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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the presence of the legal phraseology word "means" in line 3. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 objected to because of the following informalities: Examiner . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase "wherein a nose bridge support and/or an ear support and/or an occipital support and a receptacle” should be “wherein a nose bridge support, and/or an ear support, and/or an occipital support, and a receptacle. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase "excessive, resistances" should be "excessive resistances". 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.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitation “adjustment means” invokes 112(f).
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: "impulse generator" & "data-processing and control unit" in claim 1; and "a unit for determining the contact resistance" in claim 9.
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 1-12 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 claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, & 12, the phrase "in particular" or “more particularly” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim limitation “means of neurostimulation” (claim 1) has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “in this respect” renders “stimulation electrodes” indefinite, Examiner asks for clarification.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the case of". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "they" in line 12. It is unclear what “they” references in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the right and left" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the region of the temple". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the patient's head". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 2, the phase “the use and application” is unclear. Examiner requests clarification as to how this limitation limits the system of claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "this purpose" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the forehead and back region". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 3, the phrase “adjustment means are provided for this purpose” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if adjustment means are a part of the system or not.
Claim limitation “adjustment means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no clarification offered in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “wherein a nose bridge support and/or an ear support and/or an occipital support and a receptacle” is indefinite as it is unclear as to whether the receptacle is in addition to each of the options on the list individually or only when they are all combined with the word “and” or just with the occipital support. Further clarification is required.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “…are provided” in line 4 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the aforementioned nose bridge support … and receptacle for electronic components” are all part of the system or not.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the occipital region". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "occipital region" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the area below the patient’s eyes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the alternating current impulse treatment". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the application area". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 8 & 10, it is unclear as to what is being required/recited in the limitation “wherein the treatment sequence and/or the stimulation signal sequences can be realized”. Further clarification is requested.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the alternating current impulse generator". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the power supply". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the treatment sequence". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 9, the phrase “a unit for determining…” renders the claim indefinite, it is unclear if the unit is part of the claimed system or not based on the language of the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the contact resistance". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the patient's skin surface ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the event of ... abnormal...". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the NIR emitter". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the at least one associated NIR detector". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the NIR spectroscopy data". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the end of the stimulation signal sequences". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the duration". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the position". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the nomenclature" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the case of preferred ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the current intensity". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the stimulation parameters". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the dilatation capacity". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 20, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0143116 hereinafter Mowery.
In regards to Claim 1: System for activating nerve cells in the human eye and brain for enhancing residual vision in the case of existing visual-field defects (Mowery, Paragraph 2), for reducing or correcting other visual disorders or cognitive deficits by means of neurostimulation, in particular non- invasive microcurrent application to the head, more particularly non-invasive alternating current pulse stimulation (tACS) (Mowery, Paragraph 26), consisting of a non-invasive applicator for guiding an energy flow to the eye and brain and for stimulating blood flow and activation of nerve cells (Mowery, Paragraph 78; Figure 4B Item 412), in particular retinal ganglion and brain cells, an impulse generator for generating electrical or magnetic stimulation signals and a data-processing and control unit for providing patient-specific stimulation signal sequences (Mowery, Paragraph 78; Figure 4B Item not shown (161); Examiner interprets item 161 to be both the processor and the battery), wherein the applicator comprises, for example, at least two electrodes which can be brought into contact with the head of the test subject and in this respect stimulation electrodes (Mowery, Paragraph 78; Figure 4B item 111), in particular replaceable electrodes, are fixed to the applicator in such a way that they rest on or against the right and left of the eye in the region of the temple of the patient's head (Mowery, Figure 4B; Examiner interprets electrodes placed around the rim of glasses positions the electrodes against the users eye.), characterized in that the stimulation signal sequences are repeatedly provided for application until a detectable reduction of an existing vascular dysregulation in the eyes and brain is determined (Mowery Paragraph 99; “the microcurrent-stimulation controller apparatus to which the disposable therapy appliance is connected also contains a software system that is programmed to sequence the therapy to the various electrode points on the material, and to also detect electrical impendence from the patient, and thereby provide feedback to the controller apparatus to automatically adjust the level of microcurrent simulation, in order to deliver the amount of stimulation originally pre-selected for that treatment session by the clinician to achieve improved/optimum therapy”).
In regards to Claim 3: System according to claim 1, characterized in that the applicator can be individually adapted to the shape of the patient's head and adjustment means are provided for this purpose with regard to fixation on the forehead and back region of the patient's head (Mowery, Paragraph 76; Figure 4B Item 414, 410, & 420).
In regards to Claim 4: System according to claim 1, characterized in that the applicator is designed as a ring- or crown-shaped structure which can be placed on the head (Mowery, Figure 4A; Examiner interprets the glasses shown in figure to be crown shaped), wherein a nose bridge support (Mowery, Figure 4B item 414) and/or an ear support (Mowery, Figure 4B Item 420) and/or an occipital support (Mowery, Figure 4B item 410) and a receptacle for electronic components and for weight compensation are provided in the occipital region (Mowery, Figure 4B Item not shown (161)).
In regards to Claim 5: System according to claim 1, characterized in that fixation points are provided on the applicator for attaching, in particular clipping on, further electrodes, which also enable alternating current to be applied in the area below the patient's eyes (Mowery, Figure 4A; Paragraph 82 “balanced biphasic signals are applied to the eye electrodes (alternating with some positive voltages and some negative voltages relative to ground electrode(s)”; Examiner interprets the plurality of electrodes to have electrodes be added as needed.).
In regards to Claim 6: System according to claim 1, characterized in that an interface for wired or wireless data transmission is formed on or in the applicator (Mowery, Figure 4A Item 114 Paragraph 76).
In regards to Claim 7: System according to claim 1, characterized in that sound generating means, in particular designed as earphones or headphones, are provided on the applicator in order to guide the patient through information and/or acoustically relax the patient during the alternating current pulse treatment, wherein heat, in particular infrared radiant heat, can additionally be supplied to the patient in the application area (Mowery, Paragraph 85; Figure 7 Item 720; Given the indefinite nature of the claim the positively cited part of the claim consists of sound generating means to inform the patient, examiner points out that the reference states that 720 alerts the patient to info with auditory outputs such as beeps).
In regards to Claim 8: System according to claim 1, characterized in that, for self-sufficient operation, the applicator comprises both the alternating current impulse generator and the data-processing and control unit together with the power supply, wherein the treatment sequence and/or the stimulation signal sequences can be realized by a computer program product (Mowery, Figure 4A-5A; Item 161).
In regards to Claim 9: System according to claim 1, characterized in that a unit for determining the contact resistance between the stimulation electrodes and the patient's skin surface is designed to switch off the impulse generator in the event of abnormal, in particular excessive resistances (Mowery, Paragraph 89).
In regards to Claim 12: System according to claim 1, characterized in that in the case of preferred microcurrent application, the current intensity of the stimulation signals is increased stepwise according to a predeterminable regime, in particular as a function of visual impressions, such as flashes of light or the like, and/or the stimulation parameters are adjusted or fixed as a function of the dilatation capacity of the blood vessels in the eye (Mowery, Paragraph 127).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0143116 hereinafter Mowery in view of US 2020/0061385 hereinafter Schwarz.
In regards to Claim 2: Mowery teaches all of claim 2, but does not teach the use and application for reducing functional long-term complaints due to diseases of viral origin, in particular in connection with the SARS-COV-2 virus.
Schwarz teaches the use and application for reducing functional long-term complaints due to diseases of viral origin, in particular in connection with the SARS-COV-2 virus (Schwarz, Paragraph 489; It is unclear if Sars-Cov-2 is necessary to the claim, examiner is interpreting Sars-Cov-2 to be a virus which is treated by the device of Schwarz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the treatment of viral diseases taught in Schwarz to the Apparatus for ocular microcurrent stimulation therapy taught by Mowery, the motivation being to provide a non-invasive method of viral treatment.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0143116 hereinafter Mowery in view of US 2001/0028309 hereinafter Torch.
In regards to Claim 10: Mowery teaches all of claim 1, but does not teach the applicator comprises at least one arrangement for non-invasive determination of blood flow to the skin and brain and for determination of oxygen saturation, in particular based on fNIR spectroscopy, wherein the NIR emitter and the at least one associated NIR detector can be positioned in remote position from the stimulation electrodes on the patient's head and separately from the stimulation electrodes, and the NIR spectroscopy data are recorded, in particular during pauses or at the end of stimulation signal sequences, in order to determine the duration of a sustained, improved blood flow and/or oxygen saturation, so that an updated operation of the data processing and control unit can be realized thereafter.
Torch teaches the applicator comprises at least one arrangement for non-invasive determination of blood flow to the skin and brain and for determination of oxygen saturation, in particular based on fNIR spectroscopy, wherein the NIR emitter and the at least one associated NIR detector can be positioned in remote position from the stimulation electrodes on the patient's head and separately from the stimulation electrodes, and the NIR spectroscopy data are recorded, in particular during pauses or at the end of stimulation signal sequences, in order to determine the duration of a sustained, improved blood flow and/or oxygen saturation, so that an updated operation of the data processing and control unit can be realized thereafter (Torch, Paragraph 115; Figure 13 Item 858, because the only positively recited part of the claim is about the determination of oxygen saturation, the prior art teaches the recited limitation with an oximetry sensor.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the oximetry sensor taught in Torch to the apparatus and method for ocular microcurrent stimulation taught in Mowery, the motivation being to monitor the effectiveness of the device by monitoring the patient’s condition when in use (Torch, Paragraph 123).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0143116 hereinafter Mowery in view of US 2019/0126033 hereinafter Pradeep.
In regards to Claim 11: Mowery teaches all of claim 1, but does not teach the position of the stimulation electrodes corresponds to an F7-F8 arrangement according to the nomenclature of the EEG 10-20 system.
Pradeep teaches the position of the stimulation electrodes corresponds to an F7-F8 arrangement according to the nomenclature of the EEG 10-20 system (Pradeep, Paragraphs 41 & 140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the EEG 10-20 nomenclature taught in Pradeep to the apparatus and method for ocular microcurrent stimulation taught in Mowery, the motivation being to monitor the effectiveness of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOE R DIETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1135. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 5pm.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571)-272-4233. 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.
/N.R.D./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights