Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 19/296,294

Noninvasive Neural Stimulation Through Audio

Non-Final OA §112§DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
Aug 11, 2025
Priority
Feb 15, 2019 — continuation of 11/205,414 +2 more
Examiner
NGUYEN, HIEN NGOC
Art Unit
3797
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Brainfm Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
53%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 53% of resolved cases
53%
Career Allowance Rate
414 granted / 785 resolved
-17.3% vs TC avg
Strong +40% interview lift
Without
With
+40.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
839
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.3%
-32.7% vs TC avg
§103
51.6%
+11.6% vs TC avg
§102
10.1%
-29.9% vs TC avg
§112
24.1%
-15.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 785 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §DOUBLEPATENT
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 . DETAILED ACTION Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,532,298. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions claim method and apparatus to modulate a sound signal to stimulate brain and adjust rate and phase to match/align with rhythmic acoustic events. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,406,651. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions claim method and computer readable media to modulate a sound signal to stimulate brain and adjust rate and phase to match/align with rhythmic acoustic events. 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. The claim does not positively claim an audio track. It is unclear what is being modulated in the audio track to produce a modulated audio track in the claim. As see in Fig. 2, first obtain an audio track, then determine frequency component and audio elements to be modulated, modulate the frequency component and audio elements, finally produce a new modulated audio track by mixing modulated frequency component and audio elements with frequency components and audio element that is not modulated. No art rejection Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 4,883,067; US 2010/0056854; US 2013/0046546; US 2007/0084473; US 5,267,942; US 2008/0101621 and US 20120251989. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEN NGOC NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-6:30pm. 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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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. /HIEN N NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3797
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 11, 2025
Application Filed
Jun 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112, §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12678638
TARGETED NEUROMODULATION TO IMPROVE NEUROPSYCHIATRIC FUNCTION
2y 10m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12678063
PULSE WAVE ESTIMATING DEVICE AND PULSE WAVE ESTIMATION METHOD
2y 3m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12673154
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TREATMENT OF INTRACRANIAL HEMORRHAGES
5y 5m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12661013
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR IN VIVO FLOW CYTOMETRY USING THE DETECTION OF PHOTOACOUSTIC WAVES
1y 7m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12642439
Method for Measuring Pre-Ejection Period
4y 5m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
53%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+40.2%)
3y 11m (~2y 11m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 785 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month