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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 10, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 8, “at at least” should read “at least”
In claim 6, line 2, “at at least” should read “at least”
In claim 10, line 3, “vestibular stimuli” should read “vestibular stimuli.”
In claim 19, line 3, “at at least” should read “at least”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“output devices” in claim 1, line 5; equivalent structure found in paras. 0119 and 0070. Therefore, in light of the specification, “output devices” are best understood as visual devices, such as displays or LEDs, auditory devices, such as loudspeakers, tactile device/stimulators, such as nasal implants, cochlear implant, vestibular implants, and equivalents thereof. Claim 2 is noted as reciting structure for performing the claimed function, therefore, the limitation is not subject to this interpretation.
“oscillator module” in claim 1, line 6; equivalent structure found in paras. 0180 and 0187. Therefore, in light of the specification, an “oscillator module” is best understood as a computer program configured to generate a visual, auditory, somatosensory, tactile, olfactory, gustatory, or vestibular stimulus, and equivalents thereof.
“content module” in claim 1, line 11; equivalent structure found in paras. 0180 0182, 0187, and 0217-0219. Therefore, in light of the specification, an “content module” is best understood as a computer program configured to present visual, auditory, somatosensory, olfactory, gustatory, or vestibular tasks, , and equivalents thereof.
“measuring devices” in claim 5, line 1; equivalent structure found in para. 0186. Therefore, in light of the specification, a “measuring device” is best understood as an EEG sensor or sensor configured to measure physiological parameters such as skin conductance or heart rate variability, and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 3-4, 10-11, 14, and 21 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.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “at least one of visual stimuli, auditory stimuli, somatosensory stimuli, olfactory stimuli, gustatory stimuli, and vestibular stimuli” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the claim requires only one of the options listed, as suggested by “at least one” or all of the options, as suggested by the use of “and”. It is suggested to change “and” to “or”. For examination purposes, the claim is treated as requiring only one of the options listed. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “at least one of a visual task, an auditory task, a somatosensory task, an olfactory task, a gustatory task, and a vestibular task” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the claim requires only one of the options listed, as suggested by “at least one” or all of the options, as suggested by the use of “and”. It is suggested to change “and” to “or”. For examination purposes, the claim is treated as requiring only one of the options listed. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “at least one of visual stimuli, auditory stimuli, somatosensory stimuli, olfactory stimuli, gustatory stimuli, and vestibular stimuli” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the claim requires only one of the options listed, as suggested by “at least one” or all of the options, as suggested by the use of “and”. It is suggested to change “and” to “or”. For examination purposes, the claim is treated as requiring only one of the options listed. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “at least one of a visual task, an auditory task, a somatosensory task, an olfactory task, a gustatory task, and a vestibular task” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the claim requires only one of the options listed, as suggested by “at least one” or all of the options, as suggested by the use of “and”. It is suggested to change “and” to “or”. For examination purposes, the claim is treated as requiring only one of the options listed. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the presentation" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the presentation” will be read as “a presentation”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the presentation" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the presentation” will be read as “a presentation”.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “use of the method of claim 6” in line 1. The claim is indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is practiced. Claim 6 recites a treatment of a neural disorder; therefore, it is suggested that claim 21 be revised to say “the method of claim 6, wherein the neural disorder includes at least one of depression…” or “the method of claim 6, wherein the neural disorder is at least one of depression…”. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
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) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra Ramanathan et al. (US 2019/0159715) in view of Hanbury (US 2019/0374742).
Regarding claim 1, Mishra Ramanathan et al. teaches a computing system for treatment of a neural disorder of a user (Fig. 7; paras. 0026-0027 and 0165) comprising:
one or more processors (para. 0154);
a memory (Fig. 7, storage 203; para. 0156);
one or more output devices (para. 0149, “user interfaces”; para. 0159; Fig. 7, user interface display component 204);
an oscillator module stored in the memory and adapted to run on the one or more processors (Fig. 7; paras. 0148 and 0154-0158, wherein the software/hardware instructions included in the computing device 204 are being construed as an oscillator module), thereby interacting with the output device to produce rhythmic sensory stimuli (para. 0022, wherein a visual stimulus, an auditory stimulus, a tactile stimulus, or an olfactory stimulus is being construed as the “rhythmic sensory stimuli”; para. 0152, “ the computer readable medium may include instructions to cause the computer device/system to present a stimulus to a subject through a user interface”), perceivable by senses of the user (paras. 0022, 0110, and 0112, wherein the stimulus may be sensed by sensory organs such as, a nose, a tongue, eyes, and/or ears), and thereby to enhance neural activity of a neural circuit associated with the processing of a task (paras. 0059, 0130, and 0134);
a content module stored in the memory and adapted to run on the one or more processors (Fig. 7; paras. 0148 and 0154-0158, wherein the software/hardware instructions included in the computing device 204 are being construed as a content module), thereby interacting with the output device (Fig. 7, user interface display component 204; paras. 0028 and 0149) to produce content to engage the user in the task (paras. 0057, 0065-0069, and 0095-0100, wherein after a display presents graphical elements, an individual is instructed to “respond” to said graphical elements).
Mishra Ramanathan et al. fails to teach at least one predetermined frequency to induce oscillations in brain of the user.
Hanbury teaches an analogous system further comprising at least one predetermined frequency to induce oscillations in brain of the user (paras. 0009-0010 and 0055-0056; Claim 15).
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 computing system of Mishra Ramanathan et al. with the predetermined frequency of Hanbury. Providing auditory stimuli that include sinusoidal components between 3.75 Hz and 4.25 Hz, 1.25 Hz and 1.75 Hz, or between 0.25 Hz and 0.75 Hz creates a stimulus that corresponds to known brainwave frequencies. Auditory stimuli pulsed at various brainwave frequencies may be used to treat nociceptive or neuropathic pain (Hanbury, Abstract; paras. 0010, 0055-0056, and 0060).
Regarding claim 2, Mishra Ramanathan et al. in view of Hanbury teaches the computer system according to claim 1 as stated above wherein the one or more output devices (Mishra Ramanathan et al., para. 0149, “user interfaces”) comprise at least one of an auditory device (Mishra Ramanathan et al., paras. 0029 and 0149), visual device (Mishra Ramanathan et al., paras. 0029 and 0149), or tactile device (Mishra Ramanathan et al., paras. 0029 and 0149).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Mishra Ramanathan et al. in view of Hanbury teaches the computer system according to claim 1 as stated above wherein the rhythmic sensory stimuli (Mishra Ramanathan et al., Claims 25-29) comprise at least one of visual stimuli (Mishra Ramanathan et al., paras. 0095-0100), auditory stimuli (paras. 0101-0106), somatosensory stimuli (Mishra Ramanathan et al., paras. 0108-0109), olfactory stimuli (Mishra Ramanathan et al., paras. 0110-0111), gustatory stimuli (Mishra Ramanathan et al., paras. 0112-0113), and vestibular stimuli.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Mishra Ramanathan et al. in view of Hanbury teaches the computer system according to claim 1 as stated above wherein the content comprises at least one of a visual task (Mishra Ramanathan et al., paras. 0098-0100), an auditory task (Mishra Ramanathan et al., paras. 0104 and 0106), a somatosensory task (Mishra Ramanathan et al., para. 0109), an olfactory task (Mishra Ramanathan et al., para. 0111), a gustatory task (0113), and a vestibular task.
Regarding claim 5, Mishra Ramanathan et al. in view of Hanbury teaches the computer system according to claim 1 as stated above further comprising measuring devices to measure activity of the brain (Mishra Ramanathan et al., paras. 0033, 0091, and 0145; Fig. 7, neural activity detector 200).
Regarding claim 6, Mishra Ramanathan et al. teaches a method for treatment of a neural disorder in a user (Claim 1; Claim 23; paras. 0008 and 0134) comprising:
providing rhythmic sensory stimuli (paras. 0092 and 0123; Fig. 1, stimulus 101; para. 0022, wherein a visual stimulus, an auditory stimulus, a tactile stimulus, or an olfactory stimulus is being construed as the “rhythmic sensory stimuli”), perceivable by senses of the user (paras. 0022, 0110, and 0112, wherein the stimulus may be sensed by sensory organs such as, a nose, a tongue, eyes, and/or ears), and thereby to enhance neural activity of a neural circuit associated with the processing of a task (paras. 0059, 0130, and 0134); and
engaging the user in the task (paras. 0008 and 0016; Fig. 1 shows a cognitive task; para. 0123, “Following the presentation of the stimulus the subject responds with an information processing event, a response preparation event”; para. 0069).
Mishra Ramanathan et al. fails to teach at least one predetermined frequency to induce oscillations in brain of the user.
Hanbury teaches an analogous method further comprising at least one predetermined frequency to induce oscillations in brain of the user (paras. 0009-0010 and 0055-0056; Claim 15).
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 Mishra Ramanathan et al. with the predetermined frequency of Hanbury. Providing auditory stimuli that include sinusoidal components between 3.75 Hz and 4.25 Hz, 1.25 Hz and 1.75 Hz, or between 0.25 Hz and 0.75 Hz creates a stimulus that corresponds to known brainwave frequencies. Auditory stimuli pulsed at various brainwave frequencies may be used to treat nociceptive or neuropathic pain (Hanbury, Abstract; paras. 0010, 0055-0056, and 0060).
Regarding claim 7, Mishra Ramanathan et al. in view of Hanbury teaches the method according to claim 6 as stated above wherein the providing of the rhythmic sensory stimuli and the engaging in the task occur within a predetermined window of time (Mishra Ramanathan et al., para. 0073, wherein the predetermined period of time corresponds to the time necessary to perform the cognitive task which comprises presentation of a stimulus and the subject’s response to the stimulus; Fig. 1, wherein the presentation of the stimulus and a stimulus-related event, i.e., an individual’s response to the presented stimulus, occurs over a period of time; paras. 0069 and 0123).
Regarding claim 8, Mishra Ramanathan et al. in view of Hanbury teaches the method according to claim 6 as stated above wherein the providing of the rhythmic sensory stimuli and the engaging in the task occur at distinct times or at least partially simultaneously (Mishra Ramanathan et al., para. 0099, wherein after a visual stimulus is presented to an individual said individual partakes in a stimulus-related response, i.e., interacting with the presented graphical image).
Regarding claim 9, Mishra Ramanathan et al. in view of Hanbury teaches the method according to claim 6 as stated above wherein the at least one predetermined frequency is selected from the range of between 0 Hz and up to 300 Hz (Hanbury, paras. 0010, 0055-0056, and 0060).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Mishra Ramanathan et al. teaches the method according to claim 6 as stated above wherein the rhythmic sensory stimuli (Mishra Ramanathan et al., Claim 17) comprise at least one of visual stimuli (Mishra Ramanathan et al., paras. 0095-0100), auditory stimuli (Mishra Ramanathan et al., paras. 0101-0106), somatosensory stimuli (Mishra Ramanathan et al., paras. 0108-0109), olfactory stimuli (Mishra Ramanathan et al., paras. 0110-0111), gustatory stimuli (Mishra Ramanathan et al., paras. 0112-0113), and vestibular stimuli.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Mishra Ramanathan et al. in view of Hanbury teaches the method according to claim 6 as stated above wherein the engaging in the task comprises providing at least one of a visual task (Mishra Ramanathan et al., paras. 0098-0100), an auditory task (Mishra Ramanathan et al., paras. 0104-0106), a somatosensory task (Mishra Ramanathan et al., para. 0109), an olfactory task (Mishra Ramanathan et al., para. 0111), a gustatory task (Mishra Ramanathan et al., 0113), and a vestibular task.
Regarding claim 12, Mishra Ramanathan et al. in view of Hanbury teaches the method according to claim 6 as stated above wherein the engaging in the task comprises providing task-related instructions to the user (Mishra Ramanathan et al., paras. 0098-0100 and 0105-0106).
Regarding claim 13, Mishra Ramanathan et al. in view of Hanbury teaches the method according to claim 6 as stated above wherein the providing of the rhythmic sensory stimuli is carried out using one or more output devices (Mishra Ramanathan et al., paras. 0047, 0092, and 0149).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Mishra Ramanathan et al. in view of Hanbury teaches the method according to claim 6 as stated above. Mishra Ramanathan further teaches wherein the providing of the rhythmic stimuli comprises presenting a sensory stimulus by means of one or more output devices (paras. 0047, 0092, and 0149). Mishra Ramanathan et al. fails to specifically teach wherein a first parameter of the presentation is changed at a first one of the at least one predetermined frequency, and a second parameter of the presentation is changed at a second one of the at least one predetermined frequency.
Hanbury further wherein a first parameter of the presentation is changed at a first one of the at least one predetermined frequency, and a second parameter of the presentation is changed at a second one of the at least one predetermined frequency (paras. 0030 and 0058-0060; Claims 14-15).
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 Mishra Ramanathan et al. in view of Hanbury with the first and second stimuli patterns of Hanbury. Stimulating the left and right sides of the brain via different auditory stimuli patterns may produce a heightened relaxation effect (Hanbury, paras. 0011-0014 and 0057).
Regarding claim 15, Mishra Ramanathan et al. in view of Hanbury teaches the method according to claim 6 as stated above wherein the engaging in the task comprises at least one of rating a displayed picture, memorization of one or more facts, measuring a reaction time, making a decision, or actively attending to a stimulus (Mishra Ramanathan et al., paras. 0065-0069, 0098-0100, 0105-0106, and 0109).
Regarding claim 16, Mishra Ramanathan et al. in view of Hanbury teaches the method according to claim 6 as stated above wherein the at least one predetermined frequency lies in the frequency range of alpha oscillations, beta oscillations, delta oscillations, gamma oscillations or theta oscillations (Hanbury, paras. 0009 and 0056; Claims 34-35).
Regarding claim 17, Mishra Ramanathan et al. in view of Hanbury teaches the method according to claim 6 as stated above further comprising measurement of neural activity (Mishra Ramanathan et al., Claim 18; paras. 0008, 0023, 0077, and 0086).
Regarding claim 18, Mishra Ramanathan et al. in view of Hanbury teaches the method according to claim 17 as stated above, Mishra Ramanathan et al. fails to teach wherein variation of the at least one predetermined frequency is dependent on the measured neural activity.
Hanbury further teaches wherein variation of the at least one predetermined frequency is dependent on the measured neural activity (paras. 0036, 0048, 0052-0053, and 0061-0064).
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 Mishra Ramanathan et al. in view of Hanbury with the modified auditory stimuli of Hanbury. HRV measurements obtained from physiological sensors may suggest an auditory stimulus modification is required in order for the user to achieve a relaxed mental state (Hanbury, paras. 0036, 0048, 0052-0053, and 0061-0064).
Regarding claim 19, Mishra Ramanathan et al. in view of Hanbury teaches the method according to claim 6 as stated above further comprising:
repeating the step (Mishra Ramanathan et al., para. 0027, “second cognitive task”; para. 0124) of providing rhythmic sensory stimuli (Mishra Ramanathan et al., paras. 0092 and 0123; Fig. 1, stimulus 101), perceivable by senses of the user (Mishra Ramanathan et al., para. 0022, wherein the stimulus may be sensed by sensory organs such as, a nose, a tongue, eyes, and/or ears), at least one predetermined frequency to induce oscillations in brain of the user (Hanbury, paras. 0009-0010 and 0055-0056; Claim 15) and thereby to enhance neural activity of a neural circuit associated with the processing of a task (Mishra Ramanathan et al., paras. 0059, 0130, and 0134); and
repeating the step (Mishra Ramanathan et al., para. 0027, “second cognitive task”; para. 0124) of engaging the user in the task (Mishra Ramanathan et al., paras. 0008 and 0016; Fig. 1 shows a cognitive task; para. 0123, “Following the presentation of the stimulus the subject responds with an information processing event, a response preparation event”; para. 0069).
Regarding claim 20, Mishra Ramanathan et al. in view of Hanbury teaches the method according to claim 19 as stated above wherein the repetition takes place over the course of one or more days (Mishra Ramanathan et al., para. 0124).
Regarding claim 21, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Mishra Ramanathan et al. in view of Hanbury teaches use of the method according to claim 6 for the treatment of at least one of depression, including major depressive disorder (Mishra Ramanathan et al., paras. 0008, 0026, and 0165; Claim 23), dysthymia, disruptive mood dysregulation disorder, and premenstrual dysphoric disorder; anxiety, including separation anxiety disorder, social phobia, agoraphobia, and generalized anxiety disorder; acute stress disorder; adjustment disorder; illness anxiety disorder; cyclothymic disorder; substance/medication-induced depressive anxiety; bipolar disorder, including bipolar I disorder and II disorder; or for the enhancement of immunity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hill et al. (US 2018/0190376) discloses a system and method using virtual reality content for the therapeutic treatment of psychological and/or psychiatric conditions. The VR experiences, environments, and stories are tailored to shift a user’s brainwaves and other biometric away from patterns associated with anxiety and depression. George et al. (US 2020/0121544) teaches a method and system wherein a treatment device is configured to apply pressure to the inner ear of a patient at varying frequencies. The frequencies lie within the range of brainwave frequencies. Metzger (WO 2015066679) teaches introducing stimuli to one or more sensory pathways to modulate neural oscillatory patterns associated with a neurological condition.
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