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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 01/14/2026 (“Amendment”). Claims 51, 52, 54-57, 59-62, 64-67, 69-71, 73, and 75 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claims 51, 55, 60, 61, 65, and 70.
The objection(s) to the drawings, specification, and/or claims, the interpretation(s) under 35 USC 112(f), and/or the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 and/or 35 USC 112 not reproduced below has/have been withdrawn in view of the corresponding amendments.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 61 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “a difference between first” should instead read –a difference between the first--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 51, 52, 54-57, 59-62, 64-67, 69-71, 73, and 75 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 claims 51 and 61, there is no support for calibrating based on a difference between the first biometric measurement and a first biometric measurement threshold. ¶ 0163 of the specification as filed describes taking a difference between the measurement and an expected temperature. An expected temperature is not the same as a threshold.
Regarding claims 51, 55, 61, and 65, there is no support for “based at least in part.” E.g. for claims 51 and 61, the specification only contemplates calibration by using an additional sensor. For claims 55 and 65, there is no support for the quality being based on more than one measurement, or determining whether there is obstruction based on anything other than an oxygen concentration or distance to the skin. Further, scaling is not necessarily the same as calibration, and the claims do not correspond to any particular described embodiment. I.e., the breadth of the claims is not supported since it contemplates more than what is described in the specification.
Claims 52, 54-57, 59-60, 62, 64-67, 69-71, 73, and 75 are rejected because they depend on rejected claims.
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 51, 54-57, 59, 61, 64-67, 69, and 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over various teachings of US Patent Application Publication 2002/0077534 (“DuRousseau”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2014/0051044 (“Badower”).
Regarding claim 51, DuRousseau teaches [a] method comprising: determining, from a first sensor of a first sensor type positioned on a body, a first biometric measurement associated with a first position on the body (Fig. 1, via sensor placement unit 10, which may be connected to a temperature transducer - ¶ 0025); and calibrating, based at least in part on the first position and … the first biometric measurement …, a second sensor … at the first position to determine a second biometric measurement associated with the first position on the body via the second sensor (¶¶s 0041 and 0044 describe calibration, training, and feedback adjustment at a classifier stage prior to classification, as well as re-weighting of a Physical Activity Set (which selects sensors). The calibration allows determination of other measurements associated with additional sensors of the unit 10 (¶ 0024 describes the unit as locating several transducer devices to obtain signals in different channels). Also see ¶ 0042 and Fig. 2, step 36 - a training mode).
Although DuRousseau does not appear to explicitly teach calibrating e.g. EEG data using temperature data, it does teach using a second sensor of a second sensor type, different from the first sensor type (¶ 0025, EEG or EMG), and describes calibrating, training, or adjusting outputs based on feedback from different sensors (¶ 0044 - also see Fig. 2, elements 34, 36, and 42).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use temperature data as part of the feedback since it is contemplated as being used to generate control signals (¶¶s 0025 and 0030), for the purpose of being able to use both electrophysiological and physical measurements for control, thus more comprehensively/finely tuning the classification (¶¶s 0025 and 0030).
DuRousseau does not appear to explicitly teach the calibrating being based on a difference between the first biometric measurement and a first biometric measurement threshold.
Badower teaches evaluating a signal based on a signal metric as compared to a threshold (¶ 0229). The signal may be e.g. a temperature signal from a thermometer (¶ 0228). This evaluation indicates the integrity of the data and/or the quality of the connection between the headset and scalp (¶ 0229).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a threshold with the temperature sensor of the combination, as in Badower, for the purpose of improving the feedback by reporting on sensor integrity or connection quality for all sensors, and determining which signals are acceptable (Badower: ¶ 0229).
Regarding claim 61, DuRousseau teaches [a] system comprising: a plurality of sensors configured to determine one or more biometric measurements associated with positions on a body (Fig. 1, sensor placement unit 10 capable of receiving a plurality of different signals from different transducers -¶ 0025); control circuitry (Fig. 1, PC 16 running software subroutines from library 18 (¶ 0024)) configured to: determine, from a first sensor of the plurality of sensors, the first sensor being of a first sensor type, a first biometric measurement associated with a first position on the body (Fig. 1, via sensor placement unit 10, which may be connected to a temperature transducer - ¶ 0025); and calibrate, based at least in part on the first position and … first biometric measurement …, a second sensor of the plurality of sensors, …, at the first position to determine a second biometric measurement associated with the first position on the body via the second sensor (¶¶s 0041 and 0044 describe calibration, training, and feedback adjustment at a classifier stage prior to classification, as well as re-weighting of a Physical Activity Set (which selects sensors). The calibration allows determination of other measurements associated with additional sensors of the unit 10 (¶ 0024 describes the unit as locating several transducer devices to obtain signals in different channels). Also see ¶ 0042 and Fig. 2, step 36 - a training mode).
Although DuRousseau does not appear to explicitly teach calibrating e.g. EEG data using temperature data, it does teach using a second sensor of a second sensor type, different from the first sensor type (¶ 0025, EEG or EMG), and describes calibrating, training, or adjusting outputs based on feedback from different sensors (¶ 0044 - also see Fig. 2, elements 34, 36, and 42).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use temperature data as part of the feedback since it is contemplated as being used to generate control signals (¶¶s 0025 and 0030), for the purpose of being able to use both electrophysiological and physical measurements for control, thus more comprehensively/finely tuning the classification (¶¶s 0025 and 0030).
DuRousseau does not appear to explicitly teach the calibrating being based on a difference between the first biometric measurement and a first biometric measurement threshold.
Badower teaches evaluating a signal based on a signal metric as compared to a threshold (¶ 0229). The signal may be e.g. a temperature signal from a thermometer (¶ 0228). This evaluation indicates the integrity of the data and/or the quality of the connection between the headset and scalp (¶ 0229).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a threshold with the temperature sensor of the combination, as in Badower, for the purpose of improving the feedback by reporting on sensor integrity or connection quality for all sensors, and determining which signals are acceptable (Badower: ¶ 0229).
Regarding claims 54 and 64, DuRousseau-Badower teaches all the features with respect to the corresponding claims 51 and 61, as outlined above. Regarding claim 54, DuRousseau-Badower further teaches activating the second sensor (DuRousseau: ¶ 0024, another of the several transducer devices, activated based on the re-weighing or selected Physical Activity Set described in ¶¶s 0041 and 0043); measuring, using the second sensor, the second biometric measurement (DuRousseau: ¶ 0024, using the other transducer device); and identifying, based on the second biometric measurement using the second sensor, one or more media interaction operations (DuRousseau: ¶ 0050, bio-adaptive user interface, ¶¶s 0057, 0058, etc., operating a GUI; Abstract, replacing the functions of a mouse, keypad, etc.).
Claim 64 is rejected in like manner.
Regarding claims 55-57 and 65-67, DuRousseau-Badower teaches all the features with respect to the corresponding claims 51 and 61, as outlined above. Regarding claims 55-57, DuRousseau-Badower further teaches determining, based at least in part on the first biometric measurement, a detection quality of the second biometric measurement; and determining whether detection of the second biometric measurement is obstructed at the first position based at least in part on the detection quality and the first biometric measurement, wherein the second biometric measurement is characterized by a plurality of constituent signals, and wherein the calibrating further comprises: based at least in part on determining that the detection of the second biometric measurement is obstructed at the first position, scaling an intensity of the plurality of constituent signals based on the first biometric measurement to improve the detection quality of the second biometric measurement, wherein the scaling the intensity of the plurality of constituent signals comprises: scaling an intensity of each of an alpha band constituent signal, a beta band constituent signal, a delta band constituent signal, a gamma band constituent signal, and a theta band constituent signal (Badower teaches a signal evaluator that identifies a measurement type and evaluates signal quality, and a signal conditioner that amplifies signals of insufficient quality to improve their quality (¶¶s 0229, 0230). Badower teaches determining whether there is an obstruction based on detection quality (¶ 0229, insufficient contact between the headset and the scalp). Badower teaches receiving multiple signals and scaling those of insufficient quality (¶ 0230). The scaled signals include delta, theta, alpha, beta, and/or gamma frequencies (¶ 0060). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the detection-quality-based scaling claimed, in DuRousseau as in Badower, for the purpose of obtaining more usable data (Badower: ¶ 0230, not ignoring or discarding the data)).
Claim 65-67 are rejected in like manner.
Regarding claims 59 and 69, DuRousseau-Badower teaches all the features with respect to the corresponding claims 51 and 61, as outlined above. Regarding claim 59, DuRousseau-Badower further teaches wherein the first biometric measurement comprises one or more of a temperature, an oxygen concentration, an optical reflectance, or an optical absorbance (DuRousseau: ¶ 0025, temperature), and wherein the second biometric measurement comprises one or both of an electroencephalogram (EEG) signal, or an electromyogram (EMG) signal (DuRousseau: ¶ 0025, EEG or EMG)..
Claim 69 is rejected in like manner.
Regarding claim 75, DuRousseau-Badower teaches all the features with respect to claim 51, as outlined above. DuRousseau-Badower further teaches wherein the first sensor and the second sensor are positioned at the first position on the body (DuRousseau: both sensors are e.g. on the head since both are part of sensor placement unit 10, which is one device that accommodates multiple combinations of electrodes and/or transducers – see e.g. ¶ 0026; also note that a first position may correspond to an initial position).
Claims 52, 62, 71, and 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DuRousseau-Badower in view of US Patent Application Publication 2009/0326406 (“Tan”).
Regarding claims 52 and 62, DuRousseau-Badower teaches all the features with respect to the corresponding claims 51 and 61, as outlined above. Regarding claim 52, DuRousseau-Badower do not appear to explicitly teach wherein the calibrating comprises generating for display instructions to reposition a device component of a device on the body to determine the second biometric measurement, wherein the device component comprises the first sensor and the second sensor.
Tan teaches displaying automated cues or instructions to a user to fine-tune placement of a wearable EMG device on the head (Abstract, ¶ 0044 - also see ¶ 0053, describing visual feedback).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display instructions for the user to reposition their device in the combination as in Tan, for the purpose of enabling sensor nodes to better capture the desired data (Tan: ¶ 0044).
Claim 62 is rejected in like manner.
Regarding claims 71 and 73, DuRousseau-Badower-Tan teaches all the features with respect to the corresponding claims 52 and 62, as outlined above. Regarding claim 71, DuRousseau-Badower-Tan further teaches wherein the device is a wearable device positioned on the body (DuRousseau: Fig. 1, wearable sensor placement unit 10), and wherein the instructions indicate user activity information that corresponds to the first position and the second biometric measurement (DuRousseau: ¶ 0025, control signals indicating user activity; Tan: ¶ 0053, visual feedback of e.g. a cursor moving, Abstract, ¶ 0044, fine-tuning device placement).
Claim 73 is rejected in like manner.
Claims 60 and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DuRousseau-Badower in view of US Patent Application Publication 2013/0012829 (“Jo”).
Regarding claims 60 and 70, DuRousseau-Badower teaches all the features with respect to the corresponding claims 51 and 61, as outlined above. Regarding claim 60, DuRousseau-Badower further teaches subsequent to the calibrating, determining the second biometric measurement (DuRousseau: ¶ 0030, real time/continuous assessment means that additional measurements are obtained after training/calibration - also see ¶ 0044, describing feedback, re-weighing, etc. and ¶ 0024, describing different transducers at different locations); determining, based at least in part on the second biometric measurement, a brain state of the user (DuRousseau: ¶¶s 0030, 0043, 0044, etc., Fig. 2, cognitive, stress, and motion assessment as well as classification to generate control signals (based on which activity the brain is trying to perform)), but does not appear to explicitly teach generating, for display at a display screen associated with a user device coupled to the second sensor, one or more content recommendations corresponding to the brain state.
Jo teaches using brain wave information to recommend content to a user (¶¶s 0030, 0045, 0076).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to output to the display of the combination (DuRousseau: ¶¶s 0046, 0069, etc.) a content recommendation based on a detect brain state, as in Jo, for the purpose of being able to provide preferred/favorable content (Jo: ¶¶s 0030, 0076).
Claim 70 is rejected in like manner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered.
They are persuasive to the extent that the previous rejection did not explicitly teach comparison with a threshold. Therefore, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Badower, and all claims remain rejected in light of the prior art..
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREY SHOSTAK whose telephone number is (408) 918-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 am - 3 pm.
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 on (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.
/ANDREY SHOSTAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights