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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/6/2026 was filed after is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and associated arguments filed 4/22/2026 with respect to the 112(b) and 101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) and 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11, 13 and 14 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.
However, on page 8 of the arguments, the applicant relied on a claim limitation “without any additional components for directly coupling the first and second housings 100a and 100b to each other.” This limitation is NOT found in the claims and does not need to be taught by the prior art.
Furthermore, on page 12 of the arguments, the applicant presents that “each magnet 410 is independently configured to be electrically connected to its own battery.” The claims do NOT recite that each magnet is connected to its own battery, but instead merely requires each magnet to be connected to a controller OR a battery. It could be a single controller or a single battery connected to the magnets, and the claim would be met.
Similarly, the claims do NOT require the electrodes to emit energy independently, as argued on page 14 of the arguments. Additionally, the claims do NOT require the first set of magnetsto face the first set of magnets, merely that the second set of magnets faces the first set of magnets.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (see above) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 1, 5-11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cartledge et al. (US 2019/0275322, hereinafter Cartledge).
Regarding claims 1, 5-9, 13, and 14, Cartledge discloses a stimulus applying apparatus for the ear (see abstract). The stimulator comprises a plurality of magnets 7, such that each magnet is also a stimulating electrode that is electrically connected via wires 5/6 to an external controller 1 and battery within the controller to receive power and control signals in order to apply independent stimulation via separate circuits (par. 0032-0033, 0237-0239, 0244, 0341). A housing comprises a first, main housing 8 configured to be on one side of a target portion and has a protrusion that is positioned within the target portion (see fig. 4) and accommodates a first set of magnets 7 (a set can be one element) and a second, reciprocal sub-housing 8 configured to be on the direct opposite side of the target portion and accommodates a second set of magnets 7, such that the first set of magnets and second set of magnets face each other in order to apply magnetic attractive force to each other (fig. 1, 2 and 4 and par. 0238-0239, 0244). The first and second housings are connected via a holder wire 6 that can be straightened in a longitudinal direction and can be mounted on either side of the target portion (see fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 2, as seen in figures 1 and 2, the magnets 7 are biased towards a single side of housings 8 in order to face the target portion.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Cartledge discloses the stimulator includes a light simulator configured to apply an optical stimulus to the target portion, if so desired by a user (par. 0289). The light simulator is “adjacent” (i.e., near) the housings (fig. 80). No details of the simulator are included in the claim. If the simulator can emit light, it is considered an optical stimulus.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cartledge in view of Jeong (US 2025/0144436
Regarding claim 3, Cartledge does not elaborate on how the magnets
are accommodated within the housings. Jeong discloses an analogous stimulating apparatus wherein the housing (see cases 11-1 through 11-3; Fig. 3) comprises an accommodating space (the space that holds the magnets) that accommodates the magnetic member (see electromagnetic units 201) and is located adjacent to the target portion (see knee 1), and wherein the accommodating space which is formed to be recessed on one surface facing the target portion to accommodate the magnetic member (see Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the applicant’s effective filing date for the housing of Cartledge to have some type of space for the magnetic member to sit within a recess in the surface of the housing for a smooth and comfortable interface with the target portion, as taught by Jeong (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Jeong further discloses wherein the housing comprises a
wire-guiding unit which is continuous with the applying member accommodating unit
and is formed to extend in a direction opposite to the applying member accommodating
unit, and wherein the wire-guiding unit (see coated insulating cables 214) comprises
guide hollows that are located therein and are formed to penetrate along an extension
direction thereof such that one end in the extension direction communicates with the
accommodating space, and the other end in the extension direction communicates with
the outside (see Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the applicant’s effective filing date to modify Cartledge to include wire-guiding units because Jeong teaches it allows the application of current to the magnets to polarize them (par. 53 and 62).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric D Bertram whose telephone number is (571)272-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-6pm Central Time.
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 McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/Eric D. Bertram/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights