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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 17 March 2025 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 13/903,832, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The prior-filed application fails to provide support for the behavior change suggestion comprising instructions for the user to control the computing device to modify the aspect of the user’s environment. As such, the effective filing date for claim 12 is 22 August 2017.
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 1-3, 5-10, and 12-22 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 disclosure fails to provide an adequate written description for determining an assessment of an effectiveness of a behavior change suggestion, wherein the assessment comprises “an evaluation of occurrence of a behavior change”. Paragraphs [0043-0044] of Applicant’s published specification describe an assessment of an effectiveness of a behavior change, the assessment being an “adherence metric”. There is no description of the assessment/adherence metric comprising “an evaluation of occurrence of a behavior change”. The only assessment/adherence metric described is one of regional and/or global changes in brain activity prior to and after receiving a behavior change suggestion. Regarding claim 15, the originally filed disclosure fails to provide adequate support for “each of the first set of supplemental users having performed the first action during a recording of the anonymized bioelectrical signal data”. The original disclosure also fails to adequately describe generating an analysis of the first bioelectrical signal data by comparing the anonymized bioelectrical signal data for the first set of supplemental users associated with the first action to the first bioelectrical signal dataset, wherein the comparison is with respect to a speed of brain adaptation to the first stimulus and retention of brain activity levels associated with the first stimulus. While the specification mentions “the speed at which the brain of the user adapts to a new stimulus”, it fails to adequately describe how a comparison would be performed with respect to a speed of brain adaptation to the first stimulus. Regarding claim 19, the originally filed disclosure fails to provide an adequate written description of determining assessment of “both occurrence of a behavior change and adherence of the behavior change”. Regarding claim 21, the originally filed disclosure fails to provide an adequate written description for “using the computing device, presenting to the user a comparison of the evaluation of adherence to a set of adherence metrics determined for multiple other users”.
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 1-3, 5-10, 12-14, 19, and 22 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 what is meant by “an evaluation of occurrence of a behavior change”. A reading of the specification has failed to provide guidance as to what it means for the assessment to comprise “an evaluation of occurrence of a behavior change”. For examination purposes, claim 1 is being interpreted such that an assessment of an effectiveness of the behavior change suggestion is determined, wherein the assessment is performed during and/or after the occurrence of the behavior change. The same indefiniteness issue is also present in claim 19. Claim 22 recites the phrase “a mental state recipe”. It is unclear what is meant by the phrase “a mental state recipe”.
Claims not explicitly rejected above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le et al.’733 (US Pub No. 2007/0173733 – previously cited) in view of Viswanathan’934 (US Pub No. 2007/0238934 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Le et al.’733 discloses a method for facilitating behavior change for a user, the method comprising: determining a target mental state (sections [0009], [0031], [0097] – in order to store data representing a ‘target emotion’ and to create control signals that control an environment to ‘evoke the target emotion’, the target emotion, i.e., target mental state, must first be determined); collecting a first bioelectrical signal dataset from the user using a biosignal neuroheadset comprising a set of electrodes (neuroheadset 102 of Figure 1B, sections [0033], [0037-0038], and [0047-0048]); and with a processor at a remote server (processor 112 of Figure 1B): generating an analysis of the first bioelectrical signal dataset (sections [0039], [0045-0046], [0053-0064], and [0070-0088]); determining a behavior change suggestion to achieve the target mental state based on the analysis and based on the target mental state (sections [0009], [0031], [0097]), wherein the behavior change suggestion facilitates adjustment of at least one of timing, frequency, or duration of a second stimulus, wherein the second stimulus comprises an aspect of the user’s environment, wherein the aspect comprises at least one of audio-visual content, digital pictures and art, music, lighting, temperature, sound or appliance operation (sections [0009], [0011], [0042], and [0093-0098]); presenting the behavior change suggestion to the user using a computing device (sections [0009], [0011], [0042], and [0093-0098] – the behavior change suggestion is transmitted to computing device 150 of Figure 1B, the computing device enacting the behavior change suggestion); and, with the set of electrodes of the biosignal neuroheadset, collecting a second bioelectrical signal dataset from the user associated with the behavior change suggestion, wherein presenting the behavior change suggestion comprises providing the second stimulus to the user (section [0098]).
Le et al.’733 discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed above, except for the behavior change suggestion comprising instructions for the user to modify the aspect of the user’s environment. Viswanathan’934 teaches that behavior change suggestions that facilitate adjusting an aspect of a user’s environment (playing specific songs or music genre, specific movies or genre of movie, light settings, taking a hot water bath) may be provided as instructions/suggestions/recommendations for the adjustments to be performed (section [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the method of Le et al.’733 such that the behavior change suggestions comprise instructions presented to the user to modify the aspect of the user’s environment. The modification to Le et al.’733 would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (automatically adjusting the user’s environment, while also presenting a visual indication to the user as to what the adjustment is). It is noted that the instructions are a prompt for a second action associated with the second stimulus, the second action being modifying the aspect of the user’s environment.
As the method of Le et al.’733 is performed iteratively (sections [0074], [0083-0084], [0097-0098]), the method comprises providing a first stimulus to the user for prompting a first action (a first iteration of determining and effecting a behavior change suggestion), analyzing a first bioelectrical signal data set corresponding to the first behavior change suggestion to determine a second behavior change suggestion, and presenting the second behavior change suggestion to the user, the second behavior change suggestion comprising a prompt/instructions for the user to modify the aspect of the user’s environment.
The method further comprises, with the processor of the remote server, determining an assessment of the effectiveness of behavior change suggestion based on the second bioelectrical signal dataset, wherein the assessment comprises an evaluation of occurrence of a behavior change and an evaluation of adherence of the behavior change to the behavior change suggestion, wherein the evaluation of adherence comprises a quantitative metric (a weighting) characterizing at least one of: improvement, stagnation, or regression in user behavior; and transmitting the assessment to the computing device (sections [0009], [0095], and [0097-0098] of Le et al.’733). The quantitative metric (weighting value determined from brain activity) would characterize at least one of improvement, stagnation, or regression in user behavior.
Regarding claim 2, presenting the behavior change suggestion to the user comprises presenting, with the remote server, the behavior change suggestion to the computing device to control the computing device to adjust the aspect of the user’s environment (sections [0009], [0011], [0042], and [0093-0098] of Le et al.’733).
Regarding claim 3, generating the analysis comprises determining a mental state of the user based on the first bioelectrical signal dataset (sections [0029-0031] of Le et al.’733); wherein determining the behavior change comprises generating a mental state recipe based on the mental state of the user, wherein the mental state recipe comprises a set of steps configured to bring the user to a specific mental state (sections [0093-0098] of Le et al.’733).
Regarding claim 6, collecting the first bioelectrical signal dataset comprises collecting the first bioelectrical signal dataset associated with the user receiving first content (sections [0096-0098] of Le et al.’733 – the first bioelectrical signal dataset is collected while the user interacts with the interactive environment), wherein collecting the second bioelectrical signal dataset comprises collecting the second bioelectrical signal dataset associated with the user receiving second content (sections [0096-0098] of Le et al.’733 – the second bioelectrical signal dataset is collected while the user interacts with the updated interactive environment), and wherein the behavior change is associated with the second content (sections [0096-0098] of Le et al.’733 – the updated interactive environment that is provided as second content to the user is provided based on the behavior change suggestion).
Regarding claim 7, the second content comprises at least one of an advertisement or interactive content (sections [0042], [0097], and [0099] of Le et al.’733), wherein the behavior change suggestion comprises a suggestion to adjust at least one of lighting or sound associated with the at least one of the advertisement or the interactive content (section [0097] of Le et al.’733).
Regarding claim 8, determining the behavior change suggestion comprises determining a positive reinforcement mechanism for the user based on the analysis of the first bioelectrical signal dataset (sections [0009], [0095], and [0097-0098] of Le et al.’733 discuss determining an effectiveness of the behavior change suggestion based on changes in the emotional state of the user; updates to future behavior change suggestions are implemented based on the user’s response to the initial behavior change suggestion; determining the effectiveness of each behavior change suggestion is analogous to determining a positive reinforcement mechanism), wherein presenting the behavior change suggestion to the user comprises transmitting the positive reinforcement mechanism to the computing device to facilitate an adjustment of the at least one of lighting, temperature, or sound associated with at least one of an advertisement or the interactive content (sections [0009], [0095], and [0097-0098] of Le et al.’733).
Regarding claim 9, the adjustment of the aspect of the user’s environment inherently comprises modification of a software parameter of the computing device to adjust the aspect of the user’s environment (per application 152 of computing device 150 of Figure 1B of Le et al.’733).
Regarding claim 13, the method of Le et al.’733 includes collecting second bioelectrical signal data from the user to determine an emotional response of the user once the behavior change suggestion has been put into effect (section [0098]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have tried collecting the second bioelectrical signal data either contemporaneously with the behavior change, or directly after the behavior change, as it would be choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, the set of electrodes comprise EEG electrodes (section [0007] of Le et al.’733).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le et al.’733 in view of Viswanathan’934, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Pradeep et al.’068 (US Pub No. 2009/0327068 – previously cited).
Le et al.’733 in view of Viswanathan’934 discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed in paragraph 9 above, except for the method comprising determining a similarity between the user and a group of users, and providing the second stimulus to the group of users based on the similarity, wherein the second stimulus is operable to elicit similar brain activity between the user and the group of users. Pradeep et al.’068 teaches determining a similarity between a user and a group of users, and providing a second stimulus to the group of users based on the similarity, wherein the second stimulus is operable to elicit similar brain activity between the user and the group of users. Pradeep et al.’068 teaches performing these steps in order to enhance stimulus targeting for particular subjects and groups (sections [0023], [0025], and [0027-0028]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the method of Le et al.’733 in view of Viswanathan’934 to include determining a similarity between the user and a group of users, and providing the second stimulus to the group of users based on the similarity, wherein the second stimulus is operable to elicit similar brain activity between the user and the group of users, as Pradeep et al.’068 teaches that this would enhance stimulus targeting (i.e., behavior change suggestions) for the user.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le et al.’733 in view of Viswanathan’934, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Leininger et al.’999 (US Pub No. 2012/0108999 – previously cited).
Le et al.’733 in view of Viswanathan’934 discloses storing bioelectrical signal data associated with a set of supplemental users associated with the first action (the bioelectrical signal data is clustered by action), wherein generating the analysis with the processor of the remote server comprises generating the analysis of the first bioelectrical signal dataset based on the bioelectrical signal data for the set of supplemental users associated with the first action (section [0073] of Le et al.’733). Le et al.’733 fails to disclose that the stored bioelectrical signal data is anonymized bioelectrical signal data. Leininger et al.’999 teaches storing anonymized bioelectrical signal data in a remote server (section [0063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the method of Le et al.’733 in view of Viswanathan’934 to include storing anonymized bioelectrical signal data, as taught by Leininger et al.’999, since it would merely be combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Anonymizing the bioelectrical signal data of the supplemental users would help ensure the privacy of the supplemental users.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le et al.’733 in view of Viswanathan’934, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hettrick et al.’535 (US Pub No. 2016/0095535 – previously cited).
Le et al.’733 in view of Viswanathan’934 discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed in paragraph 9 above, except for the instructions comprising instructions for the user to control the computing device. Hettrick et al.’535 discloses that control of a computing device may be performed either automatically, or by a user via instructions provided to the user (sections [0033] and [0063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the method of Le et al.’733 in view of Viswanathan’934 to include providing the instructions for the user to control the computing device to modify the aspect of the user’s environment as it would be the simple substitution of one known method (manual modification of a computing device) for another (automatic control of a computing device) to obtain predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 March 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s assertion that the prior-filed application supports the subject matter of claim 12 is not persuasive as Applicant fails to provide details of where in the prior-filed application the subject matter of claim 12 is supported.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 in view of the previously cited prior art, the specification describes determining an effectiveness of the behavior change suggestions, wherein the effectiveness is an indication of an adherence to the behavior change suggestion. As disclosed in section [0043] of the published specification, a change in brain activity pre and post behavior change suggestion is indicative of changes in behavior and/or adherence to the behavior brain suggestion. As the cited prior art teaches determining an assessment of the effectiveness of the behavior change suggestion based on changes in brain activity pre and post implementing a behavior change suggestion, it also evaluates an adherence to the behavior change suggestion, wherein the evaluation is performed after the occurrence of the behavior change. The quantitative metric of Le (weighting value determined from brain activity) would characterize at least one of improvement, stagnation, or regression in user behavior.
In view of the amendments made to claim 15, the prior art rejections of claim 15 and claims dependent on claim 15 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lowe’474 (US Pub No. 2005/0079474 – previously cited) and Aimone et al.’462 (US Pub No. 2014/0223462 – cited by Applicant) both teach a method for facilitating behavior change for a user, wherein the method comprises determining a target mental state by having a user select the target mental state. Dilorenzo’931 (US Pub No. 2007/0287931 – previously cited) and Snell’088 (US Pub No. 2012/0265088 – previously cited) both teach providing a change suggestion as instructions to a user.
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