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: “auditory neural stimulator” in claim 9, and “auditory stimulator” in claim 19.
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.
According to the specification, the auditory neural stimulator/auditory stimulator is stereo headphones or speakers.
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, 16, and 17 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; algorithmically fuse a determined mental state with the analyzed content of the scene to generate a synchronized contextual profile; or annotate the one or more digital images with metadata representing the synchronized contextual profile.
Regarding claim 18, the originally filed specification fails to provide support for an automated digital processor configured to control a presentation of a video image of a scene after the acquisition of the video image of the scene dependent on semantic labels associated with the video image of the scene. There is no description in the specification of modifying or adjusting or controlling a video image of a scene captured by a digital camera. Instead, the specification describes controlling a digital camera to capture a video image of a scene, determining semantic labels associated with the video image of the scene, and “stimulating a viewer of the images with at least one stimulus modulated by the waveform to induce in the view the desired mental state” (as seen in section [1073] of the published specification). The “at least one stimulus” that is created is described in sections [0862-0863] of the published specification; none of the listed stimuli is the video image of the scene that was used to create the associated semantic labels.
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 1-11 and 19 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 1, it is unclear if the “a context of the scene derived from the one or more digital images” is the same as or different than the previously recited “the… context of the one or more digital images”. Clarification is requested.
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 19, it is unclear if the claimed “a different user” is referring to the “a different user” of claim 18 or to an additional “a different user”. Clarification is requested.
Claims not explicitly rejected above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 May 2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the rejections of claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to omit the rejected aspect of the claims. As neither claim 1 nor claim 13 was amended to remove the rejected aspect of the respective claim, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been maintained.
Regarding the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), while the amendments to the claim have overcome the previous rejection, they have warranted a new 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection.
Regarding the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), while the amendments have overcome some of the previous rejections, as noted in paragraph 7 above, indefiniteness issues remain within the claims.
Regarding the interpretation of “an auditory neural stimulator” in claim 9 and “an auditory stimulator” in claim 19, as the specification makes note of providing binaural beats to a user via stereo headphones or speakers, the 35 U.S.C. 112(f)-based rejection of claims 9 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Regarding the interpretation of “visual stimulator” in claim 21, because the limitation recites that the visual stimulator comprises a light emitting device (i.e., the phrase “visual stimulator” is modified by structural language, the phrase is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 analyze a content of a scene based on one or more captured digital images, and algorithmically fuse a determined mental state with the analyzed content of the scene to generate a synchronized contextual profile, in combination with the other claimed elements.
Regarding claim 18, none of the prior art teaches or suggests, either alone or in combination, a system comprising at least one automated digital processor configured to control a presentation of a video image of a scene after the acquisition of the video image of the scene dependent on semantic labels associated with the video image of the scene, 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 Aimone et al.’462 (US Pub No. 2014/0223462 – previously cited) is the closest prior art combination applicable to the claimed invention. Chatterjee et al.’915 discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed above, except for the biometric input comprising a brain wave activity of the user. MacInnis et al.’491 teaches that biometric input comprising a brain wave activity of user can be analyzed to determine a mental state of the user while the user visually experiences one or more digital images of a scene (sections [0027], [0032], [0045], and [0050-0051]). Chatterjee et al.’915 in view of MacInnis et al.’491 discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed above, except for processing the received biometric input using a machine learning classifier. Aimone et al.’462 teaches processing received biometric input (brain wave activity of a user) using a machine learning classifier to produce metadata semantic labels representing emotional states of a user (section [0249]).
Samec et al.’101 (US Pub No. 2017/0365101) provides motivation for presenting binaural beats to a different user viewing a presentation based on determined emotional states of a user (section [0845]).
Hamiti et al.’347 (US Pub No. 2018/0332347 – previously cited) teaches that images/videos can be analyzed using a machine learning system comprising a convolution neural network in order to identify objects in the images/videos.
MacInnis et al.’491 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.
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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights