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 .
Specification
The use of the term “Bluetooth,” which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14, line 1, “wherein frequency” should read “wherein the frequency”
In claim 19, line 5, “and stimulate” should read “and stimulating”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4, 14, 20-21, 24-27 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.
The term “about” in claim 4, line 1, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what this term imposes on the claim, and whether it’s required for the frequency to be within the range of 1 Hz to 300 Hz, or not. For examination purposes, “the frequency range is within about 1 Hz to about 300 Hz” will be read as “the frequency range is within 1 Hz to 300 Hz.”
The term “about” in claim 14, line 1, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what this term imposes on the claim, and whether it’s required for the frequency to be within the range of 1 Hz to 300 Hz, or not. For examination purposes, “the frequency range is within about 1 Hz to about 300 Hz” will be read as “the frequency range is within 1 Hz to 300 Hz.”
The term “about” in claim 20, lines 1-2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what this term imposes on the claim, and whether it’s required for the vibrations to be within the frequency range of 1 Hz to 300 Hz, or not. For examination purposes, “the frequency range of the vibrations is within about 1 Hz to about 300 Hz” will be read as “the frequency range of the vibrations is within 1 Hz to 300 Hz.”
The term “about” in claim 21, lines 1-2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what this term imposes on the claim, and whether it’s required for the vibrations to be within the frequency range of 20 Hz to 250 Hz, or not. For examination purposes, “the frequency range of the vibrations is within about 20 Hz to about 250 Hz” will be read as “the frequency range of the vibrations is within 20 Hz to 250 Hz.”
The term “about” in claim 24, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what this term imposes on the claim, and whether it’s required for the time period to be within 5 minutes to 30 minutes, or not. For examination purposes, “a time period within about 5 minutes to about 30 minutes” will be read as “a time period within 5 minutes to 30 minutes.”
The term “about” in claim 25, lines 1-2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what this term imposes on the claim, and whether it’s required for the time period to be within 10 minutes to 25 minutes, or not. For examination purposes, “a time period within about 10 minutes to about 25 minutes” will be read as “a time period within 10 minutes to 25 minutes.”
The term “about” in claim 26, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what this term imposes on the claim, and whether it’s required for a post-treatment severity of a symptom to be less than 75% of a pre-treatment severity of the symptom, or not. For examination purposes, “a post-treatment severity of a symptom of the user is less than about 75%” will be read as “a post-treatment severity of a symptom of the user is less than 75%.”
Claim 26 further recites the limitation "the pre-treatment severity of the symptom" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation will be read as “a pre-treatment severity of the symptom.”
The term “about” in claim 27, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what this term imposes on the claim, and whether it’s required for a post-treatment severity of a symptom to be less than 50% of a pre-treatment severity of the symptom, or not. For examination purposes, “a post-treatment severity of a symptom of the user is less than about 50%” will be read as “a post-treatment severity of a symptom of the user is less than 50%.”
Claim 27 further recites the limitation "the pre-treatment severity of the symptom" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation will be read as “a pre-treatment severity of the symptom.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couser (US 2019/0117933) in view of Harry et al. (US 2014/0364678).
Regarding claim 1, Couser teaches a device (Abstract), comprising:
a stimulator for application to the tongue of a user, the stimulator configured to stimulate tongue muscle spindles (Fig. 24, handheld device 2010; paras. 0076-0077; it is important to note that the limitations “for application to the tongue of a user” and “to stimulate tongue muscle spindles” are intended use, functional limitations. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus, if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim – see MPEP 2114 II), the stimulator comprising:
a transducer configured to produce vibrations (Fig. 24, vibration unit 2080; para. 0079),
a skin-contacting pad (Fig. 24, cover 2034 defining a skin facing surface 5) configured to be coupled to the transducer (para. 0077, wherein the vibration unit 2080 is aligned with the opening 2032 so that vibrations emanate from the housing 2020 proximate to the opening 2032, a cover 2034 is disposed in the opening 2032, said cover 2034 is being construed as the pad),
a receiver (paras. 0078-0079, “communications unit”; paras. 0045 and 0059) configured to receive a signal comprising information about a type of the vibrations (paras. 0059 and 0078-0083; wherein a processor, either on the handheld device 2010 or a computing device (50), is configured to generate a signal corresponding to the pattern sequence, and the communication unit receives the data from the computing device and converts the data into an analog signal; see Figs. 2A-2C for the different pattern sequences, para. 0087, “the device uses pattern sequences to induce a frequency following response in the brain, which in turn synchronizes the user's brainwaves to the frequency of pattern sequences encoded in the vibration signals”, a pattern sequence synchronized to the user’s brainwave is being construed as “a type of the vibrations”),
an amplifier configured to amplify the signal (para. 0078; Fig. 4E, amplifier 64; paras. 0059-0060), and
a controller (Fig. 24, controller 2050) configured to transmit the signal to the transducer to produce the type of the vibrations (paras. 0078-0079).
Couser, in the embodiment relied upon above, fails to specifically teach wherein the stimulator stimulates via stochastic resonance, and wherein the signal is generated using an application on an electronic device in wireless communication with the receiver.
Couser, in a separate embodiment, teaches the signal being generated using an application on an electronic device (para. 0059; para. 0078, “computing device”; paras. 0073-0074) in wireless communication with the receiver (paras. 0058-0059 and 0065-0066).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the device disclosed in the first embodiment of Couser with the electronic device containing a mobile application as disclosed in the second embodiment of Couser. Via a mobile application, the user and/or a third party may be able to structure a more personalized treatment by controlling the operation of the vibration unit (Couser, para. 0074).
While a modified Couser teaches an application on an electronic device in wireless communication with the receiver, a modified Couser fails to specifically teach wherein the stimulator stimulates vis stochastic resonance.
Harry et al. teaches an analogous device wherein the stimulator stimulates via stochastic resonance (para. 0196).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the device taught by a modified Couser with the stochastic resonance of Harry et al. Stochastic resonance stimulation applied to intact nerves encourages the brain to focus on intact neural connections rather than neural connections associated with painful or damaged nerve endings (Harry et al., para. 0196).
Regarding claim 2, Couser in view of Harry et al. teaches the device according to claim 1 as stated above. Couser fails to teach wherein the type of vibrations is at least one of Brownian, pink, or white noise.
Harry et al. further teaches wherein the type of vibrations is at least one of Brownian, pink, or white noise (paras. 0011 and 0127).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the device taught by a modified Couser with the white noise vibrations taught by Harry et al. Sensory cells are typically threshold-based units, by lowering the sensory cell threshold, the level of outside stimulus needed to cause the sensory cell to fire (i.e., respond) may be reduced. Thus, a sensory cell, in the presence of a white noise broadband signal, is expected to respond to stimulus intensities that would normally be considered subthreshold to the neuron in the absence of noise (Harry et al., para. 0011).
Regarding claim 3, Couser in view of Harry et al. teaches the device according to claim 2 as stated above wherein the signal further comprises information about a frequency range of the vibration (Couser, paras. 0080-0082 and 0085-0087).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Couser in view of Harry et al. teaches the device according to claim 3 as stated above wherein the frequency range is within about 1 Hz to about 300 Hz (Couser, para. 0081).
Regarding claim 5, Couser in view of Harry et al. teaches the device according to claim 1 as stated above wherein the receiver is a personal area network (PAN) receiver (Couser, paras. 0045, 0059, “Bluetooth communications protocol”, and 0065).
Regarding claim 7, Couser in view of Harry et al. teaches the device according to claim 1 as stated above. Couser fails to specifically teach wherein the transducer is a piezoelectric transducer.
Harry et al. further teaches wherein the transducer is a piezoelectric transducer (Fig. 21C, “vibration element”; para. 0109).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the device taught by a modified Couser with the piezoelectric transducer taught by Harry et al. A piezoelectric transducer may be implemented to target the proprioceptive system through a tendon or muscle associated with particular sensory cells (Harry et al. para. 0064).
Regarding claim 8, Couser in view of Harry et al. teaches the device according to claim 1 as stated above wherein the skin-contacting pad is configured to be in contact with a top surface of the tongue (Couser, para. 0077, wherein the cover 2034 defines a skin facing surface S for placement against a user’s body; it is important to note that the limitation “configured to be in contact with a top surface of the tongue” is an intended use, functional limitation. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus, if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim – see MPEP 2114 II. The combination of Couser and Harry et al. teaches all the structural limitations recited in the claim; therefore, the modified device of Couser in view of Harry et al. meets the functional limitation).
Regarding claim 10, Couser in view of Harry et al. teaches the device according to claim 1 as stated above wherein the electronic device is a mobile phone (Couser, para. 0059).
Regarding claim 11, Couser teaches a device (Abstract), comprising:
a stimulator for application to the tongue of a user, the stimulator configured to stimulate tongue muscle spindles (Fig. 24, handheld device 2010; paras. 0076-0077; it is important to note that the limitations “for application to the tongue of a user” and “to stimulate tongue muscle spindles” are intended use, functional limitations. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus, if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim – see MPEP 2114 II), the stimulator comprising:
a transducer configured to produce vibrations (Fig. 24, vibration unit 2080; para. 0079),
a skin-contacting pad (Fig. 24, cover 2034 defining a skin facing surface 5) configured to be coupled to the transducer (para. 0077, wherein the vibration unit 2080 is aligned with the opening 2032 so that vibrations emanate from the housing 2020 proximate to the opening 2032, a cover 2034 is disposed in the opening 2032, said cover 2034 is being construed as the pad),
an amplifier configured to amplify the signal (para. 0078; Fig. 4E, amplifier 64; paras. 0059-0060) comprising information about a type of the vibrations (para. 0078, “the processor is configured to generate a signal corresponding to the pattern sequence contained within the data file…The amplifier is configured to amplify the signal from the processor”; paras. 0079-0083, see Figs. 2A-2C for the different pattern sequences, para. 0087, “the device uses pattern sequences to induce a frequency following response in the brain, which in turn synchronizes the user's brainwaves to the frequency of pattern sequences encoded in the vibration signals”, a pattern sequence synchronized to the user’s brainwave is being construed as “a type of the vibrations”), and
a controller (Fig. 24, controller 2050) configured to transmit the signal to the transducer to produce the type of the vibrations (paras. 0078-0079).
Couser fails to specifically teach wherein the stimulator stimulates via stochastic resonance, and wherein the type of the vibrations comprises at least one of Brownian, pink, or white noise.
Harry et al. teaches an analogous device wherein the stimulator stimulates via stochastic resonance (para. 0196) and wherein the type of vibrations comprises at least one of Brownian, pink, or white noise (paras. 0011 and 0127).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the device of Couser with the stochastic resonance of Harry et al. Stochastic resonance stimulation applied to intact nerves encourages the brain to focus on intact neural connections rather than neural connections associated with painful or damaged nerve endings. Additionally, a sensory cell, in the presence of a white noise broadband signal, may respond to stimulus intensities that would normally be considered subthreshold to the neuron in the absence of noise (Harry et al., paras. 0011 and 0196).
Regarding claim 13, Couser in view of Harry et al. teaches the device according to claim 11 as stated above wherein the signal further comprises information about a frequency range of the vibration (Couser, paras. 0080-0082 and 0085-0087).
Regarding claim 16, Couser in view of Harry et al. teaches the device according to claim 11 as stated above. Couser fails to specifically teach wherein the transducer is a piezoelectric transducer.
Harry et al. further teaches wherein the transducer is a piezoelectric transducer (Fig. 21C, “vibration element”; para. 0109).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the device taught by a modified Couser with the piezoelectric transducer taught by Harry et al. A piezoelectric transducer may be implemented to target the proprioceptive system through a tendon or muscle associated with particular sensory cells (Harry et al. para. 0064).
Regarding claim 17, Couser in view of Harry et al. teaches the device according to claim 11 as stated above wherein the skin-contacting pad is configured to be in contact with a top surface of the tongue (Couser, para. 0077, wherein the cover 2034 defines a skin facing surface S for placement against a user’s body. It is important to note that the limitation “configured to be in contact with a top surface of the tongue” is an intended use, functional limitation. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus, if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim – see MPEP 2114 II. The combination of Couser and Harry et al. teaches all the structural limitations recited in the claim; therefore, the modified device of Couser in view of Harry et al. meets the functional limitation).
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couser in view of Harry et al., further in view of Deehr (WO 2016210266).
Regarding claim 6, Couser in view of Harry et al. teaches the device according to claim 1 as stated above. Couser in view of Harry et al. fails to teach wherein the transducer is an electromagnetic acoustic transducer.
In the same field of endeavor, Deehr teaches wherein the transducer is an electromagnetic acoustic transducer (para. 1034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Couser in view of Harry et al. with the electromagnetic acoustic transducer of Deehr. An acoustic transducer comprising a coil of wire suspended in a magnetic field may produce mechanical forces when electrical current is passed through the coil. The mechanical force developed between the coil’s electromagnetic field causes the coil to move back and forth, thereby vibrating the stimulation site and generating sound (Deehr, para. 1034).
Regarding claim 15, Couser in view of Harry et al. teaches the device according to claim 11 as stated above. Couser in view of Harry et al. fails to teach wherein the transducer is an electromagnetic acoustic transducer.
In the same field of endeavor, Deehr teaches wherein the transducer is an electromagnetic acoustic transducer (para. 1034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Couser in view of Harry et al. with the electromagnetic acoustic transducer of Deehr. An acoustic transducer comprising a coil of wire suspended in a magnetic field may produce mechanical forces when electrical current is passed through the coil. The mechanical force developed between the coil’s electromagnetic field causes the coil to move back and forth, thereby vibrating the stimulation site and generating sound (Deehr, para. 1034).
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couser in view of Harry et al., further in view of Lorberbaum et al. (EP 3288615).
Regarding claim 9, Couser in view of Harry et al. teaches the device according to claim 1 as stated above. Couser in view of Harry et al. fails to teach wherein the tongue pad is configured to be detachable from a body portion of the stimulator, and the tongue pad is one of a plurality of interchangeable tongue pads.
In the same field of endeavor, Lorberbaum et al. teaches wherein the tip is configured to be detachable from a body portion of the stimulator (Figs. 3-5, 19, and 24-28, wherein the disposable tip 40 is detachably coupled to the light rod 30, which transmits vibrations from a cam 26 driven by a motor 24; paras. 0022-0024, 0031-0034, 0044, 0051, and 0072; the disposable tip is being construed as the “tongue pad”), and the tip is one of a plurality of interchangeable tips (Figs. 29a-29m, tip free end shapes of the tip frame 50; para. 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Couser in view of Harry et al. with the disposable tip of Lorberbaum et al. Different tip shapes may be used for various applications or specific body part(s), such as the tongue, nose, or finger. Consequently, it is preferable for the tip to be reusable and easily removeable from the simulating unit (Lorberbaum et al., paras. 0073 and 0096).
Regarding claim 18, Couser in view of Harry et al. teaches the device according to claim 11 as stated above. Couser in view of Harry et al. fails to teach wherein the tongue pad is configured to be detachable from a body portion of the stimulator, and the tongue pad is one of a plurality of interchangeable tongue pads.
In the same field of endeavor, Lorberbaum et al. teaches wherein the tip is configured to be detachable from a body portion of the stimulator (Figs. 3-5, 19, and 24-28, wherein the disposable tip 40 is detachably coupled to the light rod 30, which transmits vibrations from a cam 26 driven by a motor 24; paras. 0022-0024, 0031-0034, 0044, 0051, and 0072; the disposable tip is being construed as the “tongue pad”), and the tip is one of a plurality of interchangeable tips (Figs. 29a-29m, tip free end shapes of the tip frame 50; para. 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Couser in view of Harry et al. with the disposable tip of Lorberbaum et al. Different tip shapes may be used for various applications or specific body part(s), such as the tongue, nose, or finger. Consequently, it is preferable for the tip to be reusable and easily removeable from the simulating unit (Lorberbaum et al., paras. 0073 and 0096).
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couser in view of Harry et al., further in view of Andersson (WO 2020128627).
Regarding claim 12, Couser in view of Harry et al. teaches the device according to claim 11 as stated above. Couser in view of Harry et al. fails to teach wherein the type of vibrations is selectable by a user between at least one of Brownian, pink, or white noise.
In the same field of endeavor, Andersson teaches wherein the type of vibrations is selectable by a user between at least one of Brownian, pink, or white noise (paras. 0021, 0039, 0045-0047, and 0055; Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Couser in view of Harry et al. with the selectable vibration type of Andersson. Vibrations produced based on predetermined therapeutic signals (e.g., white, brown, or pink noise) rather than arbitrary input may elicit a therapeutic hearing percept (para. 0008, 0021, 0025, and 0030-0032).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Couser in view of Harry et al. teaches the device according to claim 13 as stated above. Couser further teaches wherein the frequency range is within about 1 Hz to about 300 Hz (para. 0081). Couser fails to teach wherein the type of the vibrations is Brownian noise.
In the same field of endeavor, Andersson teaches wherein the type of the vibrations is Brownian noise (paras. 0005, 0009, 0021, and 0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Couser in view of Harry et al. with the Brownian noise type of vibration of Andersson. Vibrations produced based on predetermined therapeutic signals (e.g., white, brown, or pink noise) rather than arbitrary input may elicit a therapeutic hearing percept (para. 0008, 0021, 0025, and 0030-0032).
Claim(s) 19-20 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couser in view of Andersson, further in view of Harry et al.
Regarding claim 19, Couser teaches a method of treatment (para. 0083; Claim 32), comprising:
selecting a frequency range of the vibrations (paras. 0081, 0083, 0085-0088); and
applying a stimulator to the head of a user to apply the vibrations to the head of the user (para. 0083; Fig. 24, handheld device 2010; para. 0076), the stimulator comprising:
a transducer configured to produce the vibrations (Fig. 24, vibration unit 2080; para. 0079), and
a skin-contacting pad (Fig. 24, cover 2034 defining a skin facing surface 5) coupled to the transducer para. 0077, wherein the vibration unit 2080 is aligned with the opening 2032 so that vibrations emanate from the housing 2020 proximate to the opening 2032, a cover 2034 is disposed in the opening 2032, said cover 2034 is being construed as the pad).
Couser fails to teach selecting a type of vibrations to be at least one of Brownian, pink, or white noise; applying a stimulator to the tongue of a user to apply the vibrations to the tongue of the user and stimulating tongue muscle spindles via stochastic resonance, and wherein the stimulator comprises a tongue pad.
In the same field of endeavor, Andersson teaches selecting a type of vibrations to be at least one of Brownian, pink, or white noise (paras. 0021, 0039, 0045-0047, and 0055; Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Couser with the step of selecting a vibration type of Andersson. Vibrations produced based on predetermined therapeutic signals (e.g., white, brown, or pink noise) rather than arbitrary input may elicit a therapeutic hearing percept (para. 0008, 0021, 0025, and 0030-0032).
While Couser in view of Andersson teaches selecting a type of vibrations to be at least one of Brownian, pink, or white noise, the combination of Couser and Andersson fails to teach applying a stimulator to the tongue of a user to apply the vibrations to the tongue of the user and stimulating tongue muscle spindles via stochastic resonance, and wherein the stimulator comprises a tongue pad.
Harry et al. teaches an analogous method further comprising: applying a stimulator to the tongue of the user (Fig. 21, stimulator 3100C; para. 0204; Fig. 1, wherein the located area may be a tongue; paras. 0052 and 0189) and stimulating tongue muscle spindles (Fig. 21C; para. 0204), and wherein the stimulator comprises a tongue pad (Fig. 21C, contact surface 3102C; paras. 0185 and 0204).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Couser in view of Andersson with the tongue-specific application and tongue pad of Harry et al. Stimulating a user’s gustatory cells via the surface of the tongue may improve a user’s swallowing function and ability to taste (Harry et al., paras. 0189 and 0204).
While Couser in view of Andersson, further in view of Harry et al., in the first embodiment relied upon, teaches applying a stimulator to the tongue of a user to apply the vibrations to the tongue of the user and stimulating tongue muscle spindles, and wherein the stimulator comprises a tongue pad, the combination of Couser, Andersson, and Harry et al. fails to teach wherein the stimulator is configured to stimulate tongue muscle spindles via stochastic resonance.
Harry et al., in a sperate embodiment, teaches stochastic resonance (para. 0196).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the method of Couser in view of Andersson, further in view of Harry et al. with the stochastic resonance disclosed in the second embodiment of Harry et al. Stochastic resonance stimulation applied to intact nerves encourages the brain to focus on intact neural connections rather than neural connections associated with painful or damaged nerve endings (Harry et al., para. 0196).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Couser in view of Andersson, further in view of Harry et al. teaches the method according to claim 19 as stated above wherein the frequency range of the vibrations is within about 1 Hz to about 300 Hz (Couser, para. 0081).
Regarding claim 22, Couser in view of Andersson, further in view of Harry et al. teaches the method according to claim 19 as stated above wherein the type of the vibrations is Brownian noise (Andersson, paras. 0005, 0039, 0055, and 0060)
Regarding claim 23, Couser in view of Andersson, further in view of Harry et al. teaches the method according to claim 19 as stated above wherein the type of the vibrations is pink noise (Andersson, paras. 0005, 0021, 0039, and 0055)
Claim(s) 21 and 24-25 as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couser in view of Andersson and Harry et al., further in view of Ehrenreich et al. (US 2013/0345606).
Regarding claim 21, Couser in view of Andersson, further in view of Harry et al. teaches the method according to claim 19 as stated above. Couser in view of Andersson, further in view of Harry et al. fails to teach wherein the frequency range of the vibrations is within about 20 Hz to about 250 Hz.
In the same field of endeavor, Ehrenreich et al. teaches wherein the frequency range of the vibrations is within about 20 Hz to about 250 Hz (para. 0168).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Couser in view of Andersson, further in view of Harry et al. with the frequency range of Ehrenreich et al. For treatment of hypertension, applying a vibratory energy to the user at a specific vibration frequency between 35 Hz and 150 Hz for a predetermined time period may sufficiently lower the user’s blood pressure (Ehrenreich et al., Claim 9; Fig. 24B; paras. 0200-0201 and 0210).
Regarding claim 24, Couser in view of Andersson, further in view of Harry et al. teaches the method according to claim 19 as stated above.
Harry et al. further teaches applying the stimulator to the tongue of the user (Claims 97-98; paras. 0189 and 0204). However, Couser in view of Andersson, further in view of Harry et al. fails to teach a time period within 5 to 30 minutes.
In the same field of endeavor, Ehrenreich et al. teaches a time period within 5 to 30 minutes (paras. 0179-0180).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Couser in view of Andersson, further in view of Harry et al. with the time period of Ehrenreich et al. For treatment of hypertension, applying a vibratory energy to the user at a specific vibration frequency between 35 Hz and 150 Hz for a predetermined time period (i.e., 1 second to 24 hours) may sufficiently lower the user’s blood pressure (Ehrenreich et al., Claim 9; Fig. 24B; paras. 0200-0201 and 0210).
Regarding claim 25, Couser in view of Andersson, further in view of Harry et al. teaches the method according to claim 24 as stated above wherein the time period within 10 to 25 minutes (Ehrenreich et al., paras. 0179-0180).
Claim(s) 26-27 as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couser in view of Andersson and Harry et al., further in view of Harper et al. (US 2015/0141879).
Regarding claim 26, Couser in view of Andersson, further in view of Harry et al. teaches the method according to claim 19 as stated above. Couser in view of Andersson, further in view of Harry et al. fails to teach wherein a post-treatment severity of a symptom of the user is less than about 75% of the pre-treatment severity of the symptom.
In the same field of endeavor, Harper et al. teaches wherein a post-treatment severity of a symptom of the user is less than about 75% of the pre-treatment severity of the symptom (paras. 0033 and 0105-0118; Fig. 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Couser in view of Andersson, further in view of Harry et al. with the migraine pain scale of Harper et al. Querying the subjects about their general pain perceptions pre and post treatment allows the treatment administers to determine whether or not the vibratory device is an effective form of treatment for reducing pain (paras. 0085, 0105-0118, and 0125).
Regarding claim 27, Couser in view of Andersson, further in view of Harry et al. teaches the method according to claim 19 as stated above. Couser in view of Andersson, further in view of Harry et al. fails to teach wherein a post-treatment severity of a symptom of the user is less than about 50% of the pre-treatment severity of the symptom.
In the same field of endeavor, Harper et al. teaches wherein a post-treatment severity of a symptom of the user is less than about 50% of the pre-treatment severity of the symptom (paras. 0033 and 0105-0118; Fig. 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Couser in view of Andersson, further in view of Harry et al. with the migraine pain scale of Harper et al. Querying the subjects about their general pain perceptions pre and post treatment allows the treatment administers to determine whether or not the vibratory device is an effective form of treatment for reducing pain (paras. 0085, 0105-0118, and 0125).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hissong et al. (US 6409720) discloses a method of tongue reduction by thermal ablation using high intensity focused ultrasound, wherein a piezoelectric transducer vibrates to produce the ultrasound energy. Tyler et al. (2007/0250119) teaches stimulating the tongue via surface electrodes to activate portions of the brain stem and mid-brain and convey sensory information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROGAN R LANDEEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 6:00pm.
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.
/B.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights