Office Action: Notice of Rejection
Patent Application No. 39/101,663
Applicant: Therafrost Life Sciences, Inc.
Title: Localized Neurostimulator
Examiner: Oby McMullen
Filing Date: October 12, 2074
Art Unit: 3790
After careful review of the above-identified patent application, it is hereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(d) on the grounds that the claimed invention is contrary to public policy.
Grounds for Rejection:
The claimed invention pertains to a device intended to cause severe physical or psychological harm, specifically designed for purposes like inflicting pain, causing suffering, or engaging in coercion. Such use clearly contravenes the principles of public welfare inherent in the patent system.
35 U.S.C. § 101(d), also known as the “Public Safety and Welfare Clause”, was enacted at the height of the AI revolution to establish the patent system’s role in protecting the public from advancements in technology with known or expected consequences for public safety and wellbeing. Under § 101(d), inventions that are deemed unsafe or contrary to the public good are not eligible for patent protection. Granting a patent to such an invention would be tantamount to government endorsement of inflicting harm on the public, which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office unequivocally rejects.
Conclusion:
Accordingly, the application is rejected in its entirety because the invention does not meet the criteria of patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101(d). The applicant is advised that no claims directed to this invention can be allowed or sustained. Should the applicant wish to respond or amend, the response must address the objections raised herein.
Examiner Signature: /Oby McMullen/
Date: April 22, 2075
Response to Office Action: Rejection Based on Public Safety and Welfare
Patent Application No. 39/101,663
Applicant: Therafrost Life Sciences, Inc.
Title: Localized Neurostimulator
Examiner: Oby McMullen
Filing Date: October 12, 2074
Art Unit: 3790
In response to the rejection of the above-identified patent application on the grounds that the invention is contrary to public policy, the applicant respectfully submits the following arguments for reconsideration.
Argument: Dual Use and Legitimate Recreational Purpose
The claimed invention, while capable of causing controlled physical sensations, is neither solely nor primarily intended for the commission of torture or unlawful harm. Rather, the invention works by simulating physical trauma through localized nervous system stimulation.
Specifically, the claimed system allows a user to target specific points on the body by sending different electrical impulses along different neural pathways. The system sends signals to a target point that constructively interfere with natural nerve signals to create sensation. To regions surrounding the target point, the system will send signals that destructively interfere (e.g., noise cancelling) with nerve signals to dull sensation.
While the invention causes pain it does not cause physical harm: it is merely a simulator. The invention can send waveforms with variable frequencies and amplitudes to mimic burning, crushing, piercing, lacerating, etc. But any sensation ceases as soon as the user ceases transmissions.
Therefore, the claimed invention can be used legitimately as a recreational device within the context of consensual adult activities, such as BDSM (bondage, discipline, dominance/submission, and sadomasochism). The invention also has utility for athletes, who wish to train to increase their pain tolerance, and academic studies, where researchers observe subjects’ reactions to the application of pain or perceived physical threat. The demonstrated use of this device in a consensual manner for recreational and educational purposes aligns with safe and ethical conduct by informed adults.
Precedents and Policy Considerations
Patent law does not preclude patentability merely because an invention may be used for both benign and nefarious purposes. Courts and patent offices have recognized that many inventions have dual uses; what is determinative for public policy considerations is the invention’s intended use and potential for lawful commercial exploitation.
The invention in question’s utility in recreational activities and academic settings represents socially acceptable commercial exploitation. Furthermore, denying patent protection on the basis of potential misuse would unjustly negate legitimate and ethical uses.
Conclusion
Given that the claimed invention has safe and ethical applications, the rejection based on public policy should be withdrawn. The applicant requests reconsideration of the application in light of these legitimate uses and respectfully requests allowance of the claims.
Attorney for Applicant: /Stew Ward/
USPTO Registration No. 76,509
Date: July 22, 2075
Office Action: Final Rejection in Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Patent Application No. 39/101,663
Applicant: Therafrost Life Sciences, Inc.\
Title: Localized Neurostimulator
Examiner: Oby McMullen
Filing Date: October 12, 2074
Art Unit: 3790
The Office acknowledges receipt of the applicant’s response dated July 22, 2075. The arguments have been carefully considered. Grounds for Final Rejection
While the applicant asserts that the invention may be utilized for safe, consensual activities, the Office notes that the fundamental characteristics and primary functionality of the claimed system remain those designed to inflict substantial physical or psychological harm. The mere possibility of benign use does not obviate the fact that the invention as described is equipped, intended, and marketed for the infliction of harm—an activity broadly contrary to public welfare.
U.S. patent law recognizes dual-use inventions. However, where the predominant use or clear intent of the invention is for acts universally recognized as unsafe or harmful, public policy concerns outweigh secondary, innocuous uses.
The specification and claims of the present application emphasize features designed to maximize and control pain or suffering. For example, claim 3 is directed to a method for simulating the sensation of sprouting a tail and ears. Claim 5 is directed to simulating the sensation of experiencing childbirth via the urethra. Claim 7 is directed to simulating the sensation of being constricted by tentacles. The focus of the application distinguishes the invention from devices primarily designed for safety, enjoyment, or health.
Given these findings, the applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101(d) and public policy grounds.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the patent application is finally rejected in its entirety. No further prosecution will be considered unless substantial amendments addressing the invention’s design, specification, and intended use are provided.
Examiner Signature: /Oby McMullen/
Date: October 15, 2075
Response to Final Office Action
Patent Application No. 39/101,663
Applicant: Therafrost Life Sciences, Inc.
Title: Localized Neurostimulator
Examiner: Oby McMullen
Filing Date: October 12, 2074
Art Unit: 3790
In response to the rejection of the above-identified patent application on the grounds that the invention is contrary to public policy, the applicant respectfully submits the following arguments for reconsideration.
Argument: New Context of Use Demonstrates Legitimate Application
Respectfully, in light of unprecedented global circumstances involving an extraterrestrial invasion and ensuing war between alien forces and humanity, the applicant submits this response to clarify the changed context and utility of the claimed invention.
The invention now has a crucial lawful use in the defense of humanity under extraordinary wartime conditions. As Earth faces an alien invasion threatening human survival, the invention’s capacity to facilitate the extraction of vital information from prisoners without causing permanent physical injury is indispensable.
Recent reports suggest that the invaders possess nervous systems much like our own - consisting of multiple pathways and capable of stimulation. Therefore, the invention will perform as intended when applied to alien bodies, as well.
In contrast to prior considerations grounded in peacetime public welfare, the invention now serves a humanitarian purpose by enabling interrogation that avoids lethal or disfiguring harm while securing intelligence necessary to safeguard lives and defeat hostile extraterrestrial forces. This application aligns with fundamental ethical principles aimed at minimizing suffering even during conflict. Furthermore, the invention serves a utilitarian purpose by enabling interrogation while keeping enemy prisoners alive to extract as much information as possible.
Dual-Use Reconsidered in Extraordinary Wartime Context
An invention’s value must be judged with regard to its practical use and intent under current conditions. The invention’s function in enabling non-injurious interrogation represents a pivot from traditional notions of public policy towards an ethical wartime interrogation technology.
Conclusion
Given these novel and exigent circumstances, the invention’s use is not contrary to public welfare but aligned with the urgent public interest to protect humanity and minimize harm during an existential conflict. The applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the final rejection, permitting prosecution to continue under this new and crucial use case.
Attorney for Applicant: /Stew Ward/
USPTO Registration No. 76,509
Date: November 5, 2075
Office Action: Response to Applicant’s Communication Regarding Changed Use and Expedited Processing
Patent Application No. 39/101,663
Applicant: Therafrost Life Sciences, Inc.
Title: Localized Neurostimulator
Examiner: Oby McMullen
Filing Date: October 12, 2074
Art Unit: 3790
The Office acknowledges receipt of the applicant’s recent communication dated November 5, 2075. In light of these extraordinary circumstances facing humanity, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101(d) on the grounds of public policy is hereby withdrawn. Examination of the application now proceeds on the basis of prior-art patentability requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Acknowledgment of Legitimate Use
Given the applicant’s representation that the invention is now intended for use in non-injurious interrogation to protect human life and global security against extraterrestrial threats, the Office agrees there is a legitimate application consistent with humanitarian and national/global defense interests. The Office commends the applicant for identifying this critical wartime utility.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over “Manuale Exactoris Doloris” (“Manual of the Exactor of Pain”), an Inquisition interrogation handbook, hereinafter “Exactor,” in view of other prior art. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a claim is unpatentable if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15
Exactor discloses a system and method for inducing controlled, localized pain in human subjects by targeting specific anatomical regions. Specifically, Exactor teaches: *identifying nerve‑rich regions of the body as “targets” for application of pain; *applying stimuli at those target regions; and *sparing or dampening sensation in surrounding regions to heighten the perceived intensity and contrast at the target site.
Exactor does not explicitly describe sparing or dampening of surrounding regions in terms of “destructively interfering with natural nerve signals” in non‑targeted areas. However, “Demon Idol Academy XIII” (“DIA XIII”) is a virtual reality game system that provides multi‑point haptic and neural feedback to the user’s body, including both (i) increasing sensation at certain avatar‑mapped regions and (ii) actively suppressing or “numbing” sensation in other regions to prevent sensory overload and to focus the player’s perception on the active points of interaction. DIA XIII teaches generating cancellation or counter‑signals along non‑active channels to reduce or block natural or background signals.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify Exactor’s system to incorporate DIA XIII’s technique of actively sending counter‑signals to non‑targeted regions in order to more effectively isolate and emphasize the induced sensations at the interrogation target site. Accordingly, the subject matter of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 would have been obvious over Exactor in view of DIA XIII.
Dependent claims 1-7, 9-14, and 16-20
Claims 2, 9, and 16 further recite adjusting parameters (frequency, intensity, duration) to reproduce different categories of pain. Exactor explicitly teaches that the interrogator selects and adjusts the manner in which stimuli are applied at the target region, varying the strength or force of the applied stimulus, the pattern and repetition of application, and the length of time the stimulus is maintained or cycled. Accordingly, claims 2, 9, and 16 would be obvious over Exactor.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 further recite simulating the sensation of sprouting a tail and ears by applying a first pattern of sensory stimuli to a subject’s torso and a second pattern of sensory stimuli to the subject’s head, whereas the stimuli are coordinated in time. The graphic novel series “Nekomimi Crusaders” depicts characters undergoing transformations where they simultaneously grow tails from their torsos and ears from their heads, causing them physical pain and embarrassment.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 further recite simulating the sensation of childbirth via the urethra by emitting signals with a gaussian waveform to the area of the male member. Issue 47 of the periodical publication “Edgeplay Monthly” (“Edgeplay”) teaches using e-stim power boxes which generate programmable electrical impulses with custom waveform envelopes, including Gaussian waves, and targeting the male member to simulate “internal expansion.”
Claims 5, 12, and 19 further recite simulating the sensation of being constricted by tentacles by applying sequential trains of electrical pulses, each train comprising a ramp-up phase of increasing amplitude, a sustained hold phase at peak amplitude, and a ramp-down phase of decreasing amplitude. In the animated series “Galactic Kraken Odyssey” (“Odyssey”), the heroine is abducted by a giant octopus. The octopus wraps its tentacles around her limbs, tightening for a period of time, sustaining the hold, then loosening its grip.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 further recite simulating the sensation of being dissolved in acid by emitting high-frequency short pulses with randomized intervals and noise modulation across widespread skin regions. The horror movie “The Melting” (“Melting”) depicts victims’ bodies dissolving in an acid bath with irregular bubbling, fizzing spread across skin surfaces, and stinging/burning progression.
Claims 7 and 14 further recite simulating the sensation of drowning in a gelatin-based dessert by emitting low-frequency throbbing waves overlaid with irregular high-frequency bubbling bursts to chest and throat regions. The food services training video “Gelatin Asphyxiation Safety” (“GAS”) shows a dramatization of a food worker falling into an industrial vat of gelatin and experiencing throbbing and bubbling bursts in the chest and throat regions.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, to modify Exactor’s system to incorporate these various patterns and targeting approaches, as each reference demonstrates methods of creating specific sensory experiences through controlled stimulus patterns. The motivation to combine would have been to expand the repertoire of simulated sensations available to the interrogator, thereby increasing the psychological impact and effectiveness of non-injurious information extraction. Accordingly, the subject matter of dependent claims 4-7, 9-14, and 16-20 would have been obvious over Exactor in view of the cited prior art.
Conclusion
The application stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The examiner has identified amendments to the claims that would overcome the outstanding rejections by focusing on the non-injurious nature of the invention and its specific utility in the current extraterrestrial conflict. The examiner encourages the applicant to set up an interview to discuss potential claim amendments that would expedite allowance in service of humanity’s urgent defense needs.
Examiner Signature: /Oby McMullen/
Date: November 22, 2075
Comments