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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: refence number 600 does not appear to be in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 7-8, 13 and 20 all recite “thought patterns” all thought it unclear what the scope of this element is. The claim more specifically recites an “indication of a thought pattern”, but its unclear what is required to show this. Applicants have recited “The sensed biopotential may be a measurable response indicative of a thought pattern” in [0028] (using their PG Pub for paragraph numbers), thus is all that’s required is an ECAP or ERNA? Or is it something more? Examiner notes there is no identified set of biopotentials which are a “thought pattern” as compared to other biopotentials. In conclusion, it’s unclear what the scope of “thought pattern” is, which renders the claims indefinite. The claims depending from these claims share this issue and are likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220040486 to Moffitt et al. (hereinafter Moffitt, Cited in IDS dated 5/21/25) in view of US 20050187589 to Wallace et al. (hereinafter Wallace). Wallace in [0020] incorporates by reference U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/744,319 which published as US 20050137646 to Wallace et al. (hereinafter Wall).
Regarding Claim 1, an interpretation of Moffitt discloses a system comprising:
a medical device (abstract, [0035]) comprising:
electrical stimulation circuitry configured to deliver electrical stimulation to the patient ([0035] including “The IPG 10 is coupled to tissue-stimulating electrodes 16 via one or more electrode leads that form an electrode array 17.”, [0041], [0062]-[0063], Fig. 1A);
sensing circuitry configured to detect bioelectrical signals from the patient from the connected electrodes ([0062], [0064] including “IPG 100 also includes sensing circuitry 115, and one or more of the electrodes 16 can be used to sense innate or evoked electrical signals, e.g., biopotentials from the patient's tissue.”); and
processing circuitry ([0061]-[0062]) configured to:
control the electrical stimulation circuitry to deliver electrical stimulation to the patient ([0062]-[0063]);
receive, via the sensing circuitry, an indication of a biopotential that was elicited by the delivered electrical stimulation ([0062], [0064], [0075] including “can evoke resonant neural responses, referred to herein as evoked resonant neural responses (ERNAs). See, e.g., Sinclair, et al., “Subthalamic Nucleus Deep Brain Stimulation Evokes Resonant Neural Activity,” Ann. Neurol. 83(5), 1027-31, 2018. ERNA responses are observed when a first, excited neural population excites a second neural population, which in turn, re-excites the first neural population.”, [0076] including “The measured response may also include an evoked compound action potential (ECAP)”),
wherein the sensed biopotential is a measurable response indicative of at least one of: a thought pattern from the patient ([0075]-[0076], [0094], [0099]-[0100]; ); or a neural state of the patient at the time the electrical stimulation was delivered ([0075]-[0076], [0094], [0099]-[0100]; Examiner notes any biopotential is indicative of a "neural state" of a patient (in its broadest meaning a state of any chosen neuron)).
An interpretation of Moffitt may not explicitly disclose an electrode configured to be located within a lumen of an anatomical structure and proximal to target tissue of a patient;
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical electrical stimulation devices), Wallace teaches wherein at least one electrode is configured to be located within a lumen of an anatomical structure and proximal to the target tissue which can sense/stimulate ([0003]-[0004], [0017]-[0020], [0027] including “The routing and placement of the brain stimulation system 10 will ultimately depend on the portion of the brain that is to be treated. . . . subthalamic nucleus (STN) . . .”, [0029] including “The intravascular lead 12 can be delivered to any one of a number of vessels in order to place the active portion of the stimulation lead adjacent the cortical tissue to be stimulated.”, [0037] See also [0010]-[0011], [0025]; Examiner notes as currently claimed the “located in a lumen of an anatomical structure” is very broad and does not require structure specifically for the brain and nothing in claims prohibits the structure of the device in Wallace (size etc.) seemingly from being used but for purposes of compact prosecution to have intravascularly specifically disclose the secondary reference was provided).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified stimulation and sensing system recited by Moffitt to include electrodes located intravascularly near the target tissue because it desirable to use most efficient and safe technique of introducing the lead(s) into the brain ([0003]-[0005]).
Regarding Claim 2, an interpretation of Moffitt further discloses comprising a plurality of electrodes separate from the electrode configured to be located within the lumen of the anatomical structure ([0035]-[0037], [0039], [0063]), wherein the electrical stimulation circuitry is configured to deliver the electrical stimulation therapy via one or more of the plurality of electrodes ([0035]-[0037], [0063]).
Regarding Claim 3, an interpretation of Moffitt further discloses wherein the delivered electrical stimulation elicits a biopotential comprising an evoked resonant neural activity (ERNA) from the patient ([0062], [0064], [0075] including “can evoke resonant neural responses, referred to herein as evoked resonant neural responses (ERNAs). See, e.g., Sinclair, et al., “Subthalamic Nucleus Deep Brain Stimulation Evokes Resonant Neural Activity,” Ann. Neurol. 83(5), 1027-31, 2018. ERNA responses are observed when a first, excited neural population excites a second neural population, which in turn, re-excites the first neural population.”, [0076] including “The measured response may also include an evoked compound action potential (ECAP)”).
Regarding Claim 4, an interpretation of Moffitt further discloses wherein the target tissue of the patient comprises a location within the patient's subthalamic nucleus (STN) ([0006], [0039], [0075; Examiner notes that while not currently applied for this element, this is also taught by Wallace see [0027]).
Regarding Claim 5, an interpretation of Moffitt further discloses wherein a parameter that at least partially defines the electrical stimulation comprises a stimulation frequency ([0041]), wherein the elicited ERNA from the patient exhibits one or more characteristics, wherein the one or more characteristics comprise a resonant frequency of measured peaks and troughs of the ERNA ([0013] including “According to some embodiments, the method further comprises determining one or more parameters of the ERNAs. According to some embodiments, the one or more parameters comprise frequency, rate of decay, number of pulses or amplitude.”, [0062], [0064], [0075], [0099]).
Regarding Claim 6, an interpretation of Moffitt further discloses wherein the delivered electrical stimulation elicits a biopotential comprising an evoked compound action potential (ECAP) from the patient ([0076] including “The measured response may also include an evoked compound action potential (ECAP)”).
Regarding Claim 8, an interpretation of Moffitt further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to adjust one or more parameters that define the delivered electrical stimulation based on the received biopotential ([0062] including “IPGs can be configured to adjust or reconfigure stimulation parameters based on the sensed ERNA responses.”, [0075]), wherein the received biopotential is indicative of a location of target tissue of the patient for sensing biopotentials that are indicative of thought patterns or neural states ([0062], [0075], [0085] see also [0076]-[0077]).
Regarding Claim 9, an interpretation of Moffitt further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to adjust one or more parameters that define the delivered electrical stimulation based on the received biopotential ([0062] including “IPGs can be configured to adjust or reconfigure stimulation parameters based on the sensed ERNA responses.”, [0075]), wherein the received biopotential is indicative of the patency of the electrode ([0075], [0077], [0081], [0083]).
An interpretation of Moffitt may not explicitly disclose an electrode configured to be located within a lumen of an anatomical structure and proximal to target tissue of a patient;
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical electrical stimulation devices), Wallace teaches an electrode configured to be located within a lumen of an anatomical structure and proximal to target tissue of a patient ([0003]-[0004], [0017]-[0020], [0027] including “The routing and placement of the brain stimulation system 10 will ultimately depend on the portion of the brain that is to be treated. . . . subthalamic nucleus (STN) . . .”, [0029] including “The intravascular lead 12 can be delivered to any one of a number of vessels in order to place the active portion of the stimulation lead adjacent the cortical tissue to be stimulated.” See also [0025], [0037]; Examiner notes as currently claimed the “located in a lumen of an anatomical structure” is very broad and does not require structure specifically for the brain and nothing in claims prohibits the structure of the device in Wallace (size etc.) seemingly from being used but for purposes of compact prosecution to have intravascularly specifically disclose the secondary reference was provided).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified stimulation and sensing system recited by Moffitt to include electrodes located intravascularly near the target tissue because it desirable to use most efficient and safe technique of introducing the lead(s) into the brain ([0003]-[0005]).
Regarding Claim 10, an interpretation of Moffitt further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to adjust one or more parameters that define the delivered electrical stimulation based on the received biopotential ([0062] including “IPGs can be configured to adjust or reconfigure stimulation parameters based on the sensed ERNA responses.”, [0075]), wherein the received biopotential is indicative of one or more of: the electrode is in a known location ([0075], [0077], [0081], [0083]).
An interpretation of Moffitt may not explicitly disclose an electrode configured to be located within a lumen of an anatomical structure and proximal to target tissue of a patient;
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical electrical stimulation devices), Wallace teaches an electrode configured to be located within a lumen of an anatomical structure and proximal to target tissue of a patient ([0003]-[0004], [0017]-[0020], [0027] including “The routing and placement of the brain stimulation system 10 will ultimately depend on the portion of the brain that is to be treated. . . . subthalamic nucleus (STN) . . .”, [0029] including “The intravascular lead 12 can be delivered to any one of a number of vessels in order to place the active portion of the stimulation lead adjacent the cortical tissue to be stimulated.” See also [0025], [0037]; Examiner notes as currently claimed the “located in a lumen of an anatomical structure” is very broad and does not require structure specifically for the brain and nothing in claims prohibits the structure of the device in Wallace (size etc.) seemingly from being used but for purposes of compact prosecution to have intravascularly specifically disclose the secondary reference was provided).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified stimulation and sensing system recited by Moffitt to include electrodes located intravascularly near the target tissue because it desirable to use most efficient and safe technique of introducing the lead(s) into the brain ([0003]-[0005]).
Regarding Claim 11, an interpretation of Moffitt may not explicitly disclose wherein the anatomical structure is a blood vessel located in the brain.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical electrical stimulation devices), Wallace teaches wherein the anatomical structure is a blood vessel located in the brain ([0004] including “leads can be intravascularly introduced through the cerebral blood vessels”, [0027]-[0029]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified stimulation and sensing system recited by Moffitt to include electrodes located intravascularly near the target tissue because it desirable to use most efficient and safe technique of introducing the lead(s) into the brain ([0003]-[0005]).
Regarding Claim 12, an interpretation of Moffitt further discloses wherein the electrical stimulation circuitry is configured to deliver the electrical stimulation to the patient via the desired electrode ([0035]-[0036], [0041], [0045]).
An interpretation of Moffitt may not explicitly disclose to deliver the electrical stimulation to the patient via the electrode configured to be located within the lumen of the anatomical structure.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical electrical stimulation devices), Wallace teaches to deliver the electrical stimulation to the patient via the electrode configured to be located within the lumen of the anatomical structure ([0022], [0024], [0037]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified stimulation and sensing system recited by Moffitt to include electrodes located intravascularly near the target tissue for applying stimulation because it desirable to use most efficient and safe technique of introducing the lead(s) into the brain ([0003]-[0005]).
Regarding Claim 13, an interpretation of Moffitt discloses a method comprising:
delivering electrical stimulation to target tissue of a patient ([0035], [0062]-[0063]);
receiving, by sensing circuitry of a medical device, bioelectrical signals from the patient via one or more electrodes proximal to the target tissue ([0062], [0064] including “IPG 100 also includes sensing circuitry 115, and one or more of the electrodes 16 can be used to sense innate or evoked electrical signals, e.g., biopotentials from the patient's tissue.”, [0075]-[0076]),
receiving, by processing circuitry of the medical device ([0061]-[0062]), and via the sensing circuitry an indication of a biopotential that was elicited by the delivered electrical stimulation ([0062], [0064], [0075] including “can evoke resonant neural responses, referred to herein as evoked resonant neural responses (ERNAs). See, e.g., Sinclair, et al., “Subthalamic Nucleus Deep Brain Stimulation Evokes Resonant Neural Activity,” Ann. Neurol. 83(5), 1027-31, 2018. ERNA responses are observed when a first, excited neural population excites a second neural population, which in turn, re-excites the first neural population.”, [0076] including “The measured response may also include an evoked compound action potential (ECAP)”),
wherein the sensed biopotential is a measurable response indicative of at least one of: a thought pattern from the patient ([0075]-[0076], [0094], [0099]-[0100]); or a neural state of the patient at the time the electrical stimulation was delivered ([0075]-[0076], [0094], [0099]-[0100]; Examiner notes any biopotential is indicative of a "neural state" of a patient (in its broadest meaning a state of any chosen neuron)).
An interpretation of Moffitt may not explicitly disclose wherein at least one electrode is configured to be located within a lumen of an anatomical structure and proximal to the target tissue;
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical electrical stimulation devices), Wallace teaches wherein at least one electrode is configured to be located within a lumen of an anatomical structure and proximal to the target tissue which can sense/stimulate ([0003]-[0004], [0017]-[0020], [0027] including “The routing and placement of the brain stimulation system 10 will ultimately depend on the portion of the brain that is to be treated. . . . subthalamic nucleus (STN) . . .”, [0029] including “The intravascular lead 12 can be delivered to any one of a number of vessels in order to place the active portion of the stimulation lead adjacent the cortical tissue to be stimulated.”, [0037] See also [0010]-[0011], [0025]; Examiner notes as currently claimed the “located in a lumen of an anatomical structure” is very broad and does not require structure specifically for the brain and nothing in claims prohibits the structure of the device in Wallace (size etc.) seemingly from being used but for purposes of compact prosecution to have intravascularly specifically disclose the secondary reference was provided).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified stimulation and sensing system recited by Moffitt to include electrodes located intravascularly near the target tissue because it desirable to use most efficient and safe technique of introducing the lead(s) into the brain ([0003]-[0005]).
Regarding Claim 14, an interpretation of Moffitt further discloses wherein the medical device is an implantable medical device ([0035], Fig. 1 see also [0003]-[0004]).
Regarding Claim 15, an interpretation of Moffitt further discloses wherein the medical device comprises the processing circuitry ([0061]-[0062]), the method further comprising, controlling, by the processing circuitry, electrical stimulation circuitry of the medical device to deliver the electrical stimulation to the patient ([0061]-[0063]).
Regarding Claim 16, an interpretation of Moffitt further discloses controlling, by the processing circuitry, the electrical stimulation circuitry to deliver the electrical stimulation to the patient via the desired electrode ([0035]-[0036], [0041], [0045]).
An interpretation of Moffitt may not explicitly disclose to deliver the electrical stimulation to the patient via the electrode configured to be located within the lumen of the anatomical structure.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical electrical stimulation devices), Wallace teaches to deliver the electrical stimulation to the patient via the electrode configured to be located within the lumen of the anatomical structure ([0022], [0024], [0037]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified stimulation and sensing system recited by Moffitt to include electrodes located intravascularly near the target tissue for applying stimulation because it desirable to use most efficient and safe technique of introducing the lead(s) into the brain ([0003]-[0005]).
Regarding Claim 17, an interpretation of Moffitt further discloses controlling, by the processing circuitry, the electrical stimulation circuitry ([0062]-[0063]) to deliver the electrical stimulation to the patient via a plurality of electrodes configured to be separate from the electrode located within the lumen of the anatomical structure ([0035]-[0037], [0039], [0063]).
Regarding Claim 18, an interpretation of Moffitt further discloses wherein the sensed biopotential is evoked resonant neural activity (ERNA) from the patient ([0062], [0064], [0075]-[0076] including “can evoke resonant neural responses, referred to herein as evoked resonant neural responses (ERNAs). See, e.g., Sinclair, et al., “Subthalamic Nucleus Deep Brain Stimulation Evokes Resonant Neural Activity,” Ann. Neurol. 83(5), 1027-31, 2018. ERNA responses are observed when a first, excited neural population excites a second neural population, which in turn, re-excites the first neural population.”).
Regarding Claim 19, an interpretation of Moffitt further discloses wherein the elicited ERNA from the patient exhibits one or more characteristics, and wherein the one or more characteristics comprise a resonant frequency of measured peaks and troughs of the ERNA ([0013] including “According to some embodiments, the method further comprises determining one or more parameters of the ERNAs. According to some embodiments, the one or more parameters comprise frequency, rate of decay, number of pulses or amplitude.”, [0062], [0064], [0075], [0099]).
Regarding Claim 20, an interpretation of Moffitt further discloses medical device (abstract, [0035]) comprising:
electrical stimulation circuitry configured to deliver electrical stimulation to a patient via one or more electrodes ([0035] including “The IPG 10 is coupled to tissue-stimulating electrodes 16 via one or more electrode leads that form an electrode array 17.”, [0041], [0062]-[0063], Fig. 1A);
sensing circuitry configured to detect bioelectrical signals from the patient via the connected electrodes ([0062], [0064] including “IPG 100 also includes sensing circuitry 115, and one or more of the electrodes 16 can be used to sense innate or evoked electrical signals, e.g., biopotentials from the patient's tissue.”); and
processing circuitry ([0061]-[0062]) configured to:
control the electrical stimulation circuitry to deliver electrical stimulation to the patient ([0062]-[0063]);
receive via the sensing circuitry an indication of a biopotential that was elicited by the delivered electrical stimulation ([0062], [0064], [0075] including “can evoke resonant neural responses, referred to herein as evoked resonant neural responses (ERNAs). See, e.g., Sinclair, et al., “Subthalamic Nucleus Deep Brain Stimulation Evokes Resonant Neural Activity,” Ann. Neurol. 83(5), 1027-31, 2018. ERNA responses are observed when a first, excited neural population excites a second neural population, which in turn, re-excites the first neural population.”, [0076] including “The measured response may also include an evoked compound action potential (ECAP)”),
wherein the sensed biopotential is a measurable response indicative at least one of: a thought pattern from the patient ([0075]-[0076], [0094], [0099]-[0100]); or a neural state of the patient at the time the electrical stimulation was delivered ([0075]-[0076], [0094], [0099]-[0100]; Examiner notes any biopotential is indicative of a "neural state" of a patient (in its broadest meaning a state of any chosen neuron)).
An interpretation of Moffitt may not explicitly disclose wherein at least one electrode is configured to be located within a lumen of an anatomical structure and proximal to the target tissue;
An interpretation of Moffitt may not explicitly disclose wherein at least one electrode is configured to be located within a lumen of an anatomical structure and proximal to the target tissue;
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical electrical stimulation devices), Wallace teaches wherein at least one electrode is configured to be located within a lumen of an anatomical structure and proximal to the target tissue which can sense/stimulate ([0003]-[0004], [0017]-[0020], [0027] including “The routing and placement of the brain stimulation system 10 will ultimately depend on the portion of the brain that is to be treated. . . . subthalamic nucleus (STN) . . .”, [0029] including “The intravascular lead 12 can be delivered to any one of a number of vessels in order to place the active portion of the stimulation lead adjacent the cortical tissue to be stimulated.”, [0037] See also [0010]-[0011], [0025]; Examiner notes as currently claimed the “located in a lumen of an anatomical structure” is very broad and does not require structure specifically for the brain and nothing in claims prohibits the structure of the device in Wallace (size etc.) seemingly from being used but for purposes of compact prosecution to have intravascularly specifically disclose the secondary reference was provided).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified stimulation and sensing system recited by Moffitt to include electrodes located intravascularly near the target tissue because it desirable to use most efficient and safe technique of introducing the lead(s) into the brain ([0003]-[0005]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffitt in view of Wallace in further view of US 20170348540 to Doan et al. (hereinafter Doan).
Regarding Claim 7, an interpretation of Moffitt discloses optimizing the response the thought pattern from the patient; or the neural state of the patient at the time the electrical stimulation was delivered ([0062] including “IPGs can be configured to adjust or reconfigure stimulation parameters based on the sensed ERNA responses.”, [0075]-[0076], [0081], [0099]-[0100]).
an interpretation of Moffitt may not explicitly disclose wherein the delivered electrical stimulation is configured to provide stimulation priming signals to target tissue to optimize the response of the target tissue.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical electrical stimulation devices), Doan teaches wherein the delivered electrical stimulation is configured to provide stimulation priming signals to target tissue to optimize the response of the target tissue ([0060], [0139]-[0140], [0142]-[0143]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stimulating and sensing the evoked response as recited by Moffitt in view of Doan to include priming the target tissue in order to change the sensitization of the target tissue and improve the therapeutic effect (abstract, [0007]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20180133459 (cited in IDS dated 5/21/25) see citations recited in the PCT written opinion
US 20140378941 (cited in IDS dated 5/21/25) see citations recited in the PCT written opinion
US 20050137647 see abstract
Sinclair, et al., “Subthalamic Nucleus Deep Brain Stimulation Evokes Resonant Neural Activity,” Ann. Neurol. 83(5), 1027-31, 2018.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R MOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-3506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9:30 am - 5:30 pm).
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571)272-8506. 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.
/James Moss/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights