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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary Amendment dated 01/04/2022 has been formally entered and claims 1-9 submitted with Preliminary Amendment dated 01/04/2022 are being examined on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character : [a] “121” has been used to designate both “movable bar” (see instant specification as-filed at least page 19 line 28)and “EEG measuring electrode” (see instant specification as-filed at least page 19 line 28); [b] “122” has been used to designate both “movable bar” (see instant specification as-filed at least page 19 line 28)and “EEG measuring electrode” (see instant specification as-filed at least page 19 line 28); [c] “12” has been used to designate both “motor” (see instant specification as-filed at least page 21 line 6) and “body part” (see instant specification as-filed at least page 19 line 23).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“…mounting means for mounting the main body on the face In the headphone and breathing meditation inducing device capable of EEG measurement, characterized in that the control box is further provided with a memory card holder for inserting a memory card, the headphone installation part has an inner surface” in abstract needs to be corrected . A suggested correction is – …mounting means for mounting the main body on the face. The headphone and breathing meditation inducing device capable of EEG measurement, characterized in that the control box is further provided with a memory card holder for inserting a memory card, the headphone installation part has an inner surface--. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
“…hypertension, depression and anxiety It is known that the sympathetic and parasympathetic nerves … in page 1 lines 10-11 needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is -- hypertension, depression and anxiety. It is known that the sympathetic and parasympathetic nerves --.
“…MEDITATION IDCUCTION SYSTEM FOR DISPLAYING…” in title on page 1 of specification as-filed dated needs to be corrected to -- …MEDITATION [[IDCUCTION]] INDUCTION SYSTEM FOR DISPLAYING…-
Page 3 lines 7-9, page 3 line 24, page 4 line 19, page 5 line 17, page 5 line 26, page 6 lines 8-9, page 7 line 30, page 10 line 15, page 19 lines 21-22, page 24 line 13, page 25 line 27, page 27 line 3, page 27 line 10, page 32 line 27, page 33 lines 8-9, page 33 line 16 (“water”), page 33 line 18, page 33 lines 25-26, page 34 line 3, page 34 line 6, page 34 line 28, page 34 line 23, page 34 lines 32 (“ice”), page 36 line 10, page 39 line 17, page 40 line 22 and line 26, page 41 line 4, page 47 line 2, lines 7-8 and line 24, page 48 line 14, page 49 line 26, page 50 line 11 include numerous informalities and need to be corrected.
Appropriate correction is required.
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
Following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 3 “the user” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is – [[the]] a user– in light of lack of any antecedent basis for this term in claim 1.
Claim 3 line 3 “the user” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is – [[the]] a user– in light of lack of any antecedent basis for this term in claim 3.
Claim 3 line 16 “then the results is transmitted to the personal terminal” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is -- and then the results [[is]] are transmitted to the personal terminal--.
Claims 2 line 1 “A breathing … induction device” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is –[[A]] The breathing … induction device – in light of its antecedent in claim 1 line 1 “A breathing … induction device”.
Claims 4-5 line 1 “A breathing … induction system” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is –[[A]] The breathing … induction system – in light of its antecedent in claim 3 line 1 “A breathing … induction system”.
Claims 7-9 line 1 “A personal terminal” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is –[[A]] The personal terminal – in light of its antecedent in claim 6 line 1 “A personal terminal”.
Claim 1 line 18 “wherein the A breathing mediation induction device senses an EEG signal” needs to be corrected to -- wherein the [[A]] breathing mediation induction device senses an EEG signal--.
Claim 1 line 13 “wherein a pair of EEG measuring electrodes capable of measuring EEG …” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction -- wherein a pair of EEG measuring electrodes configured for measuring EEG -- to avoid potential intended use/functional limitation interpretation as detailed in MPEP 2111.04 which states inter alia that claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (See MPEP 2111.04 ).
Claim 5 lines 3-4 “wherein a user terminal is connected to a personal terminal with a built-in psychotherapy device capable of EEG measurement and a program capable of displaying and storing EEG signals through Bluetooth” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction -- wherein a user terminal is connected to a personal terminal with a built-in psychotherapy device configured for EEG measurement and a program configured for displaying and storing EEG signals through Bluetooth-- to avoid potential intended use/functional limitation interpretation as detailed in MPEP 2111.04 which states inter alia that claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (See MPEP 2111.04 ).
Claim 3 recite “so as to” encompassing result-oriented/functional limitations which need to be corrected. A suggested correction is replacing “so as to” with –[[so]] in a manner as to-- to avoid intended result/functional limitation interpretation (see MPEP 2111.04) which would raise question as to whether the limitation proceeding “so as to” is required or not required. As an example amending claim 3 “the user terminal controls EEG measurement preparation processes so as to be performed the EEG measurement and display functions being provided for a predetermined time” to -- the user terminal controls EEG measurement preparation processes in a manner as to perform the EEG measurement and display functions being provided for a predetermined time --.
Each of claims 3, 5, 6 recite “when” encompassing conditional limitations which need to be corrected. A suggested correction is replacing “when” with –based on-- to avoid conditional limitation recitation which would raise question as to what occurs when the condition is not met. As an example amending claim 5 “when selecting the corresponding item by touch or voice, one or more contents are downloaded thorough a computer” to -- based on selection of the corresponding item by touch or voice, one or more contents are downloaded thorough a computer --. Similar amendments are proposed for claim 3 and claim 6.
Claim 4 “a program that can display and store EEG signals via Bluetooth … and the display result can be stored in the computer” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is – a program configured to display and store EEG signals via Bluetooth … with the display result programmed to display and store EEG signals via Bluetooth … with the display result
Claim 5 “one or more contents are downloaded thorough a computer (server), and then the specific content can be played by selecting it by touch or voice” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is – one or more contents are downloaded thorough a computer server [[(server)]], and then the specific content is played by selecting it by touch or voice —to avoid optional limitation interpretation which would raise question as to whether the limitation proceeding “can” is even required or not required.
Claim 6 “the application can be downloads through a wireless communication network, and is connected through a wireless communication network and can controls a headphone through a voice or touch input method of the application” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is – the application configured to be downloaded through a wireless communication network, and is connected through a wireless communication network and [[can]] controls a headphone through a voice or touch input method of the application —to avoid optional limitation interpretation which would raise question as to whether the limitation proceeding “can” is even required or not required.
Claim 7 “a program that can display and store EEG signals” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is – a program configured to display and store EEG signals—to avoid optional limitation interpretation which would raise question as to whether the limitation proceeding “can” is even required or not required.
Claim 7 lines 3-6 “wherein, in the state that the user is connected via Bluetooth to a personal terminal with a built-in breathing meditation induction device and a program that can display and store EEG signals, wherein the user terminal starts the application of the personal terminal” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is --wherein, in the state that the user is connected via Bluetooth to a personal terminal with a built-in breathing meditation induction device and a program that … display and store EEG signals, [[wherein]] the user terminal starts the application of the personal terminal--.
Claims 1-9 include numerous acronyms/abbreviations such as “SMR”. At least first occurrence of each acronym/abbreviation should be spelled out in full. Appropriate correction is required.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 in line 10 recites the limitation "the main body ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 in line 10 recites the limitation " the main body ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 in line 7 recites the term “the nostril” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, it is unclear as whether “the nostril” refers to either nostril, any nostril, both nostrils or left nostril or right nostril.
Claim 3 in line 7 recites the term “the nostril” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, it is unclear as whether “the nostril” refers to either nostril, any nostril, both nostrils or left nostril or right nostril.
Claim 3 in line 13 recites “the user terminal”, in line 14 recites “the EEG measurement function”, in line 15-16 “the breathing meditation inducing device combined with headphones”, in line 16 “the results”, in line 14-15 “the sensing means”, in line 19 “the user's selection”, “the measured result data” in line 20 and “the user's requirements” in lines 20-21, “the EEG measurement result data” in line 24-25, “the EEG measurement result” in line 26, “the comparison data” in line 27, “the past data” in line 27, “the present data” in line 27 and “the user's request” in line 28. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Each of claims 1-5 in line 1 recite “breathing mediation induction” which renders this claim unclear in light of instant application specification which is silent as to what is meant by breathing mediation induction in the context used in these claims.
Claim 4 in line 6 and claim 5 in line 11 recites “a…server” which renders each of these claims unclear. More specifically, it is unclear as to whether claim 4 line 6 and claim 5 line 11 “a…server” is the same as, different than or in addition to that recited in claim 3 line 17.
Claim 3 in line 13 recites “user terminal” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, claim 3 line 13 “user terminal” is the same as, different than or in addition to “personal terminal” recited in claim 3 line . If different in what structural or functional way the two differ.
Claim 3 in line 15-16 recites “the breathing meditation inducing device combined with headphones” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, it is unclear as to how breathing mediation induces meditative state as recited in claim 3 lines 15-16.
Claim 4 line 7 recites “the app” and in line 9 recites “the brain index measurement graph”, in line 10 “the brain index measurement bar graph” and in line 10 “the display result”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 in line 3 recites “a personal terminal” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, it is unclear as to whether claim 5 line 3 “a personal terminal” is the same as, different than or in addition to that recited in claim 3.
Claim 5 in line 7 recites “the personal terminal” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, it is unclear as to whether claim 5 line 7 “the personal terminal” is referencing that in claim 5 line 3 and/or that in claim 3 line 13.
Claim 5 in lines 8-9 recited “the brain index measurement bar graph” , in line 9 recites “the user's mental state” and in line 11 “the specific content”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 in lines 9-10 recites the limitation "the psychotherapy device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 in line 6-7 “the input requirements”, in lines 7 “the device application” and in line 15 recites the limitation "the psychotherapy device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 in line 19 recites “it” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, it is unclear as to “it” in line 19 refers to which of the preceding structure, structures or combination of structures.
Claim 6 in line 18 recites “it” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, it is unclear as to “it” in line 18 refers to which of the preceding structure, structures or combination of structures.
Claim 1 lines 13-14 “wherein a pair of EEG measuring electrodes … measuring EEG, which is a kind of biosignal” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, the term “kind of” renders this limitation indefinite i.e. is it a biosignal or not a biosignal? If not in what way is it not a biosignal.
Claim 2 limitation “A breathing mediation induction device …wherein the sensing means for measuring EEG is located so as to be in contact with the upper forehead of both eyes and made of electrically conductive materials is a device for inducing breathing meditation combined with headphones for sensing EEG signals” renders this claim unclear. More specifically, it is unclear as to whether “sensing means for measuring EEG” is located so as to be in contact with the upper forehead or whether “sensing means for measuring EEG” is located so as to be in contact with the both eyes or whether “sensing means for measuring EEG” is located so as to be in contact with the upper forehead or whether “sensing means for measuring EEG” is located so as to be in contact with the upper forehead above both eyes or something else. Additionally, it is unclear as to what is meant by “made of electrically conductive materials is a device for inducing breathing meditation combined with headphones for sensing EEG signals” in the context used. Lastly, it is unclear as to how breathing mediation induces meditative state as recited in claim 2.
Clam 1 in lines 20-21 recites the limitation “operating the user's EEG according to the measurement request signal using the personal computer or smart phone” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, since EEG is just a EEG signal detected/measured from a user using EEG sensor/electrode, in the context used, it is unclear as to what is meant by “operating the user's EEG”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the brain index measurement bar graph", “the headset”, “the brain index measurement”, “the brain index” and “the measurement graph”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the items”, "the brain index measurement bar graph”, “the EEG sensing means”, “the brain index bar graph”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the brain index measurement bar graph”, “the EEG sensing means”, “the brain index bar graph” and “the index graph”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 in lines 3-4 recites “a personal terminal” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, it is unclear as to whether claim 7 lines 3-4 recites “a personal terminal” is the same as, different than or in addition to that recited in claim 6.
Claim 7 in lines 6-7 recites “the personal terminal” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, it is unclear as to whether claim 7 in lines 6-7 “the personal terminal” is referencing that in claim 7 lines 2-4 or that in claim 6 line 8.
Claim 3 recites “a manager's computer (server)” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “computer”, and the claim also recites “server” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Each of claim 4 and 5 recites “computer (server)” which renders the respective claim unclear. More specifically, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “computer”, and the claim also recites “server” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Dependent claims 2, 4-5 and 7-9 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the additional recited limitations fail to cure the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue in their respective base claims. Consequently, dependent claims 2, 4-5 and 7-9 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on their direct/indirect dependency on their respective base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1-5 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.
As per claims 1-2, the specification as-filed does not teach any kind of mediation or a breathing mediation induction device. The specification as-filed merely describes breathing meditation induction device. More specifically, a device for inducing a breathing meditation inducing both headphones and a headphone that senses an EEG signal that allows an effect on a user's psychotherapy and displays an EEG, and the device.
As per claims 3-5, the specification as-filed does not teach any kind of mediation or a or a mediation induction system. The specification as-filed merely describes breathing meditation induction system. More specifically, a breathing meditation induction system that displays and stores brainwave signals using headphones, which are connected through Bluetooth communication by downloading an application for the breathing meditation induction system through a headphone-combined breathing meditation induction device and a personal terminal capable of wired and wireless communication.
Claim Interpretation Under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims the term occurs in
Claim term
Corresponding Structures recited in original specification as-filed
1, 3
opening and closing means
Fig. 1 “121”, “122”, “121a”, “122a”, page 19 line 20-21
1, 3
driving means
Fig. 1 “111”, “112”, page 19 lines 18-19 motors, fig. 3 “25”, page 25 line 6-9 “motor…electromagnet or a hydraulic or pneumatic actuator”
1,3
mounting means
Fig. 1 “body parts 11 and 12 “, page 19 line 17
1, 2, 3
sensing means
Electrodes page 19 line 28
8, 9
EEG sensing means
EEG measuring electrodes page 19 line 28
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 Interpretation
Claims terms where relevant are being interpreted in light of definitions enumerated in instant application specification page 2 lines 2-10.
Please note that USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted "in view of the specification" without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily). In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.... The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.... An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.").
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 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 of this title, 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 1-5 dated 01/04/2022 are so replete with 35 U.S.C 112 issues which are enumerated above that make the claims not sufficiently comprehensible enough especially in light of specification which is not sufficiently comprehensible enough either which are also enumerated above and consequently, preclude a reasonable search of the prior art by the Examiner at this time. For example, the claimed terms and limitations enumerated under sections titled “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112” above are not understood. Finally, it makes it difficult to determine what the scope of the claims would be for a proper and complete prior art rejection. A rejection should not be made based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. See MPEP 2173.06. Accordingly, formal and detailed prior art rejections will not be made at this time. Applicant is required to submit an amendment which clarifies the claims so that the Examiner may make a more proper, complete and thorough comparison of the invention with the prior art. Nonetheless, a bona fide good faith effort was made in searching relevant prior art. As claims are best understood at this time, following prior art appear to render the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103: English Translation of KR 10-2009-0110028 to Lee In-Tea (Lee In-Tea in at least abstract, fig. 1-5, fig. 8, page 1, pages 4-7, page 9-11, for example discloses relevant subject-matter) ; English Translation of KR 10-2018-0045101 to Bae (Bae in at least abstract, fig. 1-3 , fig. 5, [0001], [0006-0016], [0028-0058], [0062], [0066], [0074-0081], [0084] for example discloses relevant subject-matter); and/or English Translation of KR 10-2018-0009728 to Lee ( Lee at least abstract, fig. 1-6, fig. 9, [0001], [0008], [0012], [0021-0024], [0026-0027], [0029-0035], [0045-0046], [0050-0054], [0072-0077], [0083-0090] for example discloses relevant subject-matter).
As Best Understood at this time, claims 1-5 appear to be rejectable under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee In-Tea in view of Bae.
As per independent Claim 1, as best currently understood, claim 1 appears obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over English Translation of KR 10-2009-0110028 to Lee In-Tea (Lee In-Tea in at least abstract, fig. 1-5, fig. 8, page 1, pages 4-7, page 9-11, for example discloses relevant subject-matter. Lee In-Tea discloses a breathing induction device/a breathing control device that allows a user to efficiently perform various breathing methods, such as alternating breathing or abdominal breathing, simply by wearing it on the face. A breathing control device according to a first aspect of the present invention for achieving the above purpose is characterized by comprising a main body that is mounted on a user's face and has an opening and closing means for opening and closing the lower part of the nostril of the user's nose, and a control box that provides a driving signal for driving the opening and closing means to the main body. In addition, the main body is configured to additionally include an earphone, and the control box is characterized in that it provides a voice signal to the main body. In addition, the main body is configured to additionally include a display means for providing a video screen to the user, and the control box is characterized in that it provides video information to the main body.) ; English Translation of KR 10-2018-0045101 to Bae (Bae in at least abstract, fig. 1-3 , fig. 5, [0001], [0006-0016], [0028-0058], [0062], [0066], [0074-0081], [0084] for example discloses relevant subject-matter. Bae discloses a biometric information display system using real-time computer graphics images and a display method thereof, which measures a user's biometric information in real time using a biometric information measuring device, converts the measured biometric information into a computer graphics element, and processes a computer graphics image corresponding to the computer graphics-processed biometric information to be included in a real-time image of the user being captured in real time by a camera and displays it, thereby expressing the user's biometric status as various real-time computer graphics images).
As per dependent Claim 2, as best currently understood, claim 2 appears obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over English Translation of KR 10-2009-0110028 to Lee In-Tea (Lee In-Tea in at least abstract, fig. 1-5, fig. 8, page 1, pages 4-7, page 9-11, for example discloses relevant subject-matter. Lee In-Tea discloses a breathing induction device/a breathing control device that allows a user to efficiently perform various breathing methods, such as alternating breathing or abdominal breathing, simply by wearing it on the face. A breathing control device according to a first aspect of the present invention for achieving the above purpose is characterized by comprising a main body that is mounted on a user's face and has an opening and closing means for opening and closing the lower part of the nostril of the user's nose, and a control box that provides a driving signal for driving the opening and closing means to the main body. In addition, the main body is configured to additionally include an earphone, and the control box is characterized in that it provides a voice signal to the main body. In addition, the main body is configured to additionally include a display means for providing a video screen to the user, and the control box is characterized in that it provides video information to the main body.) ; English Translation of KR 10-2018-0045101 to Bae (Bae in at least abstract, fig. 1-3 , fig. 5, [0001], [0006-0016], [0028-0058], [0062], [0066], [0074-0081], [0084] for example discloses relevant subject-matter. Bae discloses a biometric information display system using real-time computer graphics images and a display method thereof, which measures a user's biometric information in real time using a biometric information measuring device, converts the measured biometric information into a computer graphics element, and processes a computer graphics image corresponding to the computer graphics-processed biometric information to be included in a real-time image of the user being captured in real time by a camera and displays it, thereby expressing the user's biometric status as various real-time computer graphics images).
As per independent Claim 3, as best currently understood, claim 3 appears obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over English Translation of KR 10-2009-0110028 to Lee In-Tea (Lee In-Tea in at least abstract, fig. 1-5, fig. 8, page 1, pages 4-7, page 9-11, for example discloses relevant subject-matter. Lee In-Tea discloses a breathing induction device/a breathing control device that allows a user to efficiently perform various breathing methods, such as alternating breathing or abdominal breathing, simply by wearing it on the face. A breathing control device according to a first aspect of the present invention for achieving the above purpose is characterized by comprising a main body that is mounted on a user's face and has an opening and closing means for opening and closing the lower part of the nostril of the user's nose, and a control box that provides a driving signal for driving the opening and closing means to the main body. In addition, the main body is configured to additionally include an earphone, and the control box is characterized in that it provides a voice signal to the main body. In addition, the main body is configured to additionally include a display means for providing a video screen to the user, and the control box is characterized in that it provides video information to the main body.) ; English Translation of KR 10-2018-0045101 to Bae (Bae in at least abstract, fig. 1-3 , fig. 5, [0001], [0006-0016], [0028-0058], [0062], [0066], [0074-0081], [0084] for example discloses relevant subject-matter. Bae discloses a biometric information display system using real-time computer graphics images and a display method thereof, which measures a user's biometric information in real time using a biometric information measuring device, converts the measured biometric information into a computer graphics element, and processes a computer graphics image corresponding to the computer graphics-processed biometric information to be included in a real-time image of the user being captured in real time by a camera and displays it, thereby expressing the user's biometric status as various real-time computer graphics images).
As per dependent claim 4, as best currently understood, claim 4 appears obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over English Translation of KR 10-2009-0110028 to Lee In-Tea (Lee In-Tea in at least abstract, fig. 1-5, fig. 8, page 1, pages 4-7, page 9-11, for example discloses relevant subject-matter. Lee In-Tea discloses a breathing induction device/a breathing control device that allows a user to efficiently perform various breathing methods, such as alternating breathing or abdominal breathing, simply by wearing it on the face. A breathing control device according to a first aspect of the present invention for achieving the above purpose is characterized by comprising a main body that is mounted on a user's face and has an opening and closing means for opening and closing the lower part of the nostril of the user's nose, and a control box that provides a driving signal for driving the opening and closing means to the main body. In addition, the main body is configured to additionally include an earphone, and the control box is characterized in that it provides a voice signal to the main body. In addition, the main body is configured to additionally include a display means for providing a video screen to the user, and the control box is characterized in that it provides video information to the main body.) ; English Translation of KR 10-2018-0045101 to Bae (Bae in at least abstract, fig. 1-3 , fig. 5, [0001], [0006-0016], [0028-0058], [0062], [0066], [0074-0081], [0084] for example discloses relevant subject-matter. Bae discloses a biometric information display system using real-time computer graphics images and a display method thereof, which measures a user's biometric information in real time using a biometric information measuring device, converts the measured biometric information into a computer graphics element, and processes a computer graphics image corresponding to the computer graphics-processed biometric information to be included in a real-time image of the user being captured in real time by a camera and displays it, thereby expressing the user's biometric status as various real-time computer graphics images).
As per dependent claims 5, as best currently understood, claim 5 appears obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over English Translation of KR 10-2009-0110028 to Lee In-Tea (Lee In-Tea in at least abstract, fig. 1-5, fig. 8, page 1, pages 4-7, page 9-11, for example discloses relevant subject-matter. Lee In-Tea discloses a breathing induction device/a breathing control device that allows a user to efficiently perform various breathing methods, such as alternating breathing or abdominal breathing, simply by wearing it on the face. A breathing control device according to a first aspect of the present invention for achieving the above purpose is characterized by comprising a main body that is mounted on a user's face and has an opening and closing means for opening and closing the lower part of the nostril of the user's nose, and a control box that provides a driving signal for driving the opening and closing means to the main body. In addition, the main body is configured to additionally include an earphone, and the control box is characterized in that it provides a voice signal to the main body. In addition, the main body is configured to additionally include a display means for providing a video screen to the user, and the control box is characterized in that it provides video information to the main body.) ; English Translation of KR 10-2018-0045101 to Bae (Bae in at least abstract, fig. 1-3 , fig. 5, [0001], [0006-0016], [0028-0058], [0062], [0066], [0074-0081], [0084] for example discloses relevant subject-matter. Bae discloses a biometric information display system using real-time computer graphics images and a display method thereof, which measures a user's biometric information in real time using a biometric information measuring device, converts the measured biometric information into a computer graphics element, and processes a computer graphics image corresponding to the computer graphics-processed biometric information to be included in a real-time image of the user being captured in real time by a camera and displays it, thereby expressing the user's biometric status as various real-time computer graphics images).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae and Lee and further in view of Lee In-Tea.
As per independent Claim 6, Bae discloses a personal terminal for displaying and storing EEG signals in which it includes a Bluetooth, and an application for determining and displaying user’s mental health, the application can be downloads through a wireless communication network, and is connected through a wireless communication network and can controls a headphone through a voice or touch input method of the application (Bae in at least fig. 1-5, [0015-0016], [0020], [0028], [0030-0032], [0035], [0038], [0041-0042], [0044-0045], [0048-0050], [0055], [0057-0058], [0062], [0077] for example discloses a personal terminal 200 which can be a smart phone ([0038])) for displaying and storing EEG signals ([0062] “measurement electrodes of the EEG measuring device”) in which it includes a Bluetooth (see [0042]), and an application for determining and displaying user’s mental health (fig. 5, [0048], [0057-0058], [0062]), the application 270 can be downloads through a wireless communication network ([0055]), and is connected through a wireless communication network ([0015-0016], [0020]) and can controls a headphone through a smart phone voice or touch input method of the application),
wherein the content is extracted from the database and supplied to the headphone and mental health device connected to the personal terminal in a streaming manner (Bae in at least fig. 1-5, [0054-0055], [0057-0058], [0062], [0070-0074], [0077] for example discloses wherein the video content is extracted from the database ([0057-0058) and supplied to the headphone and mental health device connected to the personal terminal in a streaming manner/real-time),
wherein, in the application through the personal terminal, when the user selects the EEG function through a touch input, the EEG is measured through the EEG sensor of the psychotherapy device and the result is stored in the storage unit of the personal terminal, wherein the EEG measurement and display program is loaded as an application on the personal terminal, and according to the user's selection, it measures EEG or displays the measured result data, and at the same time provides content according to the user's requirements, wherein when running the application, and the user executes the EEG measurement preparation process to perform the EEG measurement and display function provided by the app, then controls the EEG measurement to be performed for a predetermined time, and displays the EEG measurement result data as a three-dimensional graph or EEG signal display (Bae in at least fig. 3-5, [0049-0052], [0054-0055], [0068], [0070-0071], [0073], [0075], [0080] for example discloses wherein, in the application through the personal terminal (fig. 3), when the user selects the EEG function through a touch input 240, the EEG is measured through the EEG sensor of the psychotherapy device 200 and the result is stored in the storage unit 260 of the personal terminal, wherein the EEG measurement and display program is loaded as an application on the personal terminal 200, and according to the user's selection, it measures EEG or displays the measured result data (fig. 5), and at the same time provides video content according to the user's requirements, wherein when running the application, and the user executes the EEG measurement preparation process to perform the EEG measurement and display function provided by the app, then controls the EEG measurement to be performed for a predetermined time, and displays the EEG measurement result data as a three-dimensional graph 436 ([0080]) or EEG signal display (fig. 5, [0075])),
when the EEG measurement result is displayed, the comparison data of the past data and the present data is controlled to be displayed on one screen according to the user's request (Bae in at least fig. 5, [0004], [0052], [0056-0058], [0067], [0071], [0075], [0080] for example discloses when the EEG measurement result is displayed, the comparison data of the past data and the present data is controlled to be displayed on one screen 250 according to the user's request).
Bae does not explicitly disclose self-diagnosis and breathing meditation induction mental health device features.
However, in an analogous mental health device field of endeavor, Lee discloses mental health device combined with headphones (Lee, fig.1, fig. 9, fig. 11-12, [0001], [0009], [0022], [0027], [0032], [0053], [0059], [0069], [0073] mental health device/smart phone combined with headphones) wherein based on the data inputted and transmitted according to the input requirements of the device application, a self-diagnosis process is performed, the result is transmitted as a score through a personal terminal, and content for breathing meditation induction or psychotherapy according to the self-diagnosis score result is provided (Lee In-Tea, fig. 9, fig. 11-12, [0022], [0024], [0027], [0053], [0059], [0073], [0075-0077], [0083-0090] for example discloses based on the data inputted and transmitted according to the input requirements of the device application, a self-diagnosis process is performed, the result is transmitted as a score through a personal terminal, and content for breathing meditation induction or psychotherapy according to the self-diagnosis score result is provided as in fig. 11-12).
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 Bluetooth enabled personal terminal for displaying and storing EEG signals and an application for determining and displaying user’s mental health as taught by Bae, by further including mental health self-diagnosis features, as taught by Lee. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the advantage of allowing an ordinary person to perform psychotherapy of common minor mental ailments such as stress via self-diagnosis application downloadable onto user device such personal computer or smartphone (Lee, [0008]