DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention II, Species II-A-3 and II-B-1 in the reply filed on 23 January 2026 and the interview of 24 February 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not be an undue burden in examining all of the different inventions and species. This is not found persuasive because the distinctly different inventions would require nonoverlapping searches which would require significantly more time and effort than examining a single invention, where time and resources are only allotted for examination of a single invention per application and making use of additional time and resources for the additional inventions would create a significant burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 14-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 23 January 2026.
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:
Stimulation elements, first recited in claim 8 (light emitting diode, speaker, electrode, video or image generation device – paragraphs [0019] and [0024] as filed)
Control element, first recited in claim 8 (a central processing unit, a graphics processing unit (GPU), a microcontroller, a programmable logic controller or any other processor with signal processing function – paragraph [0019] as filed)
Input element, first recited in claim 11 (mouse, keyboard, microphone, etc. – paragraph [0032] as filed)
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 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.
Claims 8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 defines a device which comprises only stimulation elements and a control element, but also recites that the control element is responsive to “a feedback signal”. It is entirely unclear how this feedback signal might reach the control element – is there an additional component of the device missing which acquires the feedback signal? Or does the control element receive it from some outside source? Or is one of the stimulation elements or control element itself also able to sense or otherwise acquire the feedback signal? Clarification is required.
Further, claim 8 calls for either setting the stimulation parameter as a default or adjusting it; it is unclear how this could function as part of the device, as it does not readily appear that the stimulation elements are applying signals over time, nor is it clear whether this is intended to operate in a feedback loop or if this is a one-time occurrence of potential adjustment. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller (US 2018/0049636).
Regarding claim 8, Miller discloses a brain stimulation signal control device, comprising:
a plurality of stimulation elements configured to output a plurality of sensory stimulation signals to a user based on a stimulation parameter (paragraphs [0069], [0070]); and
a control element connected to the plurality of stimulation elements and configured to control the plurality of stimulation elements to output the plurality of sensory stimulation signals to obtain a feedback signal (paragraph [0067]),
wherein the control element sets the stimulation parameter as a default parameter or adjusts the stimulation parameter according to the feedback signal indicating a positive feedback state or a negative feedback state (paragraphs [0066], [0072]).
Regarding claim 11, Miller further discloses an input element connected to the control element and configured to receive a user answer on a cognition testing chart (paragraphs [0071], [0072]; chart – a diagram https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chart; a drawing that shows information in a simple way https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/chart; a visual image (diagram, illustration) representing data or information https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/chart),
wherein the control element uses a matching degree between the user answer and a default answer as the feedback signal (paragraph [0072]),
wherein the positive feedback state indicates the matching degree being higher than or equal to a default degree, and the negative feedback state indicates the matching degree being lower than the default degree (paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 12, Miller further discloses that wherein the stimulation parameter comprises a frequency parameter (paragraph [0105], the monitor refresh rate), and the plurality of sensory stimulation signals are capable of arriving at a target area of the user substantially simultaneously (the stimuli are delivered at the same time, paragraph [0072]), and the plurality of sensory stimulation signals correspond to a same frequency (the stimuli are delivered via the same display, paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 13, Miller further discloses that each one of the plurality of sensory stimulation signals is at least one of a light signal, a sound signal and an electrical signal (paragraph [0064]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2022/0230755 to Herzallah, US 2021/0361967 to Cohen, US 2019/0001117 to Ben-David, US 2018/0221620 to Metzger, US 2017/0312517 to Phillips, US 2017/0224990 to Goldwasser, which disclose similar systems
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN E TOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-6824. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9a-6p.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at 571-272-5001. 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.
/KAREN E TOTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3791