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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 13 July 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 16, 18-23, and 25-35 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability; claims 16, 23, 31, and 32 have been amended; claims 1-15, 17, and 24 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16, 18-23, and 25-35 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 23 and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claims 23 and 31 contain minor typographical and/or grammatical errors.
Claim 23, line 8: Applicant is advised to change “the neuromodulation signal” to “a neuromodulation signal”
Claim 23, line 11: Applicant is advised to change “the specific patient’s” to “the patient’s”
Claim 23, lines 12-13: Applicant is advised to change “the specific patient” to “the patient”
Claim 23, line 14: Applicant is advised to change “a neuromodulation signal” to “the neuromodulation signal”
Claim 31, lines 7-8: Applicant is advised to change “the specific patient” to “the patient”
Claim 31, line 11: Applicant is advised to change “the neuromodulation signal” to “a neuromodulation signal”
Claim 31, line 15: Applicant is advised to change “the specific patient’s” to “the patient’s”
Claim 31, line 16: Applicant is advised to change “a neuromodulation signal” to “the neuromodulation signal”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16, 18-23, 25-28, and 30-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishelevich (US 2017/0246481 A1) in view of Rezai (US 2002/0151939 A1).
Regarding claims 16, 23, and 31, Mishelevich describes a method of improving addiction to an addictive behavior or addictive chemical substance in a patient in need thereof ([0365]: “it is the purpose of this invention to provide methods and systems using neuromodulation to treat addiction”) comprising
obtaining a measurement of the patient’s baseline craving level for the addictive behavior or addictive chemical substance ([0201] - [0202], the patient provides continuous feedback regarding a judgement, such as a decrease in the “level of craving,” thereby necessitating the use of a baseline and a subsequent measurement of the level of craving)
obtaining a subsequent measurement of the patient’s resultant craving level for the addictive behavior or addictive chemical substance ([0201] - [0202], the patient provides continuous feedback regarding a judgement, such as a decrease in the “level of craving,” thereby necessitating the use of a baseline and a subsequent measurement of the level of craving)
delivering a focused ultrasound signal to the patient ([0039]) based on a comparison of the baseline craving level and the resultant craving level to improve the patient’s addiction ([0201])
providing the patient exposure to a cue associated with the addictive behavior or addictive chemical substance before delivering the focused ultrasound signal ([0210], visualization strategy)
Regarding claims 23 and 31 in particular, Mishelevich describes wherein the baseline and subsequent measurements are of a physiological, cognitive, psychosocial, or behavioral parameter ([0201] - [0202], cravings).
Regarding claim 31 in particular, Mishelevich describes improving the component of addition, wherein the component comprises anxiety ([0202], [0210]).
Regarding claims 16, 23, and 31, Mishelevich does not explicitly disclose providing the signal to the patient’s ventral capsule. However, Rezai also describes a method of improving addiction to an addictive behavior or addictive chemical substance in a patient in need thereof ([0021] - [0023]) comprising delivering a signal to the patient’s ventral capsule ([0014]). As Rezai is also directed towards improving addiction and is in a similar field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to target the ventral capsule, in a manner similar to that described by Rezai, when using the method described by Mishelevich, as doing so advantageously allows the resulting method to target an area known to have beneficial outcomes in addiction treatment.
Regarding claims 18 and 25, Mishelevich describes wherein the addiction comprises addiction to an addictive behavior ([0037]).
Regarding claims 19 and 26, Mishelevich describes wherein the addictive behavior comprises addiction to sex ([0037]).
Regarding claims 20 and 27, Mishelevich describes wherein the addiction comprises addiction to an addictive chemical substance ([0037], [0365]).
Regarding claims 21 and 28, Mishelevich describes wherein the addictive chemical substance comprises addiction to nicotine ([0037], [0365]).
Regarding claims 22 and 30, Mishelevich describes wherein the cue comprises a visual cue ([0210]).
Regarding claim 32, Mishelevich describes wherein the cognitive function comprises executive function ([0379] - [0380]).
Regarding claims 33-35, Mishelevich describes wherein the addictive behavior comprises addiction to food ([0210]; Table 2: food cravings).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishelevich in view of Rezai, further in view of Lozano (US 2008/0046013 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Mishelevich in view of Rezai suggests the method of claim 28, including wherein the addictive chemical substance includes a painkiller ([0210), but neither Mishelevich nor Rezai explicitly disclose wherein the painkiller comprises an opioid. However, Lozano also describes a method of improving addiction to an addictive behavior or chemical substance, including wherein the chemical substance is an opioid ([0020]). As Lozano is also directed towards treating addiction and is in a similar field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a method similar to that described by Mishelevich and Rezai to treat an opioid addiction, similar to that described by Lozano, as doing so advantageously allows the resulting method to treat another known addiction.
Statement on Communication via Internet
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. Where a written authorization is given by the applicant, communications via Internet e-mail, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used. USPTO employees are NOT permitted to initiate communications with applicants via Internet e-mail unless there is a written authorization of record in the patent application by the applicant. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please refer to MPEP 502.03 for guidance on Communications via Internet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Ankit D. Tejani, whose telephone number is 571-272-5140. The Examiner may normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30AM through 5:00PM EST. 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, Niketa Patel, can be reached by telephone at 571-272-4156. 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 at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/Ankit D Tejani/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights