]) . Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is currently not properly written as a claim without the transitional phrase. However, the claim would be similarly rejected with the controller as seen in claim 1. Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is similarly rejected to claim 1; Ortiz Catalan teaches: wherein the CRM is taught as seen in [00 51 ] and the code is seen as [00 51 ]. Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is similarly rejected to claims above over Ortiz Catalan . Claim(s) 1 , 12-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" as being anticipated by Ang et al. , US 20180 153430, herein referred to as “ Ang ”. Regarding claim 1, Ang teaches: A system (100) for functional rehabilitation and/or pain rehabilitation due to sensorimotor impairment ([0057] and [0174] ) , comprising: an input system (102) for providing control to a user to perform a task in a training environment (104) ([0057] and [0174]) , the input system comprises a set of sensors placed on a user's body part, other than the head, adjacent to an affected body part or being the affected body part itself or adjacent a missing body part, for collecting signals indicative of intended motions of the affected body part or the missing body part to perform the task in the training environment ( [00 07]-[0009], [0012], and [0018]; specifically electrical potentials and looking at signals from skin via an electrode ) , and a processing circuitry configured to operate a motor volition decoder for decoding the signals to infer the intended motions ([00 12 ] , [0018], and [0031]-[0032] ; specifically the processor used to understand gestures or intent or intentions ) , the system (100) further comprises an array of actuators placed in contact with the user's body part for providing tactile stimulation to the user based on an output from the training environment related to the performed task ([0 194]-[0199]; specifically feedback for tactile feeling ) ; wherein the processing circuitry is configured to control at least one element of the training environment based on the decoded signals ( [0012] and [ 0022] ) . Regarding claim 12 , Ang teaches: comprising an exoskeletal stabilization unit arrangeable to stabilize the motion of the user's body part ([0200]; use with exoskeleton which an exoskeleton is seen as being for stability) . Regarding claim 13, Ang teaches: wherein the exoskeletal stabilization unit is powered to assist the user in moving the body part when performing the task ([0200]; use with exoskeleton which an exoskeleton is seen as being for stability and assisting in tasks ) . Regarding claim 15, Ang teaches: comprising a thermal device for providing thermal feedback to the user based on a further output from the training environment ([0070]; specifically that feedback can be temperature sensors) . 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 w ould 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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortiz Catalan in view of Ramos Murguialday et al., US 20170325705, herein referred to as “Ramos”. Regarding claim 17 , Ortiz Catalan does not explicitly disclose a brain modulation and/or brain stimulation device configured to excite, inhibit, and/or stimulate the user’s brain. However, Ramos does disclose: comprising a brain modulation and/or brain stimulation device configured to excite, inhibit, and/or stimulate the user's brain ([0083]; specifically stimulation for tasks along with stimulation of the brain) . It w ould have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Ortiz Catalan with the brain stimulation as seen in Ramos. The motivation being to bridge the gap between the brain and the body as seen in Ramos [0083]. Claim (s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortiz Catalan in view of Bouton , US 201800333575 , herein referred to as “ Bouton ”. Regarding claim 22, Ortiz Catalan does not explicitly disclose providing progressively more difficult task to the user depending on the outcome of the prior preformed task. However, Bouton does disclose: comprising providing progressively more difficult task to the user depending on the outcome of the prior performed task ([0011]; specifically increasing the difficulty of the video game when prior engagement was lower) . It w ould have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Ortiz Catalan with the engagement activity as seen in Bouton . The motivation being to use feedback to help engage the user in the task as seen in Bouton [00 7 3] -[0074] . Regarding claim s 23-25 , Ortiz Catalan does not explicitly disclose providing brain modulation or brain stimulation during, prior after or independent of the task. However, Bouton discloses: providing brain modulation or brain stimulation to the user ( [0073]-[0074] ; specifically changing difficulty of the video game which is seen as brain stimulation) However, it is seen as obvious to stimulate the brain while the user is performing a task in the training environment ; prior to the user performing a task in the training environment, or once the user is completed in performing a task in the training environment , independent of the task performed by the user in the training environment as these are all seen as different timing of applying stimulation. Therefore, it would be obvious to try as there are only a finite amount of timings to apply stimulation as it can be prior to, during or after a task or related or not related to said task . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JOANNE M RODDEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (303)297-4276 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jonathan Moffat can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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