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
Claim Objections
In claim 20, line 2 the word, “relatesat” appears to be misspelled for “relates at.” Correction is required.
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 19-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simon et al (US 2014/0214120).
Regarding claims 19, 28 and 37, Simon discloses treating vascular spasm of a subject comprising:
implanting a neurostimulator in the subject, such that at least one electrode of the neurotransmitter is positioned proximate a sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) of the subject, see paragraphs [0018] and [0107];
powering the neurostimulator wirelessly with a remote transducer that is in electrical communication with the neurostimulator, see paragraph [0059];
applying electrical stimulation with the neurostimulator via the at least one electrode 340 to at least one of excite or inhibit the SPG of the subject; and
modulating activity of the SPG of the subject with the electrical stimulation applied by the neurostimulator 300 to control vascular spasm in the subject, see paragraph [0061].
Regarding claims 20 and 29, Simon discloses transmitting data wirelessly from the neurotransmitter to a personal electronic device, wherein the transmitted data relates at least to the electrical stimulation applied to the SPG of the subject, see paragraph [0027].
Regarding claims 21 and 30, Simon discloses the personal electronic device comprises one or more of a smart phone, tablet, or personal computer, see paragraph [0027].
Regarding claims 22 and 31, Simon discloses said implanting the neurostimulator comprises delivering the neurotransmitter to a selected site in the subject using a delivery device having a steerable tip 200.
Regarding claims 23 and 32, Simon discloses stabilizing the remote transducer near the neurostimulator and outside the body of the subject using one or more of a hand of the subject, a patch adhered to the skin of the subject, a headset, an earpiece, a band, a headband, or eyeglasses, see paragraph [0021].
Regarding claims 24 and 33, Simon discloses comprising operating the remote transducer to power the neurostimulator by using one or more of the remote transducer itself, a remote control device, or a smartphone, see paragraph [0093].
Regarding claims 25 and 34, Simon discloses said modulating the activity of the SPG of the subject is performed by changing frequency of a waveform delivered by the neurostimulator, see paragraphs [0058] and [0059].
Regarding claims 26 and 35, Simon discloses said applying the electrical stimulation at least one of excites or inhibits parasympathetic activity of the SPG through the greater petrosal nerve, and/or at least one of excites or inhibits sympathetic activity of the SPG through the deep petrosal nerve, see paragraph [0005].
Regarding claims 27, 36 and 38, Simon discloses said applying the electrical stimulation reversibly stimulates the SPG of the subject and overrides the SPG of the subject to restore normal neuronal activity, see paragraphs [0010], [0016] and [0045].
Conclusion
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
3/16/2026
Prosecution Insights