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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “neural stimulator” in claims 9, 19, and 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11, 13, 14, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 1, the originally filed specification fails to provide support for a system comprising at least one automated digital processor configured to determine an emotional state of a user associated with an emotional response of the user to a content or context of one or more digital images of a scene captured by a camera, based on processed biometric input representing a brainwave activity from the user experiencing the emotional response and the content or context of the one or more digital images. Regarding claim 13, the originally filed specification fails to provide support for an automated digital processor configured to analyze a content of a scene based on one or more digital images using a machine learning system. The originally filed specification also fails to provide support for an automated digital processor determining a mental state of an observer based on biometric input and a content of one or more digital images. Regarding claim 18, the originally filed specification fails to provide support for an automated digital processor configured to process received biometric input and a video image of a scene according to a machine learning classifier.
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 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 21 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. Regarding claim 9, it is unclear if the claimed “an observer” is referring to the “a user” of claim 1. Clarification is requested. Regarding claim 13, the phrase “a content of the one or more digital images” in line 11 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the “a content of the one or more digital images” is the same as or different than the “a content of the scene based on the one or more digital images” recited in line 8. Clarification is requested. Regarding claim 19, it is unclear if the claimed “an observer” is referring to the “a user” of claim 18 or to the “a different user” of claim 18. Clarification is requested. Further regarding claim 19, the phrase “the emotional state of the user” (singular emotional state) lacks proper antecedent basis as claim 18 recites “the emotional states of the user” (plural emotional states of the user). Regarding claim 20, it is unclear if the “a presentation controlled by the display control device” is the same as or different than the “a presentation to a different user through the display control device” of claim 18. It is also unclear whether the “different user” of claim 18 is the same as or different than the “first observer” of claim 20. Regarding claim 21, it is unclear how a brain would be entrained with the brain wave activity received by the at least one automated digital processor.
Claim limitation “neural stimulator” in claims 9, 19, and 21 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims not explicitly rejected above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 February 2025 have been fully considered and are not entirely persuasive.
Applicant correctly points out that the newly presented issues in the Final Rejection mailed out 02 December 2025 regarding the rejections of claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) were not raised in the initial Non-Final Rejection, and were not necessitated by amendment. As such, the finality of the last Office action has been withdrawn.
It is noted that the amendments filed in the Response After Final Action, filed 02 February 2026, have not been entered as the proposed amendments change the scope of the claims. Any arguments contingent upon the entry of the proposed amendments will not be addressed at this time. With the exception of the specific rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), all rejections presented in the previously mailed out Final Rejection have been maintained.
Applicant argues on page 12 of the filed Remarks that “While the phrase is no specifically employed, the specification supports the ‘neural stimulator’ as follows.”, and then provides a list of over two hundred references which have been incorporated by reference as evidence that the filed specification provides support for the structure of the claimed “neural stimulator”. The incorporation by reference of hundreds of references does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that, at the time the invention was effectively filed, the inventor was in possession of the particularly claimed invention. An adequate written description describing the claimed invention needs to be provided in the filed specification. The filed specification of the current application does not describe the structure of the claimed “neural stimulator”, nor does it point to any particular neural stimulator that may be described in one of the incorporated references. Furthermore, the mere fact that one incorporated reference may teach some elements of the claimed invention (e.g., processing biometric input using a machine learning algorithm), and another reference may teach other elements of the claimed invention (e.g., processing a video image of a scene with a machine learning classifier) does not mean that the filed specification adequately describes an invention comprising all elements of all incorporated references. As noted above, the filed specification must provide an adequate written description that reasonably conveys to one skilled in the relevant art that, at the time the invention was effectively filed, the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding claim 1, none of the prior art teaches or suggests, either alone or in combination, a system comprising at least one automated digital processor configured to determine an emotional state of a user based on at least processed received biometric input and the content or context of one or more digital images, in combination with the other claimed elements.
Regarding claim 13, none of the prior art teaches or suggests, either alone or in combination, a system comprising at least one automated digital processor configured to determine a mental state of an observer based on received biometric input and a content of one or more digital images, in combination with the other claimed elements.
Regarding claim 18, none of the prior art teaches or suggests, either alone or in combination, an image presentation system comprising at least one automated digital processor configured to perform the “process” step recited in the claim, in combination with the other claimed elements.
For the reasons set forth in paragraphs 5 and 7 above, the claims are not in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chatterjee et al.’915 (US Pub No. 2015/0178915 – previously cited) in view of MacInnis et al.’491 (US Pub No. 2013/0262491 – previously cited) further in view of Hamiti et al.’347 (US Pub No. 2018/0332347 – previously cited), as discussed in paragraph 8 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed out 27 June 2025, is the closest prior art combination applicable to the claimed invention. MacInnis et al.’491 (US Pub No. 2013/0262491 – previously cited) further teaches triggering video capture of a scene based on an emotion of a user that is determined by analyzing biometric input, wherein the video is tagged with the determined emotion. Geva et al.’531 (US Pub No. 2018/0089531 – previously cited) teaches image classification by brain computer interface. Aimone et al.’265 (US Pub No. 2014/0347265 – previously cited) teaches tagging digital images with emotions determined from recorded electrical brain activity. Aimone et al.’462 (US Pub No. 2014/0223462 – previously cited) teaches tagging digital images with emotions determined from recorded electrical brain activity. Liu’145 (USPN 11,806,145 – previously cited) teaches tagging digital images with emotions determined from recorded electrical brain activity. Weng et al.’393 (USPN 11,531,393 – previously cited) teaches using a machine learning algorithm to determine a person’s mood.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETSUB D BERHANU whose telephone number is (571)270-5410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:30pm EST.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/ETSUB D BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791