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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/02/26 has been entered.
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.
Claims 41-42 and 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishelevich (US 2012/0226091) and in view of Borsook et al. (US 2006/0253014).
Addressing claim 41, Mishelevich discloses a method of improving chronic pain in a patient in need thereof comprising:
providing therapy to the patient delivering an ultrasound signal to a neural target site comprising a sensory thalamus lateral, an internal laminar nucleus of the thalamus, an internal capsule, a periaqueductal gray, a periventricular gray, a cingulate cortex, an insula, or combinations thereof (see claims 1-3).
improving the patient’s chronic pain (see abstract and claim 1).
Mishelevich does not priming the patient’s brain for therapy to increase neural activity by exposing the patient to a painful stimulus associated with the chronic pain prior to or during delivering of the ultrasound signal. In the same field of endeavor, which is chronic pain treatment, Borsook discloses priming the patient’s brain for therapy to increase neural activity by exposing the patient to a painful stimulus associated with the chronic pain prior to or during delivering of the therapy (see abstract; [0005], [0017] and [0058]; priming the brain with painful stimuli then take MRI images to identify the target region for therapy; Mishelevich discloses ultrasound stimulation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mishelivich (US 2012/0226091) by priming the patient’s brain by subjecting patient to pain stimulus as taught by Borsook because this allows user to determine target treatment area (see abstract).
Addressing claims 42 and 48-49, Mishelevich discloses:
addressing claim 42, wherein the cingulate cortex comprises the anterior cingulate cortex (see claim 3).
addressing claim 48, wherein the neural target site is the cingulate cortex (see claim 3).
addressing claim 49, wherein the neural target site is the insula (see claim 3).
Claims 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishelevich (US 2012/0226091), in view of Borsook et al. (US 2006/0253014) and further in view of Mishelevich (US 2014/0343463).
Addressing claims 45-46, Mishelivich (US 2012/0226091) does not disclose wherein the neural target site is the internal capsule and wherein the neural target site is the periaqueductal gray. In the same field of endeavor, Mishelivich (US 2014/0343463) discloses wherein the neural target site is the internal capsule and wherein the neural target site is the periaqueductal gray (see [0064], [0076], claims 4 and 13; the target site is posterior limb of internal capsule (see claim 13); posterior limb of internal capsule is part of the internal capsule). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mishelivich (US 2012/0226091) to target internal capsule and periaqueductal gray as taught by Mishelivich (US 2014/0343463) because stimulate these regions also alleviate pain (see claims 1-4). Also see the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure section below regarding stimulate internal capsule to treat pain.
Claims 43-44 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishelevich (US 2012/0226091), in view of Borsook et al. (US 2006/0253014) and further in view of Deam (US 2007/0021803).
Addressing claim 47, Mishelevich (US 2012/0226091) does not disclose wherein the neural target site is the sensory thalamus lateral, internal laminar nucleus of the thalamus (examiner interprets as intralaminar nuclei of the thalamus) and the periventricular gray. In the same field of endeavor, Deam discloses wherein the neural target site is the sensory thalamus lateral, internal laminar nucleus of the thalamus and the periventricular gray (see [0010] and [0019]; stimulate the whole thalamus). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mishelivich (US 2012/0226091) to target the sensory thalamus lateral, internal laminar nucleus of the thalamus and the periventricular gray as taught by Deem because stimulate these regions also alleviate pain (see [0019]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 41-49 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0193649 (see [0111]; treat pain by stimulate the internal capsule); US 2006/0004422 (see [0005]; stimulate internal capsule to treat pain); US 2003/0176785 (see [0015]; provide painful stimuli prior to treatment) and “does saphenous pain cause increased in brain neural activity”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEN NGOC NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/HIEN N NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights