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 . 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 14, 42, 64, 69, 76 and 77 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claims 14, 42, 64, 69, 76 and 77 “nxm matrix” should be amended to recite --n x m matrix, wherein n and m are positive integers,--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 28 is 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 28, the phrase “suicidal behavior” renders the claim indefinite because the phrase appears to describe a behavior, symptom, risk state, or clinical presentation rather than a mental disorder, creating uncertainty as to the scope of the claimed patient population. The specification does not provide an objective criteria for what qualifies as “suicidal behavior” such as diagnosis, clinical assessment, time frame, severity, recurrence, or standardized diagnostic criteria. Additionally, the specification does provide any indication of what behavior would qualify as “suicidal behavior” such as suicidal ideation, prior attempt, current intent, self-injurious behavior, or clinically assessed risk.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 6-15, 18-20, 24-30, 34-43, 46-47, 51-52, 58-64, 67-71 and 76-80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder et al. (US 2021/0330255 A1; cited by applicant on IDS dated 8/29/2024) (Schroeder) in view of Merzenich et al. (US 2016/0155353 A1; cited by applicant on IDS dated 8/29/2024) (Merzenich).
Regarding claim 1: Schroeder teaches a method (see figure 3, #300) for treating a patient having a mental disorder (see figure 3, #310; [0030]) comprising: administering a drug having an antidepressant effect to the patient (see figure 3, #320; [0012] and [0030]); and administering a neurocognitive training protocol (see figure 3) to the patient during a critical time period following administration of the drug (see [0012] and [0030]), wherein administering the neurocognitive training protocol to the patient comprises delivering, using a computing device (see figure 1, #50), a plurality of automated neurocognitive training sessions to the patient (see [0031]-[0035]) Schroeder is silent to a plurality of conditioning sequences are presented to the patient during delivery of each of the automated neurocognitive training sessions, each respective conditioning sequence comprising a respective non-self-relevant stimulus and a respective self-relevant stimulus.
Merzenich teaches a plurality of conditioning sequences are presented to the patient during delivery of each of the automated neurocognitive training sessions (see Abstract), each respective conditioning sequence comprising a respective non-self-relevant stimulus and a respective self-relevant stimulus (see [0012] and [0298]-[0300]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Schroeder, to include games, like taught by Merzenich, in order to present a plurality of target and distractor stimuli, wherein the distractor stimuli are addiction-related stimuli, and prompt a game participant to respond to the target stimuli and ignore the distractor stimuli (see Merzenich Abstract, [0298]-[0300]).
Regarding claim 2: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 1, Merzenich further teaches wherein: a first automated neurocognitive training session and a second automated training session are delivered to the patient on a first day, and a third automated neurocognitive training session and a fourth automated training session are delivered to the patient on a second day (para [0174]).
Regarding claim 6: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 1, Merzenich further teaches wherein the plurality of automated neurocognitive training sessions is between about 2 sessions and about 14 sessions (see [0174]).
Regarding claim 7: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 1, Merzenich further teaches wherein the plurality of automated neurocognitive training sessions is about 8 sessions (see [0174]).
Regarding claim 8: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 1, Merzenich further teaches each respective conditioning sequence further comprises a task, the task being presented to the patient following or in relation to presentation of a respective non-self-relevant and self-relevant stimuli pair (see [0390]-[0391] and [0394]-[0396]).
Referring to claim 9: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 1, Merzenich further teaches the respective non-self-relevant stimulus and/or the respective self-relevant stimulus for a respective conditioning sequence is an auditory stimulus (see [0159], [0179] and [0203]).
Regarding claim 10: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 1, Merzenich further teaches the respective non-self-relevant stimulus and/or the respective self-relevant stimulus for a respective conditioning sequence is a visual stimulus (see [0012], [0174], [0298]-[0300] and [0438]; Figs. 63, 81 and 135-139).
Regarding claim 11: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 1, Merzenich further teaches the respective self-relevant stimulus for a respective conditioning sequence comprises a sound, image, or word that is associated with the patient (see [0012], [0174], [0298]-[0300] and [0438]; Figs. 63, 81 and 135-139).
Regarding claim 12: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 11, Merzenich further teaches the respective non-self-relevant stimulus for the respective conditioning sequence comprises a sound, image, or word that is associated with a positive meaning (see [0205]-[0206], [0278]-[0284]).
Regarding claim 13: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 11, Merzenich further teaches the respective non-self-relevant stimulus for the respective conditioning sequence comprises a sound, image, or word that is associated with a life-affirming meaning (see [0205]-[0206], [0278]-[0284]).
Regarding claim 14: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 1, Merzenich further teaches respective non-self-relevant stimulus and the respective self-relevant stimulus for a respective conditioning sequence are included in an nxm matrix comprising a plurality of visual stimuli(see Abstract; [0012], [0174] and [0298]-[0300]; Fig. 63 and Fig. 81).
Regarding claim 15: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 14, Merzenich further administering the neurocognitive training protocol to the patient further comprises receiving, from the patient, a selection matching the respective non-self-relevant stimulus and the respective self-relevant stimulus for the respective conditioning sequence (see [0390]-[0391], [0394]-[0396] and [0438]).
Regarding claim 18: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 1, Schroeder further teaches the computing device comprises a processor and a memory operably coupled to the processor, the memory having computer-executable instructions stored thereon (see figure 1, #50; [0030]-[0035]).
Regarding claim 19: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 18, Merzenich further teaches the memory has computer-executable instructions stored thereon, that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to generate each respective conditioning sequence (see Abstract; [0012], [0174], [0298]-[0300]; fig. 63; fig. 81).
Regarding claim 20: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 19, Merzenich further teaches the computing device further comprises a display device operably coupled to the processor, and wherein the memory has computer-executable instructions stored thereon, that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: generate graphical data for each respective conditioning sequence; and cause the graphical data to be displayed on the display device (see Abstract; [0012], [0174], [0257], [0298]-[0300]; fig. 63; fig. 81).
Regarding claims 24 and 25: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 1, Schroeder further teaches the drug is a rapid-acting antidepressant, wherein the rapid-acting antidepressant is ketamine (see [0098]-[0099]).
Regarding claim 26: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 1, Schroeder further teaches the drug is brexanolone, zuranolone, rapastinel, scopolamine, or a psychedelic (see Abstract; [0012] and [0107]-[0109]).
Regarding claims 27 and 28: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 1, Schroeder further teaches the mental disorder is depression or suicidal behavior (see [0097]).
Regarding claim 29: Schroeder teaches a computer-implemented method (see figure 3, #300) for administering a neurocognitive training protocol (see figure 3) to a patient having a mental disorder (see figure 3, #310; [0012] and [0030]), the patient having received a drug having an antidepressant effect (see figure 3, #320; [0012]), and the neurocognitive training protocol being administered during a critical time period following administration of the drug to the patient (see [0012] and [0030]), the computer-implemented method comprising: delivering a plurality of automated neurocognitive training session to the patient (see [0031]-[0035]). Schroeder is silent to a plurality of conditioning sequences are presented to the patient during delivery of each of the automated neurocognitive training sessions, each respective conditioning sequence comprising a respective non-self-relevant stimulus and a respective self-relevant stimulus.
Merzenich teaches a plurality of conditioning sequences are presented to the patient during delivery of each of the automated neurocognitive training sessions, each respective conditioning sequence comprising a respective non-self-relevant stimulus and a respective self-relevant stimulus (see Abstract; [0012] and [0298]-[0300]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Schroeder, to include games, like taught by Merzenich, in order to present a plurality of target and distractor stimuli, wherein the distractor stimuli are addiction-related stimuli, and prompt a game participant to respond to the target stimuli and ignore the distractor stimuli (see Merzenich Abstract, [0298]-[0300]).
Regarding claim 30: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 29, Merzenich further teaches a first automated neurocognitive training session and a second automated training session are delivered to the patient on a first day, and a third automated neurocognitive training session and a fourth automated training session are delivered to the patient on a second day (see [0174]).
Regarding claim 34: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 29, Merzenich further teaches wherein the plurality of automated neurocognitive training sessions is between about 2 sessions and about 14 sessions (see [0174]).
Regarding claim 35: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 29, Merzenich further teaches wherein the plurality of automated neurocognitive training sessions is about 8 sessions (para [0174]).
Regarding claim 36: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 29, Merzenich further teaches each respective conditioning sequence further comprises a task, the task being presented to the patient following or in relation to presentation of a respective non-self- relevant and self-relevant stimuli pair (see [0390]-[0391] and [0394]-[0396]).
Referring to claim 37: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 29, Merzenich further teaches the respective non-self-relevant stimulus and/or the respective self- relevant stimulus for a respective conditioning sequence is an auditory stimulus (see [0159], [0179] and [0203]).
Regarding claim 38: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 29, Merzenich further teaches the respective non-self-relevant stimulus and/or the respective self-relevant stimulus for a respective conditioning sequence is a visual stimulus (see [0012], [0174], [0298]-[0300] and [0438]; Figs. 63, 81 and 135-139).
Regarding claim 39: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 29, Merzenich further teaches the respective self-relevant stimulus for a respective conditioning sequence comprises a sound, image, or word that is associated with the patient (see [0012], [0174], [0298]-[0300] and [0438]; Figs. 63, 81 and 135-139).
Regarding claim 40: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 39, Merzenich further teaches the respective non-self-relevant stimulus for the respective conditioning sequence comprises a sound, image, or word that is associated with a positive meaning (see [0205]-[0206], [0278]-[0284]).
Regarding claim 41: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 39, Merzenich further teaches the respective non-self-relevant stimulus for the respective conditioning sequence comprises a sound, image, or word that is associated with a life-affirming meaning (see [0205]-[0206], [0278]-[0284]).
Regarding claim 42: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 29, Merzenich further teaches respective non-self-relevant stimulus and the respective self-relevant stimulus for a respective conditioning sequence are included in an nxm matrix comprising a plurality of visual stimuli(see Abstract; [0012], [0174] and [0298]-[0300]; Fig. 63 and Fig. 81).
Regarding claim 43: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 42, Merzenich further administering the neurocognitive training protocol to the patient further comprises receiving, from the patient, a selection matching the respective non-self-relevant stimulus and the respective self-relevant stimulus for the respective conditioning sequence (see [0390]-[0391], [0394]-[0396] and [0438]).
Regarding claim 46: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 29, Merzenich further teaches generating each respective conditioning sequence (see Abstract; [0012], [0174], [0298]-[0300]; fig. 63; fig. 81).
Regarding claim 47: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 46, Merzenich further teaches generating graphical data for each respective conditioning sequence; and causing the graphical data to be displayed on a display device (see [0257]).
Regarding claim 51: Schroeder teaches a system (see figure 1) for administering a neurocognitive training protocol (see figure 3) to a patient having a mental disorder (see figure 3, #310; [0012] and [0030]), the patient having received a drug having an antidepressant effect (see figure 3, #320; [0012]), and the neurocognitive training protocol being administered during a critical time period following administration of the drug to the patient (para [0012]; para [0030]), the system comprising: a processor and a memory operably coupled to the processor (see figure 1, #50), the memory having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: deliver a plurality of automated neurocognitive training session to the patient (para [0031]-[0035]). Schroeder is silent to a plurality of conditioning sequences are presented to the patient during delivery of each of the automated neurocognitive training sessions, each respective conditioning sequence comprising a respective non-self-relevant stimulus and a respective self-relevant stimulus.
Merzenich teaches a plurality of conditioning sequences are presented to the patient during delivery of each of the automated neurocognitive training sessions (see Abstract), each respective conditioning sequence comprising a respective non-self-relevant stimulus and a respective self-relevant stimulus (see Abstract; [0012] and [0298]-[0300]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Schroeder, to include games, as disclosed by Merzenich, in order to to present a plurality of target and distractor stimuli, wherein the distractor stimuli are addiction-related stimuli, and prompts a game participant to respond to the target stimuli and ignore the distractor stimuli (see Merzenich Abstract, [0298]-[0300]).
Regarding claim 52: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the system of claim 51, Merzenich further teaches a first automated neurocognitive training session and a second automated training session are delivered to the patient on a first day, and a third automated neurocognitive training session and a fourth automated training session are delivered to the patient on a second day (see [0174]).
Regarding claim 58: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 51, Merzenich further teaches each respective conditioning sequence further comprises a task, the task being presented to the patient following or in relation to presentation of a respective non-self-relevant and self-relevant stimuli pair (see [0390]-[0391] and [0394]-[0396]).
Referring to claim 59: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 51, Merzenich further the respective non-self-relevant stimulus and/or the respective self-relevant stimulus for a respective conditioning sequence is an auditory stimulus (see [0159], [0179] and [0203]).
Regarding claim 60: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 51, Merzenich further teaches the respective non-self-relevant stimulus and/or the respective self-relevant stimulus for a respective conditioning sequence is a visual stimulus (see [0012], [0174], [0298]-[0300] and [0438]; Figs. 63, 81 and 135-139).
Regarding claim 61: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 51, Merzenich further teaches the respective self-relevant stimulus for a respective conditioning sequence comprises a sound, image, or word that is associated with the patient (see [0012], [0174], [0298]-[0300] and [0438]; Figs. 63, 81 and 135-139).
Regarding claim 62: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 61, Merzenich further teaches the respective non-self-relevant stimulus for the respective conditioning sequence comprises a sound, image, or word that is associated with a positive meaning (see [0205]-[0206], [0278]-[0284]).
Regarding claim 63: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 61, Merzenich further teaches the respective non-self-relevant stimulus for the respective conditioning sequence comprises a sound, image, or word that is associated with a life-affirming meaning (see [0205]-[0206], [0278]-[0284]).
Regarding claim 64: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 51, Merzenich further teaches respective non-self-relevant stimulus and the respective self-relevant stimulus for a respective conditioning sequence are included in an nxm matrix comprising a plurality of visual stimuli(see Abstract; [0012], [0174] and [0298]-[0300]; Fig. 63 and Fig. 81).
Regarding claim 67: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 51, Merzenich further teaches the memory has further computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to generate each respective conditioning sequence (see Abstract; [0012], [0174], [0298]-[0300]; fig. 63; fig. 81).
Regarding claim 68: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 67, Merzenich further teaches the memory has further computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: generate graphical data for each respective conditioning sequence; and cause the graphical data to be displayed on a display device (see Abstract; [0012], [0174], [0257], [0298]-[0300]; fig. 63; fig. 81).
Regarding claim 69: Schroeder teaches a method (see figure 3, #300) for treating a patient having a mental disorder (see figure 3, #310; [0030]) comprising: administering a drug having an antidepressant effect to the patient (see figure 3, #320; [0012] and [0030]); and administering a neurocognitive training protocol using a computing device (see figure 1, #50; figure 3) to the patient during a critical time period following administration of the drug (see [0012] and [0030]). Schroeder is silent to administering the neurocognitive training protocol to the patient comprises delivering, using a computing device, a plurality of automated neurocognitive training sessions to the patient, wherein each respective automated neurocognitive training session comprises: presenting, using the computing device, an nxm matrix comprising a plurality of visual stimuli to the patient, the plurality of visual stimuli comprising a first matching pair of non-self-relevant and self-relevant visual stimuli; and receiving, using the computing device, a selection by the patient of the first matching pair of non-self-relevant and self-relevant visual stimuli.
Merzenich teaches administering the neurocognitive training protocol to the patient comprises delivering, using a computing device, a plurality of automated neurocognitive training sessions to the patient, wherein each respective automated neurocognitive training session comprises: presenting, using the computing device, an nxm matrix comprising a plurality of visual stimuli to the patient (see Abstract; [0012], [0174] and [0298]-[0300]; Fig. 63 and Fig. 81), the plurality of visual stimuli comprising a first matching pair of non-self-relevant and self-relevant visual stimuli (see [0438]; Figs. 135-139); and receiving, using the computing device, a selection by the patient of the first matching pair of non-self-relevant and self-relevant visual stimuli (see [0390]-[0391], [0394]-[0396] and [0438]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Schroeder, to include games, like taught by Merzenich, in order to present a plurality of target and distractor stimuli, wherein the distractor stimuli are addiction-related stimuli, and prompt a game participant to respond to the target stimuli and ignore the distractor stimuli (see Merzenich Abstract, [0298]-[0300]; fig. 99, fig. 102), and to include array, as disclosed by Merzenich, because it allows participant to click on card pairs that show matching facial emotions.
Regarding claim 70: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 69, Merzenich further teaches wherein each respective automated neurocognitive training session further comprises: presenting, using the computing device, a second matching pair of non-self-relevant and self-relevant visual stimuli to the patient; and presenting, using the computing device, a task to the patient following or in relation to presentation of the second matching pair of non-self-relevant and self-relevant visual stimuli (see [0390]-[0391] and [0394]-[0396]).
Regarding claim 71: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 70, Merzenich further teaches wherein each respective automated neurocognitive training session further comprises: presenting, using the computing device, a self-relevant visual stimulus to the patient (see [0390]-[0391] and [0394]-[0396]); presenting, using the computing device, a task to the patient following or in relation to presentation of the self-relevant stimulus; and presenting, using the computing device, a positive non-self-relevant visual stimulus following successful completion of the task by the patient (see [0390]-[0391] and para [0394]-[0396]).
Regarding claim 76: Schroeder teaches a computer-implemented method (see figure 3, #300) for administering a neurocognitive training protocol (see figure 3) to a patient having a mental disorder (see figure 3, #310; [0030]), the patient having received a drug having an antidepressant effect (see figure 3, #320; [0012] and [0030]), and the neurocognitive training protocol being administered during a critical time period following administration of the drug to the patient (see [0012] and [0030]). Schroeder is silent to the computer-implemented method comprising: presenting an nxm matrix comprising a plurality of visual stimuli to the patient, the plurality of visual stimuli comprising a first matching pair of non-self-relevant and self-relevant visual stimuli; and receiving a selection by the patient of the first matching pair of non-self-relevant and self-relevant visual stimuli.
Merzenich teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: presenting an nxm matrix comprising a plurality of visual stimuli to the patient (see Abstract; [0012], [0174] and [0298]-[0300]; fig. 63; fig. 81), the plurality of visual stimuli comprising a first matching pair of non-self-relevant and self-relevant visual stimuli; and receiving a selection by the patient of the first matching pair of non-self-relevant and self-relevant visual stimuli (see [0390]-[0391], [0394]-[0396] and [0438]; figs. 135-139). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by Schroeder, to include games, like taught by Merzenich, in order to present a plurality of target and distractor stimuli, wherein the distractor stimuli are addiction-related stimuli, and prompts a game participant to respond to the target stimuli and ignore the distractor stimuli (see Merzenich-Abstract, [0298]-[0300]: fig. 99, fig. 102), and to include array, as disclosed by Merzenich, because it allows participant to click on card pairs that show matching facial emotions.
Regarding claim 77: Schroeder teaches a system (see figure 1, #100) for administering a neurocognitive training protocol to a patient having a mental disorder (see figure 3, #310; [0030]), the patient having received a drug having an antidepressant effect (see figure 3, #320; [0012] and [0030]), and the neurocognitive training protocol being administered during a critical time period following administration of the drug to the patient (see [0012] and [0030]); the system comprising: a processor and a memory operably coupled to the processor (see figure 1, #50), the memory having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: deliver a plurality of automated neurocognitive training session to the patient (para [0031]-[0035]). Schroeder is silent to causing the processor to: present an nxm matrix comprising a plurality of visual stimuli to the patient, the plurality of visual stimuli comprising a first matching pair of non-self-relevant and self-relevant visual stimuli; and receive a selection by the patient of the first matching pair of non-self-relevant and self-relevant visual stimuli.
Merzenich teaches a system comprising: a processor and a memory operably coupled to the processor, the memory having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: present an nxm matrix comprising a plurality of visual stimuli to the patient (see Abstract; [0012], [0174], [0298]-[0300]; fig. 63; fig. 81), the plurality of visual stimuli comprising a first matching pair of non-self-relevant and self-relevant visual stimuli; and receive a selection by the patient of the first matching pair of non-self-relevant and self-relevant visual stimuli (see [0390]-[0391], [0394]-[0396], [0438]; figs. 135-139). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system taught by Schroeder, to include games, like taught by Merzenich, in order to present a plurality of target and distractor stimuli, wherein the distractor stimuli are addiction-related stimuli, and prompts a game participant to respond to the target stimuli and ignore the distractor stimuli (see Merzenich Abstract; [0298]-[0300]; fig. 99, fig. 102), and to include array, as disclosed by Merzenich, because it allows participant to click on card pairs that show matching facial emotions.
Regarding claim 78: Schroeder teaches a method (see figure 3, #300) for treating a patient having a mental disorder (see figure 3, #310; [0030]) comprising: administering a drug having an antidepressant effect to the patient (see figure 3, #320; [0012] and [0030]); and administering a neurocognitive training protocol (see figure 3) to the patient during a critical time period following administration of the drug (see [0012] and [0030]), wherein administering the neurocognitive training protocol to the patient comprises delivering, using a computing device, a plurality of automated neurocognitive training sessions to the patient (see [0031]-[0035]). Schroeder is silent to a plurality of conditioning sequences are presented to the patient during delivery of each of the automated neurocognitive training sessions.
Merzenich teaches wherein a plurality of conditioning sequences are presented to the patient during delivery of each of the automated neurocognitive training sessions (see Abstract; [0012], [0174] and [0298]-[0300]; fig. 63; fig. 81). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by Schroeder, to include games, like taught by Merzenich, in order to to present a plurality of target and distractor stimuli, wherein the distractor stimuli are addiction-related stimuli, and prompts a game participant to respond to the target stimuli and ignore the distractor stimuli (see Merzenich Abstract; [0298]-[0300]).
Regarding claim 79: Schroeder teaches a method (see figure 3, #300) for conditioning a therapeutic association in a patient comprising: administering a neuroplasticity-enhancing treatment to the patient (see figure 3, #320; [0012] and [0030]); and administering a neurocognitive training protocol using a computing device (see figure 1, #50; figure 3) to the patient during a critical time period following administration of the neuroplasticity-enhancing treatment (see [0012], [0030] and [0035]); para [0035]). Schroeder is silent to administering the neurocognitive training protocol to the patient comprises delivering, using the computing device, one or more conditioning sequences configured to condition a therapeutic association to the patient.
Merzenich teaches administering the neurocognitive training protocol to the patient comprises delivering, using a computing device, one or more conditioning sequences configured to condition a therapeutic association to the patient (see Abstract; [0012], [0174], [0298]-[0300]; fig. 63; fig. 81). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by Schroeder, to include games like taught by Merzenich, in order to present a plurality of target and distractor stimuli, wherein the distractor stimuli are addiction-related stimuli, and prompts a game participant to respond to the target stimuli and ignore the distractor stimuli (see Merzenich Abstract; [0298]-[0300]).
Regarding claim 80: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claim 79, Schroeder further teaches wherein the neuroplasticity-enhancing treatment is a drug or a neuromodulatory intervention (see Abstract; [0012]).
Claims 3-4, 31-32 and 53-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder in view of Merzenich further in view of Danilov et al. (US Patent No. 9,597,504; cited by applicant on IDS dated 8/29/2024) (Danilov).
Regarding claims 3, 31 and 53: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claims 2, 30 and 52 respectively, Merzenich further teaches of the first and second automated neurocognitive training sessions (see [0174]). Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, is silent to a period of time between delivery to the patient is about 20 minutes or more. Danilov teaches treatment of neurological impairments, wherein a period of time between delivery to the patient is about 20 minutes or more (column 3, line 48-column 4, line 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, to include routine like taught by Danilov in order to perform routine twice per day, with a span of about four hours separating the sessions (see Danilov column 3, line 48-column 4, line 4).
Regarding claims 4, 32 and 54: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of claims 2, 30 and 52 respectively, Merzenich further teaches of the third and fourth automated neurocognitive training sessions (see [0174]). Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, is silent to a period of time between delivery to the patient is about 20 minutes or more. However, Danilov in the related art of treatment of neurological impairments, teaches wherein a period of time between delivery to the patient is about 20 minutes or more (column 3, line 48-column 4, line 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, to include routine like taught by Danilov in order to perform routine twice per day, with a span of about four hours separating the sessions (see Danilov column 3, line 48-column 4, line 4).
Claims 5, 33, 55-57 and 72 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder in view of Merzenich further in view of Verghese et al. (US 2012/0196257 A1; cited by applicant on IDS dated 8/29/2024) (Verghese).
Regarding claims 5, 33, 55 and 72: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of any one of claims 1, 29, 51 and 69 respectively, Merzenich further teaches wherein each of the automated neurocognitive training sessions (see [0174]). The combination does not disclose has a length between about 15 minutes and about 20 minutes. Verghese teaches improving motor functions of a subject by administering cognitive function training to the subject, wherein the training session has a length between about 15 minutes and about 20 minutes (see [0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, to include training session duration like taught by Verghese, because it allows each training session to contain, for example, 3 tasks that take about 20 minutes total to complete (see Verghese [0041]) thereby improving user compliance over longer training sessions.
Regarding claim 56: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich and Verghese, teaches the method of claim 55, Merzenich further teaches wherein the plurality of automated neurocognitive training sessions is between about 2 sessions and about 14 sessions (see [0174]).
Regarding claim 57: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich and Verghese, teaches the method of claim 55, Merzenich further teaches wherein the plurality of automated neurocognitive training sessions is about 8 sessions (see [0174]).
Claims 16-17, 44-45 and 65-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder in view of Merzenich further in view of Sunnen (US 2006/0205994 A1).
Regarding claims 16-17, 44-45 and 65-66: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of any one of claims 1, 29 and 51 respectively. Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, is silent to one or more of the plurality of conditioning sequences comprises a subliminal or supraliminal presentation of a non-self-relevant stimulus or a self-relevant stimulus. Sunnen teaches a method using subliminal and parasubliminal stimulation (see [0019] and [0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, with subliminal or parasubliminal presentation like taught by Sunnen in order to impel the users brain while not being too distracting to the user (see Sunnen [0017] and [0029]).
Claims 21-23, 48-50 and 73-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroeder in view of Merzenich further in view of Rustick (US 2020/0222656 A1; cited by applicant on IDS dated 8/29/2024).
Regarding claims 21, 48 and 73: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, teaches the method of any one of claims 1, 29 and 69. Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, is silent to the critical time period is a period during which the drug acutely proliferates synaptic contacts within the patient's brain. Rustick teaches treating depression, mania, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and various other neurologic conditions using synaptic pathway training, teaches wherein the critical time period is a period during which the drug acutely proliferates synaptic contacts within the patient's brain (see [0048] and [0064]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich, to include activating step, like taught by Rustick, because it allows activating a synaptic pathway by administering at least one dose of ketamine (see Rustick [0064]).
Regarding claims 22, 49 and 74: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich and Rustick, teaches the method of claims 21, 48 and 73, Rustick further teaches wherein the critical time period is between about 2 hours and about 14 days following administration of the drug (para [0048] and [0064]).
Regarding claims 23, 50 and 75: Schroeder, as modified by Merzenich and Rustick, teaches the method of claims 21, 48 and 73, Rustick further teaches wherein the critical time period is between about 1 day and about 5 days following administration of the drug (see [0064]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLEE R WILSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7517. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8 AM-5:00 PM ET.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571)272-4502. 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.
/KAYLEE R WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3700
Prosecution Insights