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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary Amendment dated 04/24/2024 has been formally entered and claim 1 submitted with Preliminary Amendment dated 04/24/2024 is being examined on the merits.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“configured use” in page 23 line 2 needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is -- configured to use--.
“type of sensor (EMF and/or) clinical” page 27 lines 32 needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is -- type of sensor (EMF and/or[[)]] clinical) --.
“Such limits or treatment governor functions may advantageously protect the patient” in page 28 line18 needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is -- Such limits or treatment [[governor]] governing functions may advantageously protect the patient--.
“Aspects of the system and disclosed herein” on page 29 line 23 needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is -- Aspects of the system [[and]] disclosed herein---.
“&” abbreviation in specification (as in “supply of oxygen & nutrients”) needs to be replaced with –and--.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: subject-matter encompassed under the term/verbiage “proprietary” as in instant application specification as-filed page 32 lines 29-33 and page 22 lines 1-5 to list just a few needs to be properly disclosed to provide antecedent basis for claimed subject matter such as “personalized microenvironment stimulation target” and/or “PMST”, “clinical meta data”. 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 as the required information to interpret the claimed term is cloaked in “proprietary” terms/verbiage and content.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 10 “the properties” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is – [[the]] properties – in light of lack of any antecedent for this term in this claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim Interpretation: As now recites, claim 1 is being interpreted as providing only the parameters for the treatment and not the treatment itself.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, Claim 1 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Claim 1 recites at least one step or instruction for computer-based determinations and calculations, each of which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, independent Claim 1 recites a method for treatment of an injury or disease in a patient using electromagnetic fields, the method comprising:
determining an ideal personalized microenvironment stimulation target (PMST) to elicit a desired biological response at the microenvironment of the injury or disease (evaluation or judgement, which is a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)); and
generating a personalized treatment protocol (PTP) for the patient based on a prescribed electromagnetic field modality, the PTP configured to achieve the PMST required for the ideal personalized electromagnetic field (EMF) stimulation of the microenvironment of the injury or disease (evaluation or judgement, which is a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
wherein the PMST is calculated from patient-centric data and clinical meta data (evaluation or judgement, which is a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)), and
wherein the PTP is calculated to achieve the PMST given the properties of the EMF modality-centric data (evaluation or judgement, which is a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in independent Claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because there are no additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). More specifically, there are no additional elements recited in Claim 1. Even if a processor, a memory or other computer device were claimed, the specification as-filed describes such elements as generically recited computer elements (e.g., see pages 28, 29, 51 and 52) that would not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor would these generically recited computer elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the generically recited computer elements would not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and/or mathematical concept) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., memory and processor not yet claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea performed with generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
Claim 1 does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
Even if a processor, a memory or other computer device were claimed as additional elements, pages 28, 29, 51 and 52 of the specification as-filed describes such elements as generically recited computer elements.
These generically recited computer elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, the device may include one or more controllers/processors each including a central processing unit for processing data and computer-readable instructions and memory. The device may be configured to apply the personalized programmed treatment protocol. The steps of a method or a treatment protocol described in connection with the embodiments disclosed herein may be embodied directly in hardware, or in a software module executed by a processor. The memory may include volatile random-access memory (RAM), non-volatile read only memory (ROM), non-volatile magneto-resistive (MRAM) and/or other types of memory. The device may also include a data storage component for storing data and controller/processor-executable instructions. The data storage component may include one or more non-volatile storage types such as magnetic storage, optical storage, solid-state storage, etc. (pages 28 and 29 of the original specification as-filed).
The inventions described herein may be implemented as a system, it is understood that such systems may include and/or involve a variety of general-purpose computer components such as but not limited to software modules, general-purpose central processing unit (CPU) and main memory (RAM) (page 51 of the original specification as-filed).
The inventions described herein may be implemented with disparate or different software, hardware and/or firmware components, beyond that set forth above, for example, with general purpose or special purpose computing systems or configurations not limited to: software or other components within or embodied on personal computers, servers or server computing devices such as routing/connectivity components, hand-held or laptop devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based systems, set top boxes, consumer electronic devices, network PCs, other existing computer platforms, distributed computing environments that include one or more of the above systems or devices (pages 51 and 52 of the original specification as-filed).
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the non-claimed terms of memory and processor are reasonably construed as generic computing devices. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available technology, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the unclaimed generically recited computer elements. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
Claiming generically recited computer elements would amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the method of Claim 1 is directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the unclaimed generically recited computer elements of independent Claim 1 do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claim 1 is not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner suggests amending claim 1 method as explicitly, specifically and actually providing the treatment itself i.e. explicitly, specifically and actually stimulating a body part based on the parameters.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention for the following reasons:.
The term “ideal” as used in in claim 1 line 3 and line 7 is a relative and subjective term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ideal” 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.
Claim 1 in line 7 recites the limitation “the ideal personalized electromagnetic field (EMF) stimulation”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 in line 4 and line 7 recites the limitation ‘the microenvironment”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “personalized microenvironment stimulation target” and/or “PMST” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, in the context used, it is not clear as to whether “target” refers to the target organ, the microenvironment of the target organ or is it target protocol or target based on intended or desired result or something else. Additionally, the scope of the term “personalized microenvironment stimulation target” and/or “PMST” is rendered unclear in light of instant application specification as-filed page 32 lines 29-33 which states “microenvironment computational engine also incorporates data from a database of clinical metadata and proprietary experimental data that is continually updated as treatments are optimized and concluded … additional parameters aid in calculating an initial Personalized Microenvironment Stimulation Target …” (emphasis added) and thus, 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 as the required information to interpret the claimed term is cloaked in “proprietary” terms and content.
Claim 1 recites “clinical meta data” which renders this claim and the scope of this claim term unclear in light of instant application specification as-filed page 22 lines 1-5 which states ““Clinical Metadata” refers to an organized collection of data representing published data including but not limited to physiological and biochemical data relating to the injury or disease, outcomes from patients that previously received bioelectromagnetic therapy, and proprietary experimental interim and final data obtained from independent in vitro studies applicable to the type of injury or disease” (emphasis added) and thus, 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 as the required information to interpret the claimed term is cloaked in “proprietary” terms and content.
Claim 1 in line 10-11 recites the limitation " the EMF modality-centric data ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Interpretation
Claims terms where relevant are being interpreted in light of definitions enumerated in instant application specification as-filed pages 15-23 and page 92.
Please note that USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted "in view of the specification" without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily). In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.... The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.... An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.").
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. (a)(2) as being anticipated by Isakovic (Pub. No.: US 20240139537 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Isakovic”).
As per independent Claim 1, Isakovic discloses a method for treatment of an injury or disease in a patient using electromagnetic fields, the method (Isakovic in at least abstract, [0001], [0013-0017], [0019-0022], [00265-0026], [0048-0058], [0071-0074], [0077], [0080], [0104-0105], [0110-0112], [0126], [0204-0205] for example discloses relevant subject-matter. More specifically, Isakovic [0001], [0014], [0016], [0048] for example discloses method for treatment of an injury or disease in a patient using electromagnetic fields. See at least Isakovic [0014] “method for generating and applying electromagnetic therapy protocol concurrently with reading of biological and/or biophysical and/or biochemical signals”; [0048] “methods…for characterizing readings of biophysical signals of a nervous system or other tissue/organ affected by injury, inflammation…based on readings of biophysical signals, concurrently setting electromagnetic field parameters in a real time for each area of the nervous system or other tissue affected by injury, inflammation”) comprising:
determining an ideal personalized microenvironment stimulation target (PMST) to elicit a desired biological response at the microenvironment of the injury or disease (Isakovic in at least [0019-0022]. See at least Isakovic [0020-0022] “personalized treatment protocol defines a characteristic of the applied electromagnetic field selected from a group of characteristics consisting of amplitude, frequency, strength, direction, duration of application and type …personalized treatment protocol comprising a reference range of electromagnetic field strength and frequency that should be used for optimal therapy effects on each organ or tissue, depending on the prevalent or targeted cell type”); and
generating a personalized treatment protocol (PTP) for the patient based on a prescribed electromagnetic field modality (Isakovic in at least [0019-0021]. See at least Isakovic [0019] “generated … personalized treatment protocol defines a characteristic of the applied electromagnetic field selected from a group of characteristics consisting of amplitude, frequency, strength, direction, duration of application and type”),
the PTP configured to achieve the PMST required for the ideal personalized electromagnetic field (EMF) stimulation of the microenvironment of the injury or disease (Isakovic in at least [0019-0022]. See at least Isakovic [0019-0022] “computing unit is further configured to modify electromagnetic field delivered through each of the array of emitters concurrently with measurement of a biophysical signal from each of the array of sensors… wherein the electromagnetic field delivered through each emitter is continuously modified until it is achieved that the measured biological and/or biophysical and/or biochemical signal …baseline treatment protocol may be modified until the sensor measures an electromagnetic field within the reference electromagnetic field range for that specific tissue or organ, or other biophysical signal within its reference range. Wherein this process of modifying the baseline treatment protocol would entail creating a personalized treatment protocol…personalized treatment protocol defines a characteristic of the applied electromagnetic field selected from a group of characteristics consisting of amplitude, frequency, strength, direction, duration of application and type …personalized treatment protocol comprising a reference range of electromagnetic field strength and frequency that should be used for optimal therapy effects on each organ or tissue, depending on the prevalent or targeted cell type”),
wherein the PMST is calculated from patient-centric data and clinical meta data (Isakovic [0017], [0019-0021], [0071-0074], [0077], [0080] for example discloses the PMST is calculated from patient-centric data specific to the patient and patient tissue, injury and clinical meta data such a population/subpopulation data. See at Isakovic [0017] “protocol generation and treatment system of … comprising: a main database configured to store at least one patient personal folder comprising a medical patient data, a plurality of baseline treatment protocols, each baseline treatment protocol being associated with a particular disease or an indicated impaired functionality of the nervous system, organ or other tissue affected by injury, inflammation … a reference range of electromagnetic field strength and frequency providing optimal therapy effects on each organ or tissue, depending on the prevalent or targeted cell type ”; [0071] “electromagnetic field ranges and patients skin impedances determined for each connective tissue, neural tissue, immunological system, muscle tissue and organ may have been previously derived from analysis of measurements that were made on a population of subjects, in some cases including the patient being currently treated”), and
wherein the PTP is calculated to achieve the PMST given the properties of the EMF modality-centric data (Isakovic in at least [0019-0022]. See at least Isakovic [0019-0022] “computing unit is further configured to modify electromagnetic field delivered through each of the array of emitters concurrently with measurement of a biophysical signal from each of the array of sensors… wherein the electromagnetic field delivered through each emitter is continuously modified until it is achieved that the measured biological and/or biophysical and/or biochemical signal by a paired sensor is being within the reference electromagnetic field or a signal range. The baseline treatment protocol may be modified until the sensor measures an electromagnetic field within the reference electromagnetic field range for that specific tissue or organ, or other biophysical signal within its reference range. Wherein this process of modifying the baseline treatment protocol would entail creating a personalized treatment protocol…personalized treatment protocol defines a characteristic of the applied electromagnetic field selected from a group of characteristics consisting of amplitude, frequency, strength, direction, duration of application and type …personalized treatment protocol comprising a reference range of electromagnetic field strength and frequency that should be used for optimal therapy effects on each organ or tissue, depending on the prevalent or targeted cell type”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and/or the claims.
Prior art US 20230073255 A1 to Kurzrock discloses methods for improving personalized medicine similar to that disclosed. More specifically, method includes obtaining patient data for a patient, the patient data including one or more molecular biomarkers specific to the patient, using the one or more functional effects for the one or more molecular biomarkers to identify a combination of available therapeutic options by targeting biomarkers with relevant functional effects based on the patient data, applying a learning method to optimize results for presentation to a user, and presenting optimized results to the user.
Prior art US 20220072327 A1 to Monroe et al. discloses methods configured to generate therapeutic electromagnetic field therapy similar to that disclosed. More specifically, apparatus and associated methods relate to a symphonic pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy device operably coupled to a handheld solenoidal coil. In an illustrative example, the symphonic PEMF therapy device may be configured to drive the handheld solenoidal coil to generate a time-varying symphonic PEMF to generate symphonic PEMF in response to user input selection, for example, of a predetermined medical therapeutic and/or a non-medical optimization effect.
Prior art US 20180001102 A1 to Henry et al. discloses a method of treating a subject using pulsed electromagnetic fields similar to that disclosed. More specifically, Henry discloses method of treating a subject by providing a mobile telecommunications device including a processor, a transceiver coupled to the processor including a transmitter for generating pulsed electrical signals adapted to be coupled to an antenna, at least one memory device accessible by the processor. Pulsed electrical signals are begun to be generated to cause the transmitter to drive the antenna, wherein the antenna in response to the pulsed electrical signals emits a pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) that reaches the subject to provide treatment.
Prior art US 20190358465 A1 to Segal discloses system and method for generating electromagnetic treatment protocols specific to the patient similar to that disclosed. More specifically, Segal discloses system that includes a communication interlace for receiving information that includes data collected from an array of neural activity sensors that were placed on a patient during a session of applied stimuli. Neural network frequencies that correspond to an indicated impaired functionality of the nervous system of the patient are selected. For each selected frequencies, a spatial map of neural activity is generated. Each of the generated spatial maps is compared with retrieved corresponding spatial maps to identify treatment frequencies from among the selected neural network frequencies. A treatment protocol is generated for input into an electromagnetic field generator to cause the generator to apply to the patient an electromagnetic field at each identified treatment frequency similar to that disclosed.
Prior art US 20210398672 A1 to Apkarian et al. discloses data-driven personalized management of patients with chronic pain similar to that disclosed. More specifically, systems that include diagnosing and treating patients with chronic conditions, such as chronic back pain. Personalized management recommendations can be generated for individual chronic pain patients using an infrastructure and associated methodology monitors chronic pain patients and gathers a large amount of group data (e.g., phenotyping participants at various levels of depth: behavior, psychology, brain anatomy and function, genetics, etc.) and machine learning methods to generate individualized treatment recommendations that are updated and retooled based on the group data analyses and based on the specific subjects responses.
Prior art US 20190201707 A1 to Stubbeman for disclosing non-invasive brain stimulation device or other neuromodulation device configured to stimulate a patient's brain or nervous system by emitting electromagnetic pulses according to stimulation parameters, such as a pulse frequency or burst repetition frequency or other parameters, that provides surprising improvements in responsiveness and/or may require only a relatively short train of pulses to achieve high efficacy. The stimulation parameters may be pre-stored and customized to individual patients, being identified through an automated search routine during which patient feedback is monitored similar to that disclosed.
Prior art US 20250325827 A1 to Murphy et al. discloses patient personalized magnetic stimulation treatment system similar to that disclosed. The system includes a sensor device that senses EEG signals from a subject through one or more leads and a server device configured to receive EEG data corresponding to the subject. The server includes an analysis module configured to process the EEG data and determine a personalized resonant brain frequency and a minimum neuronal activation threshold of the subject based at least in part on EEG data corresponding to one or more leads of the sensor device. The analysis module is also configured to determine a TMS treatment protocol where the treatment protocol includes at least a frequency based on the personalized resonant brain frequency and an amplitude based on the minimum neuronal activation threshold.
Prior art US 20250195877 A1 to Schulte et al. discloses system, devices, and methods for electrically stimulating peripheral nerve(s) to treat disorders and/or associated symptoms, as well as signal processing systems and methods employing reinforcement learning and/or machine learning for personalizing therapeutic protocols relating to the same similar to that disclosed.
Prior art US 20200234826 A1 to Said discloses personalized health care information and treatment recommendations for patients similar to that disclosed. More specifically, retrieved patient data are used as input into a personalization algorithm that generates specific, personalized treatment recommendations and options for the patient.
Prior art US 20220355125 A1 to Malish discloses individualized magnetic stimulation similar to that disclosed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNITA REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-5151. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Thu 10-4 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CHARLES A MARMOR II can be reached on (571)272-4730. 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
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) Form at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/SUNITA REDDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights