DETAILED ACTION
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 2 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the modulation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gielen et al. (PG Pub. 2002/0188330) in view of Samec et al. (PG Pub. 2017/0365101).
Regarding Claim 1, Gielen discloses a method for safely applying excitatory cortical stimulation in neurological disease patients (see par. 39) comprising:
determining an individualized excitatory-inhibitory balance threshold for each patient (see par. 38 and 60),
measuring the deviation from this threshold during stimulation (see par. 19 and 59),
and automatically adjusting stimulation parameters to avoid exceeding the seizure-critical limit (see par. 25 and 61). The examiner considers the slope, or interconnectivity, is the threshold as it represents the balance between excitatory and inhibitory (see par. 22-24). Gielen does not explicitly disclose an Alzheimer’s patient. Samec discloses a similar system that considers the balance of inhibitory and excitatory cortical dynamics (see par. 506) to determine neurological conditions (see par. 513) associated with Alzheimer’s disease (see par. 542). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to consider Alzheimer’s patients for predicting and avoiding seizures since Samec teaches their state of orientation is often affected (see par. 564).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gielen et al. (PG Pub. 2002/0188330)
Regarding Claim 2, Gielen discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions (see par. 75 and 80) that, when executed, control the modulation of cortical electrical stimulation based on individualized modeling of cortical column orientation, E-I balance, oscillatory phase-locking, and seizure risk thresholds (see par. 38-39).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5818. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 M-F Eastern.
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.
/N.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/AMANDA L STEINBERG/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights