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 .
Response to Amendment
The Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 26 May 2026. Claims 1-10 and 12-24 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to Claims 1-10 and 12-24.
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.
Claims 1-9, 13, 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mayo et al. (US 20170296775 A1) (hereon referred as Mayo) in view of Aimone et al. (US 20140223462 A1) (hereon referred as Aimone).
Regarding claim 1, Mayo teaches an apparatus for providing vibro-tactile stimulation ("vibrating elements 104 are brought into therapeutic contact with the individual", paragraph [0036]) for use in combination with a psychological intervention ("therapeutic benefits offered by the present disclosure...aiding in the treatment of: attention deficit disorder, obsessive/compulsive disorder, clinical depression, panic disorder, anxiety", paragraph [0074]), the apparatus comprising:
A plurality of stimulation units, each adapted to provide vibro-tactile stimulation to a user upon activation (vibrating elements 104, Fig. 1)
A receiver configured to receive instructions as part of the psychological intervention (vibrator 200 is controlled by a controller 202 which receives instructions via the communication module 204", paragraph [0040]; communication 204, Fig. 2)
A controller configured to activate at least a subset of the plurality of stimulation units according to the instructions ("vibrating elements 104 simultaneously vibrate is randomly selected by the controller", paragraph [0045]; controller 202, Fig. 2)
Mayo does not teach the receiver being configured to receive instructions as part of the psychological intervention, wherein the psychological intervention comprises elements of Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT).
However, Aimone teaches an apparatus for providing vibro-tactile stimulation (“haptic or tactile feedback device, such as a vibrotactile device”, paragraph [0402]) for use in combination with a psychological intervention (“computer system…for modulating content based on a person’s brainwave data, including modifying presentation of digital content…based on a set of rules”, abstract), wherein the psychological intervention comprises elements of Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) (“types of rules may include…training systems…e.g. neurofeedback mindfulness protocols”, paragraph [0157], “therapies such as Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy”, paragraph [0351]).
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 Mayo with Aimone in order to configure a device that provides vibrotactile stimulation to a user in use with a psychological intervention such as MBCT in order to further increase a sensation of relaxation and mindfulness in a user.
Regarding claim 2, Mayo in view of Aimone teaches the psychological intervention being provided by a computer program, and wherein the receiver is adapted to receive the instructions from the computer program ("a non-transitory computer readable medium embodying a computer program product includes, but is not limited to, instructions for providing a therapeutic benefit to a person when executed by a processor", paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 3, Mayo in view of Aimone teaches the computer program being executed by a separate device, and wherein the receiver is adapted to receive the instructions from the separate device ("vibrating elements 104 are controlled by a mobile device 102 running a software application communicates with the vibrating elements 104", paragraph [0037]; mobile device 102).
Regarding claim 4, Mayo in view of Aimone teaches the apparatus comprising a processor configured to execute the computer program itself, and a separate device for providing the psychological intervention to the user ("computer program product includes instructions for providing a therapeutic benefit to a person when executed by a processor", paragraph [0009], “controller 202 which receives instructions via the communication module 204 from the mobile device 102”, paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 5, Mayo in view of Aimone teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Aimone teaches the psychological intervention comprising relaxation training (“the computer system may provide prescribed or guided exercises to improve the user’s ability at the activity”, paragraph [0311]).
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 Mayo in view of Aimone and provide relaxation training such as relaxation exercises as part of the psychological intervention to help promote mindfulness and concentration in a user.
Regarding claim 6, Mayo in view of Aimone teaches a sensor (pressure sensor 212, Fig. 15) configured to establish which stimulation units of the plurality of stimulation units are in contact with the user, wherein the controller is adapted to activate at least a subset of the plurality of stimulation units that consists of stimulation units that are established to be in contact with the user ("only the stimulation elements having a sufficient pressure indication would vibrate when instructed each pressure sensor in the array 1406 reports its pressure indication which in turn instructs only those pressure sensors to vibrate to provide the therapeutic benefit to the individual different vibrating elements 104 of the vibrating array 1406 may come into therapeutic contact", paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 7, Mayo in view of Aimone teaches different stimulation units of the plurality of stimulation units being associated with different parts of the user ("at the individual moves or changes position, different vibrating elements 104 of the vibrating array 1406 may come into therapeutic contact with the individual", paragraph [0056]). The device can detect different parts of the user and provide different levels of stimulation.
Regarding claim 8, Mayo in view of Aimone teaches a surface layer covering at least a portion of the apparatus, wherein the surface layer is removable ("vibrating element 104 may be temporarily fixed to an individual's body by a removable adhesive disc 400", paragraph [0041]; removable adhesive disc 400, Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 9, Mayo in view of Aimone teaches an energy storage that is replaceable and/or rechargeable ("removable battery 4800 that can be recharged and reconnected to the bilateral array", paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claim 13, Mayo in view of Aimone teaches the apparatus being in the shape of a pillow ("stimulation elements can be built into a pillow or can be built into a pillow cover into which the pillow is inserted", paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claim 16, Mayo in view of Aimone teaches the apparatus being in a shape of a glove ("vibrating elements 104. through clothing, accessories, or articles being used by the individual", paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 17, Mayo in view of Aimone teaches the controller being adapted to activate at least the subset of the plurality of stimulation units ("mobile device 102 that may be used to program the alternating asynchronous bilaterial simulation", paragraph [0042]) synchronously to generate a pulsing sensation for the user ("asynchronous stimulation is provided by the vibrating elements 104 to stimulate each vibrating element 104 in an alternating manner with some period of overlap where both stimulating elements are vibrating simultaneously", paragraph [0038]). The controller can be adapted to activate the plurality of stimulation units asynchronously as well as synchronously.
Regarding claim 18, Mayo in view of Aimone teaches the controller (controller 202, Fig. 2) capable of being adapted to activate at least one or more subsets of the plurality of stimulation units throughout a plurality of bursts, as well as being capable of being at a specific frequency range of 10 Hz to 300 Hz, wherein there are 100 ms to 2000 ms between the bursts.
Regarding claim 19, Mayo in view of Aimone teaches the controller (controller 202, Fig. 2) capable of being adapted to successively activate at least the subset of the plurality of stimulation units, individually and/or in groups of two or more, so as to generate a sensation of a wave travelling across the apparatus for the user.
Regarding claim 20, Mayo in view of Aimone teaches the controller (controller 202, Fig. 2) capable of being adapted to activate the subset of the plurality of stimulation units, individually and/or in groups of two or more, at N respective onset times T₁...TN throughout a cycle period T, wherein N is an integer larger than one and wherein the onset times T1...TN are not arranged substantially uniformly throughout the cycle period T.
Regarding claim 21, Mayo teaches a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a computer program for providing a psychological intervention for use in combination with an apparatus for providing vibro-tactile stimulation (paragraph [0009]), and when the computer program is executed by computer, cause the computer to output instructions to the apparatus as part of the psychological intervention, wherein the instructions comprise instructions to activate at least a subset of the plurality of stimulation units ("computer program product includes instructions for providing a therapeutic benefit to a person when executed by a processor", paragraph [0009], ("vibrating elements 104 are controlled by a mobile device 102 running a software application communicates with the vibrating elements 104", paragraph [0037]).
Mayo does not teach the computer program comprising computer code which cause the computer to output instructions to the apparatus as part of the psychological intervention, wherein the psychological intervention comprises elements of Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT).
However, Aimone teaches a computer program comprising computer code which, when the computer program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to output instructions to the apparatus as part of the psychological intervention (“computer system…for modulating content based on a person’s brainwave data, including modifying presentation of digital content…based on a set of rules”, abstract), wherein the psychological intervention comprises elements of Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) (“types of rules may include…training systems…e.g. neurofeedback mindfulness protocols”, paragraph [0157], “therapies such as Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy”, paragraph [0351]).
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 Mayo with Aimone in order to configure a computer program for configuring an apparatus for psychological intervention through vibro-tactile stimulation, as well as elements of MBCT in order to further promote mindfulness and relaxation in a user.
Regarding claim 22, Mayo in view of Aimone teaches a system for providing vibro-tactile stimulation in combination with a psychological intervention, the system comprising:
The apparatus according to claim 1
A computer program comprising instructions which, when the computer program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to output instructions to the apparatus as part of the psychological intervention, or a separate device configured to execute the computer program ("non-limiting illustrations of a display screen of the mobile device", paragraph [0042]; instructions shown on screen of separate device in Fig. 4-8)
Regarding claim 23, Mayo teaches a method for providing vibro-tactile stimulation for use in combination with a psychological intervention (paragraph [0009]), the method comprising:
Providing instructions to a user as part of the psychological intervention (Fig. 4-8)
Activating at least a subset of a plurality of stimulation units, each adapted to provide vibro-tactile stimulation to the user upon activation, according to the instructions ("a settings screen 400 is illustrated having a touch-sensitive button 420 to adjust the intensity of the vibrations duration of the vibrations overlap period provided (programmed) by the individual", paragraph [0042]; Fig. 4-8)
Mayo does not teach wherein the psychological intervention comprises elements of Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT).
However, Aimone teaches a method for providing vibro-tactile stimulation for use in combination with a psychological intervention (“haptic or tactile feedback device, such as a vibrotactile device”, paragraph [0402]), the method comprising providing instructions to a user as part of the psychological intervention (“computer system…for modulating content based on a person’s brainwave data, including modifying presentation of digital content…based on a set of rules”, abstract), wherein the psychological intervention comprises elements of Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) (“types of rules may include…training systems…e.g. neurofeedback mindfulness protocols”, paragraph [0157], “therapies such as Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy”, paragraph [0351]).
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 method of Mayo with Aimone in order to have a method of providing vibrotactile stimulation to a user in use with a psychological intervention such as MBCT in order to further increase a sensation of relaxation and mindfulness in a user.
Regarding claim 24, Mayo in view of Aimone teaches the instructions provided ("mobile device 102 that may be used to program the alternating asynchronous bilaterial simulation", paragraph [0042]) as part of the psychological intervention configuring the controller to activate at least the subset of the plurality of stimulation units in a synchronized manner with the psychological intervention ("asynchronous stimulation is provided by the vibrating elements 104 to stimulate each vibrating element 104 in an alternating manner with some period of overlap where both stimulating elements are vibrating simultaneously", paragraph [0038]). The instructions provided to the controller can be adapted to activate the plurality of stimulation units asynchronously as well as synchronously.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mayo in view of Aimone and further in view of Johnson (US 5165897 A).
Regarding claim 10, Mayo in view of Aimone teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach between 2 to 500 stimulation units arranged at an average distance of 0.1 cm to 20 cm.
However, Johnson teaches an apparatus comprising between 2 to 500 stimulation units arranged at an average distance of 0.1 cm to 20 cm ("vibrating pins provide vibratory stimulation to the finger tip", Col. 2, lines 25-27; tactile elements 18, Fig. 1, “tactile elements can be mounted together with a high density, such as with micron or sub-millimeter spacing”, lines 48-51, Col. 2).
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 apparatus of Mayo in view of Aimone with the amount of stimulation units of Johnson in order to ensure an efficient amount of stimulation to be in contact with a patient and to reach various areas of a patient.
It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized that the range of the average distance of the stimulation units would be subject to optimization within the claimed range by routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success, as such configurations of the stimulation units are the most versatile/useful. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 II and in re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980).
Claims 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mayo in view of Aimone and further in view of Daugherty et al. (US 4441487 A) (hereon referred as Daugherty).
Regarding claim 12, Mayo in view of Aimone teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not each a generally spherical shape with a diameter between 5 cm and 100 cm.
However, Daugherty teaches an apparatus for providing vibro-tactile stimulation ("fingers and nails of a hand massaged with vibrations", abstract) and is a generally spherical shape (handrest 4, Fig. 3) with a diameter between 5 cm and 100 cm ("handrest 4 cross-sectional dimension in the horizontal plane of 37/8 inches", Col. 2, lines 35-38).
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 apparatus of Mayo in view of Aimone with the spherical shaped apparatus of Daugherty in order to have a device that is appropriately sized for the hand of a patient in order to deliver vibrotactile stimulation to the hand.
Regarding claim 14, Mayo in view of Aimone teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach one or more recesses to receive a tip of a finger and/or thumb of a user.
However, Daugherty teaches one or more recesses adapted to receive at least a tip of a finger and/or thumb of the user ("handrest of convex hollow configuration which is contoured to support either hand with outstretched fingers in contact with the fingertips", Col. 1, lines 44-47, also shown in annotated Fig. 3 below), wherein each of the one or more recesses comprises at least one stimulation unit of the plurality of stimulation units ("vibrator includes a leaf-spring 11 of a ferromagnetic material vibration is transmitted through the leaf-spring to the handrest 4", Col. 3, lines 47-54).
PNG
media_image1.png
175
327
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 apparatus of Mayo in view of Aimone with the one or more recesses of the apparatus of Daugherty in order to support the shape of a patient's hand and contour against the fingers and provide vibrotactile stimulation along the crevices of the hand.
Regarding claim 15, Mayo in view of Aimone teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach the apparatus being a partially hollow shape.
However, Daugherty teaches the apparatus being at least partially hollow ("handrest 4 .molded in a hollow shell-like shape", Col. 2, lines 35-36, "handrest. substantially hollow on its underside", claim 1) such that it is positionable over another object. The hollow shell-like shape can allow the apparatus to be positionable over another object.
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 apparatus of Mayo in view of Aimone with the partially hollow apparatus of Daugherty in order to allow for the device to be placed on top of another object, such as a pillow or a grip-shaped object depending on where the patient requires treatment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 26 May 2026, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 26 May 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 and 12-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARA LINH TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3598. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 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
Prosecution Insights