DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08 June 2026 has been entered.
Claims 12 – 14, 16 and 19 – 20 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 12 – 14, 16 and 20.
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 Objections
Claims 12 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12, line 7, “a first and a second sensory stimuli” should read -- a first sensory stimuli and a second sensory stimuli--.
Claim 12, lines 8 - 9, “the first and the second sensory stimuli” should read --the first sensory stimuli and the second sensory stimuli --.
Claim 16, lines 7 – 8, “the first and second stimuli” should read --the first stimuli and second stimuli--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 12 – 14, 16 and 19 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoonover et al (US 20140221779 A1, hereinafter Schoonover) in view of Siever & Collura (2017, hereinafter “Siever”).
Regarding claim 12, Schoonover teaches a multimodal sensory device (“Headband unit 14”, [0091]) for promoting sleep in a subject (abstract, “a method and a system for enhancing a user's dream stages”, [0002], [0003]), comprising:
a) a first sensory delivery component (“light emitting bars 20”, [0091], Figure 1; [0016]);
b) a second sensory delivery component (“speaker system 24”, [0091], Figure 1; [0016]); and
c) a controller (“processor 36”, [0099] - [0100], [0094]),
wherein the first and the second sensory delivery components (20 and 24, respectively) are constructed and arranged for delivering a first and a second sensory stimuli (“AV stimuli”, [0018], [0024], [0114], [0118], [0130] – [0132]) to the subject and the controller (36) is constructed and arranged to deliver the first and the second sensory stimuli at a synchronized frequency ([0130], [0133], [0016], [0020])
wherein the controller (“processor 36”, [0099] - [0100], [0094]) is constructed and arranged to deliver the synchronized frequency ([0130], [0133], [0016], [0020]).
Schoonover does not teach the controller arranged to deliver at a frequency at about 40 Hz.
However, Siever discloses “40-Hz audiovisual stimulation seems to be effective in treating cognitive, mood, and sleep disorders” (abstract) and teaches a controller arranged to deliver at a frequency at about 40 Hz (“Audio–visual entrainment (AVE) is a technique in which lights flash into the eyes while tones are pulsed into the ears in the brain wave frequency range from 1 to 40 Hz”, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Schoonover such that the controller arranged to deliver at a frequency at about 40 Hz, as taught by Siever, for the benefit of promoting calming (Siever: abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Schoonover and Siever teach all limitations of claim 12. Schoonover teaches the first sensory stimuli and the second sensory stimuli (“AV stimuli”, [0018], [0024], [0114], [0118], [0130] – [0132]) are visual stimuli ([0016], [0091]), auditory stimuli ([0016], [0091]), and tactile stimuli.
Regarding claim 14, Schoonover and Siever teach all limitations of claim 13. Schoonover teaches the first second sensory and the second sensory stimuli (“AV stimuli”, [0018], [0024], [0114], [0118], [0130] – [0132]) are a different type of stimuli (Examiner interprets AV represents audio and visual in which are different.).
Regarding claim 16, Schoonover teaches a multimodal sensory system (“a method and a system for enhancing a user's dream stages”, [0002]) for multimodal sensory stimulation of a subject (abstract, [0016]), comprising:
a) a first sensory delivery component (“light emitting bars 20”, [0091], Figure 1; [0016]) configured to deliver a first stimuli (visual aspect in “AV stimuli”, [0018], [0024], [0114], [0118], [0130] – [0132]) to a subject (“directed towards the user's eyes to stimulate and illuminate the user's ocular senses with a plurality of distinct colored lights (including white light)”, [0016], [0020]);
b) a second sensory delivery component (“speaker system 24”, [0091], Figure 1; [0016]) configured to deliver a second stimuli (audio aspect in “AV stimuli”, [0018], [0024], [0114], [0118], [0130] – [0132]) to the subject (“emits sound to the user”, [0025], [0020]); and
c) a synchronizing controller (“processor 36”, [0099] - [0100], [0094]) configured to synchronize the delivery of the first and the second stimuli (“AV stimuli”, [0018], [0024], [0114], [0118], [0130] – [0132]),
wherein the first stimuli and the second stimuli (“AV stimuli”, [0018], [0024], [0114], [0118], [0130] – [0132]) are a type of stimuli (Examiner interprets AV represents audio and visual in which are different.) selected from the group consisting of visual ([0016], [0020], [0091]), auditory ([0016], [0020], [0025] [0091]) and tactile stimuli,
wherein the first stimuli and the second stimuli (“AV stimuli”, [0018], [0024], [0114], [0118], [0130] – [0132]) are different types of stimuli (“AV stimuli”, [0018], [0024], [0114], [0118], [0130] – [0132]), and
wherein the controller (“processor 36”, [0099] - [0100], [0094]) is constructed and arranged to deliver the synchronized frequency ([0130], [0133], [0016], [0020]).
wherein the first stimuli and second stimuli (“AV stimuli”, [0018], [0024], [0114], [0118], [0130] – [0132]) are synchronized ([0130], [0133], [0016], [0020]).
Schoonover does not teach the first stimuli and second stimuli are synchronized at about 40 Hz.
However, Siever discloses “40-Hz audiovisual stimulation seems to be effective in treating cognitive, mood, and sleep disorders” (abstract) and teaches a controller arranged to deliver at a frequency at about 40 Hz (“Audio–visual entrainment (AVE) is a technique in which lights flash into the eyes while tones are pulsed into the ears in the brain wave frequency range from 1 to 40 Hz”, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Schoonover such that the controller arranged to deliver at a frequency at about 40 Hz, as taught by Siever, for the benefit of promoting calming (Siever: abstract).
Regarding claim 19, Schoonover and Siever teach all limitations of claim 16. Schoonover teaches the system (“a method and a system for enhancing a user's dream stages”, [0002]) comprising at least one EEG electrode (“measures the user's Electroencephalography (EEG) and Electrooculography (EOG) activity directly via stainless steel active dry electrodes”, [0060], [0016], [0092]) configured for measuring brain oscillations of the subject ([0016] – [0017], [0019], [0022]).
Regarding claim 20, Schoonover and Siever teach all limitations of claim 19. Schoonover teaches the first stimuli and the second stimuli (“AV stimuli”, [0018], [0024], [0114], [0118], [0130] – [0132]) are delivered in phase with recorded brain oscillations of the subject (“The EEG/EOG information is collected, either actively, before or after the user's sleep period, or passively during the user's sleep period, and the data is used with the DE stim device which automatically adjusts the intensity of light and/or sound, and adjusting the placement of stimuli within the REM episode (a timing event relative to the detected stim trigger), to best suit the user.”, [0089]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 June 2026, with respect to specification objection to the abstract have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The specification objection to the abstract of 6 January 2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08 June 2026, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The claim objections for claims 13 – 14, 16 and 20 of 6 January 2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 08 June 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections for claims 16 and 19 - 20 of 6 January 2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, page 8, filed 08 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends “Schoonover's purpose is to detect sleep phase and then deliver stimuli to affect the content or lucidity of dreams-not to promote or achieve sleep. There is no teaching in Schoonover that the presented stimuli have any effect on a subject actually achieving sleep.”. However, lucid dreaming relates to rapid eye movement (REM) sleep (Schoonover: [0005]) and Schoonover discloses “the processor 36 generates lucid stimuli commands which cause LEDs 60, 62 to emit the correct colored light in the correct intensity. The color and intensity are programmed generally by the user as lucid stimuli commands. If the user has programmed audio commands, the audio commands are processed by processor 36 which activates input/output module 40 and onboard transceiver 68. Transceiver 68 sends a signal representative of the audio stimuli command to smart phone 32 and transceiver 69. Smart phone 32 then activates accesses its audio playback memory and the audio speaker 78 which presents audible sound to the user during his or her REM sleep stage.” (Schoonover: [0100]). Additionally, “promoting sleep in a subject” as recited in claim 1 is intended use.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9 - 10, filed 08 June 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 12 – 14, 16 and 19 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Schoonover et al (US 20140221779 A1, hereinafter Schoonover) in view of Siever & Collura (2017, hereinafter “Siever”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Widjaja discloses “systems, methods, and articles for stress reduction and sleep promotion” (abstract) and teaches a controller (“microprocessor 100” column 6, lines 51 - 54) arranged to deliver at a frequency at about 50 - 150 Hz (“the binaural beat signal fed to a first audio channel for example the left audio channel may be provided having a fixed frequency generally in the range of about 50-150 Hz”, column 17, lines 64 - 66).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIE T TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on (571) 272-4233. 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.
/JULIE THI TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights