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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 49-68 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-70 of U.S. Patent No. 10,898,131. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the presently claimed system and method are an obvious broadening of sequentially displaying images to induce an amygdala activation and using a performance score to determine an evaluation of symptoms and need for treatment along with pharmaceutical compositions as claimed in claims 1-70 of U.S. Patent No. 10,898,131.
Claims 49-68 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,123,737. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the presently claimed system and method are an obvious broadening of sequentially displaying images to induce an amygdala activation using a performance score to determine an evaluation of symptoms and need for treatment along with pharmaceutical compositions are essentially claimed in claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,123,737.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 49, 50, 53, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, 65, 66 and 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Forbes (US 2012/0071785).
Regarding claims 49 and 59, Forbes discloses a system and method for displaying images, comprising:
a computing system having one or more processors coupled with memory, configured to:
display a first plurality of expression images 103A in sequence to a subject 102, each expression image of the first plurality of expression images: (a) associated with a respective expression of a plurality of expressions and (b) configured to induce an amygdala activation in the subject, see paragraphs [0142] and [0143];
receive, responsive to completion of displaying of the first plurality of expression images, a response 103B from the subject 102 to a query prompting whether a first expression image and a second expression image in the first plurality of expression images exhibits the same emotion, see paragraphs [0092] and [0027];
determine a performance score of the subject for the first session using the response to the query, see paragraphs [0029], [0030] and [0048]; and
modify, based at least on the performance score, presentation of a second plurality of expression images to be displayed in sequence to the subject, see paragraphs [0031] and [0032].
Regarding claims 50 and 60, Forbes discloses the computing system is further configured to display the first plurality of expression images in sequence, each expression image of the first plurality of expression images at an intensity on an intensity scale 104A of the respective expression in accordance with a level 202 of a plurality of levels, see paragraphs [0063], [0064] and [0065].
Regarding claims 53 and 63, Forbes discloses the computing system is further configured to provide the performance score 1410, 1420 and 1430 of the subject 102 for the first session using the response to the query.
Regarding claims 55 and 65, Forbes discloses the computing system is further configured to generate a regimen comprising a therapy session at least one of a specified frequency or a number of times, see paragraphs [0092], [0101] and [0104], the therapy session comprising a plurality of blocks at a plurality of levels, see paragraphs [0109], each block of the plurality of blocks to present a respective plurality of expression images in sequence to the subject, see paragraph [0116].
Regarding claims 56 and 66, Forbes discloses the computing system is further configured to determine an evaluation for at least one symptom of a psychiatric disorder of the subject based at least on the performance score, see paragraphs [0064] and [0160].
Regarding claims 57 and 67, Forbes discloses the subject is in need of treatment of a psychiatric disorder, wherein the psychiatric disorder comprises a general anxiety disorder or a social phobia, see paragraphs [0050], [0108], [0112] and [0155] wherein fear is being interpreted as a general anxiety disorder or a social phobia.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 58 and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forbes (US 2012/0071785) as applied to claims 49 and 59 above, and further in view of Blum (US 2006/0079495).
Regarding claims 58 and 68, Forbes meets all of the claimed limitations except for the subject 102 is using a pharmaceutical composition to address a psychiatric disorder, wherein the pharmaceutical composition comprises benzodiazepines.
Blum teaches benzodiazepines are anti-anxiety agents, see paragraph [0069].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use benzodiazepines to address the psychiatric disorder or fear in the system and method for displaying images disclosed in Forbes because fear is an anxiety for which benzodiazepines are prescribed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Caspi et al (US 2005/0037405) teach humans with one or two copies of a short allele exhibit greater amygdala neuronal activity to fearful stimuli compared to individuals homozygous for a long allele.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George Manuel whose telephone number is (571) 272-4952.
The examiner can normally be reached on regular business days.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached on (571) 270-5213. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) 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.
/George Manuel/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit: 3792
2/12/2026