DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 8 March 2026. Claims 27 – 39 and 41 - 46 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 27, 31, 35 – 37, 41, and 44 - 46, as well as the cancellation of claim 40.
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 1 and 41 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, “wherein the first and/or the second modes” should read -- wherein the first mode and/or the second mode --.
Claim 41, line 4, “wires, or are wireless” should read --wires or wireless--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “wireless communication means” in claim 41.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 27 – 33, 40 and 42 - 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (CN 204910071 U, see attached translation) in view of Teller et al (US 20040034289 A1, hereinafter “Teller”) in view of Mault (US 20040254501 A1) in view of Motomura et al (US 20110157088 A1, hereinafter “Motomura”) in further view Philips Avent my easy sippy cup (2015, NPL: U, see attached, hereinafter “Philips”).
Regarding claim 27, Shi teaches a stress reducing and/or mindfulness inducing apparatus (“a nerve rehabilitation appliance technology field”, abstract) comprising:
a substantially spherically shaped body "huggable" by two hands of a user (“a hand-held pressure balloon”, abstract, Figure 1);
at least a first pair and a second pair of indentations (“finger recesses 4”, page 2 paragraph 14) located on an outer surface of said body (Figure 1),
wherein each of the first and the second pair of indentations comprise two indentations (Figure 1), and are suitable for placing corresponding fingers from each hand of the user (“finger recesses 4”, page 2 paragraph 14).
Shi does not teach the indentations located on opposing sides of said body surface,
wherein each of the first and the second pair of indentations comprises one or more sensors,
wherein the one or more sensors are selected from a galvanic skin response (GSR), an electrocardiogram (ECG), a photoplethysmogram (PPG), and a blood pressure sensor, and configured to sense one or more parameters associated with the user's stress and/or mindfulness state selected from skin conductivity, heart performance comprising heart rate and/or heart rate variability, rate of blood flow, and blood pressure; and
an indicator configured to provide the user with an indication regarding stress and/or mindfulness state, having at least two modes of operation,
a first mode being indicative of a first stress and/or mindfulness state of the user and
a second mode being indicative of a second stress and/or mindfulness state of the user, wherein the first and/or the second modes of the indicator are configured to provide feedback to the user based on the one or more parameters and to assist the user to modulate stress level or mindfulness state.
However, Teller discloses “a portable, handheld biosensor device that is held between two fingers of the same hand or otherwise contacts two points on a user's skin” (abstract) and teaches one or more sensors (“At least one of the sensors” [0005]; “] Sensor device 10” [0031] Figure 1) are selected from a galvanic skin response (GSR) (“galvanic skin response or GSR” [0031]), an electrocardiogram (ECG) (“ECG” [0031]), a photoplethysmogram (PPG), and a blood pressure sensor (“blood pressure sensors” [0005]; “blood pressure” [0031]), and configured to sense one or more parameters associated with the user's stress and/or mindfulness state selected from skin conductivity ([0059]), heart performance comprising heart rate and/or heart rate variability ([0059]), rate of blood flow ([0059]), and blood pressure ([0059]) (“Methods for generating data indicative of various physiological parameters and sensors to be used therefor are well known.” [0031] “to provide an indicator to the user of his or her stress level” and “to provide indicators to the user of his or her sleep patterns over a desired time period” [0059]); and
an indicator (“indicators” [0059]) configured to provide the user with an indication regarding stress and/or mindfulness state (“Methods for generating data indicative of various physiological parameters and sensors to be used therefor are well known.” [0031] “to provide an indicator to the user of his or her stress level” and “to provide indicators to the user of his or her sleep patterns over a desired time period” [0059])).
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 apparatus of Shi such that the one or more sensors are selected from a galvanic skin response (GSR), an electrocardiogram (ECG), a photoplethysmogram (PPG), and a blood pressure sensor, and configured to sense one or more parameters associated with the user's stress and/or mindfulness state selected from skin conductivity, heart performance comprising heart rate and/or heart rate variability, rate of blood flow, and blood pressure; and to include an indicator configured to provide the user with an indication regarding stress and/or mindfulness state, as taught by Teller, for the benefit of monitoring health, wellness and fitness (Teller: [0002]).
The modified invention of Shi and Teller does not teach the indentations located on opposing sides of said body surface,
wherein each of the first and the second pair of indentations comprises one or more sensors,
the indicator having at least two modes of operation,
a first mode being indicative of a first stress and/or mindfulness state of the user and
a second mode being indicative of a second stress and/or mindfulness state of the user, wherein the first and/or the second modes of the indicator are configured to provide feedback to the user based on the one or more parameters and to assist the user to modulate stress level or mindfulness state.
However, Mault discloses a “process for assisting a person to achieve a relaxed state” (abstract) and teaches an indicator ([0028]) having at least two modes of operation ([0028] – [0029]),
a first mode being indicative of a first stress and/or mindfulness state of a user (“indicator light status can change in a manner corresponding with the metabolic rate” [0028]; [0029]) and
a second mode being indicative of a second stress and/or mindfulness state of the user (“the indicator light can be illuminated when a steady state relaxation has been achieved” [0028]; [0029]), wherein the first and/or the second modes ([0028] – [0029]) of the indicator ([0028]) are configured to provide feedback to the user based on the one or more parameters and to assist the user to modulate stress level or mindfulness state (“Relaxation of the person can be assisted by providing feedback correlated with the person's metabolic rate.” [0028]; “The feedback can be correlated with the metabolic rate, for example the pitch, waveform, modulation, component phases, beat frequency component, loudness, or periodicity of one or more components of an audible signal can be correlated with the metabolic rate. Similarly, the characteristics of feedback in the form of a visual presentation on the display can be correlated with the metabolic rate” [0041]).
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 apparatus of Shi and Teller, such that the indicator includes at least two modes of operation, a first mode being indicative of a first stress and/or mindfulness state of the user and a second mode being indicative of a second stress and/or mindfulness state of the user, wherein the first and/or the second modes of the indicator are configured to provide feedback to the user based on the one or more parameters and to assist the user to modulate stress level or mindfulness state, as taught by Mault, for the benefit of “assist[ing] the person to achieve a relaxed state” (Mault: abstract).
The modified invention of Shi, Teller and Mault does not teach the indentations located on opposing sides of said body surface,
wherein each of the first and the second pair of indentations comprises one or more sensors.
However, Motomura discloses “an apparatus, method and program for measuring, by numerical values, a feel that a person would have when he or she touches something and reproducing or searching for such a feel” ([0001]) and teaches an indentation (Figure 7(b)) comprises one or more sensors (Figures 4 - 5 and 20, “position sensor […] force sensor” [0021], “tactile sensor” [0025] [0063] [0067] [0070], “image sensor” [0087]).
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 apparatus of Shi, Teller and Mault, as taught by Motomura such that each of the first and the second pair of indentations comprises one or more sensors, for the benefit of sensing the parameters associated with a user’s stress and/or mindfulness state and displaying it (Motomura: abstract).
The modified invention of Shi, Teller, Mault and Motomura does not teach the indentations located on opposing sides of said body surface.
However, Philips discloses “a unique rippled container shape – easy for baby to grip” (page 1) and teaches the indentations located on opposing sides of said body surface (see annotated Figure 1 below). 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 apparatus of Shi, Teller, Mault and Motomura such that the indentations located on opposing sides of said body surface, as taught by Philips, for the benefit of providing better grip for users (page 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
831
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 28, Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips teach all limitations of claim 27. The modified invention of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips teaches the first pair of indentations comprises one indentation for an index finger of a left hand of the user and another indentation for the index finger of a right hand of the user (Philips: see annotated Figure 1a below), and wherein the second pair of indentations comprises one indentation for a middle finger of the left hand of the user and another indentation for the middle finger of the right hand of the user (Philips: see annotated Figure 1a below).
PNG
media_image2.png
831
832
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 29, Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips teach all limitations of claim 28. The modified invention of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips teaches the apparatus further comprising a third pair of indentations (Philips: see annotated Figure 1a above),
wherein the third pair of indentations comprises one indentation for a ring finger of the left hand of the user and another indentation for the ring finger of the right hand of the user (Philips: see annotated Figure 1a above).
Regarding claim 30, Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips teach all limitations of claim 27. The modified invention of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips does not teach a processor configured to receive a signal from the one or more sensors, to apply one or more algorithms to the data provided from the signal and to compute an output signal to the indicator and/or
wherein the apparatus is connectable to an external processor configured to receive a signal from the one or more sensors, to apply one or more algorithms to the data provided from the signal and to compute an output signal to the indicator.
However, Motomura teaches a processor (Motomura: “processor 2100”, [0023], Figure 6) configured to receive a signal from the one or more sensors (Motomura: Figures 4 - 5 and 20, “position sensor […] force sensor” [0021], “tactile sensor” [0025] [0063] [0067] [0070], “image sensor” [0087]), to apply one or more algorithms to the data provided from the signal and to compute an output signal to the indicator (Motomura: [0013] – [0016], [0055]) and/or
wherein the apparatus is connectable to an external processor ([0002], [0005] – [0008]) configured to receive a signal from the one or more sensors (Motomura: Figures 4 - 5 and 20, “position sensor […] force sensor” [0021], “tactile sensor” [0025] [0063] [0067] [0070], “image sensor” [0087]) ([0002], [0005] – [0008]), to apply one or more algorithms (Motomura: “learning processing” [0013] – [0016], [0055], [0131], [0144]; Examiner interprets “learning processing” reads on artificial intelligence based) to the data provided from the signal and to compute an output signal to the indicator (Motomura: [0013] – [0016], [0055]).
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 apparatus of Shi, Motomura and Philips to incorporate a processor configured to receive a signal from the one or more sensors, to apply one or more algorithms to the data provided from the signal and to compute an output signal to the indicator and/or wherein the apparatus is connectable to an external processor configured to receive a signal from the one or more sensors, to apply one or more algorithms to the data provided from the signal and to compute an output signal to the indicator, as taught by Motomura, for the benefit of determining the psychological of a person (Motomura: [0024]).
Regarding claim 31, Shi, Motomura and Philips teach all limitations of claim 30. The modified invention of Shi, Motomura and Philips does not teach the one or more algorithms are artificial intelligence based.
However, Motomura teaches one or more algorithms are artificial intelligence based (“learning processing” [0013] – [0016], [0055], [0131], [0144]; Examiner interprets “learning processing” reads on artificial intelligence based). 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 apparatus of Shi, Motomura and Philips, as taught by Motomura, for the benefit of optimizing calculation results regarding physical-psychological transformation (Motomura: [0016]).
Regarding claim 32, Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips teach all limitations of claim 27. The modified invention of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips teaches the apparatus further comprises an energy source (Motomura: the use of “computer” [0195] and “learning” [00197], Examiner interprets there is an energy source to power the computer and thus, reads on the limitation.) and/or wherein the apparatus further comprises an interface for external charging.
Regarding claim 33, Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips teach all limitations of claim 27. The modified invention of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips teaches the indicator is configured to provide visual, audio, tactile feedback (Motomura: tactile [0008]) information or any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 42, Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips teach all limitations of claim 27. The modified invention of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips teaches the outer surface of the apparatus (Shi: “ball body” page 2 paragraph 1, Figure 1) comprises a soft shell (Shi: “elastic rubber” page 2 paragraph 1) comprising a soft fabric, a foam, a rubber (Shi: “elastic rubber” page 2 paragraph 1, Figure 1), silicone, flexible plastic, cotton, wool or any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 43, Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips teach all limitations of claim 27. The modified invention of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips teaches the substantially spherically shaped body (Shi: “ball body” page 2 paragraph 1, Figure 1) is in an oval shape or a ball shape (Shi: “ball body” page 2 paragraph 1, Figure 1).
Claims 34 - 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips, as applied in claim 27, in view of Tan et al (US 20190307351 A1, hereinafter “Tan”).
Regarding claim 34, Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips teach all limitations of claim 27. The modified invention of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips does not teach the indicator is a light source.
However, Tan discloses “a display device” including “a receiver configured to receive user data” (abstract) and teaches an indicator is a light source (“light source”, [0003] – [0004] [0036] [0053]). 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 apparatus of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips to incorporate the indicator is a light source, as taught by Tan, for the benefit of indicat[ing] a state of mind of the user (Tan: [0053]).
Regarding claim 35, Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura, Philips and Tan teach all limitations of claim 34. The modified invention of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura, Philips and Tan teaches the first mode of the light source (Tan: “light source”, [0003] – [0004] [0036] [0053]) provide a first color output indicative of a first stress and/or first mindfulness state of the user (Tan: “a light source or a plurality of light sources (for example with LEDs) that is or are wirelessly connected to the BCI headset may reflect a specific color to indicate a state of mind of the user (e.g., excited, focused, calm, bored, etc.). The remote device may be an input device (such as our Chroma mouse and keyboard, wearable device) that may change colors according to the mood of the user” [0053], [0036], [0003] – [0004]) and
the second mode of the light source (Tan: “light source”, [0036] [0053]) provides a second color output, different from the first color, indicative of a second stress and/or a second mindfulness state of the user (Tan: “a light source or a plurality of light sources (for example with LEDs) that is or are wirelessly connected to the BCI headset may reflect a specific color to indicate a state of mind of the user (e.g., excited, focused, calm, bored, etc.). The remote device may be an input device (such as our Chroma mouse and keyboard, wearable device) that may change colors according to the mood of the user” [0053], [0036], [0003] – [0004]).
Regarding claim 36, Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura, Philips and Tan teach all limitations of claim 34. The modified invention of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura, Philips and Tan teaches the first mode of the light source (Tan: “light source”, [0003] – [0004] [0036] [0053]) provides light at a first intensity (“light intensity” [0036]), indicative of a first stress and/or first mindfulness state of the user (Tan: “control the at least one light source based on the user data”, [0003] – [0004]) and
a second mode of the light source (Tan: “light source”, [0003] – [0004] [0036] [0053]) provides light at a second intensity (“light intensity” [0036]), different from the first intensity, indicative of a second stress and/or second mindfulness state of the user (Tan: “control the at least one light source based on the user data”, [0003] – [0004]).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips, as applied in claim 34, in view of Kurt et al (WO 2007015186 A1, hereinafter “Kurt”).
Regarding claim 37, Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura, Philips and Tan teach all limitations of claim 34. The modified invention of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura, Philips and Tan teaches the first mode of the light source provides light (Tan: “light source”, [0003] – [0004] [0036] [0053]), indicative of a first stress and/or first mindfulness state of the user (Tan: “control the at least one light source based on the user data”, [0003] – [0004]) and
the second mode of the light source provides light source (Tan: “light source”, [0003] – [0004] [0036] [0053]), indicative of a second stress, and/or second mindfulness state of the user (Tan: “control the at least one light source based on the user data”, [0003] – [0004]).
The modified invention of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura, Philips and Tan does not teach light pulses at different frequencies.
However, Kurt discloses a device for indicating the physiological status (abstract) and light pulses at different frequencies (page 7 lines 4 – 8). 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 apparatus of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura, Philips and Tan to incorporate light pulses at different frequencies, as taught by Kurt, for the benefit of indicating the current physiological state of the user (page 7 lines 7 - 9).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips, as applied in claim 27, in view of Ratner (US 6709403 B1).
Regarding claim 38, Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips teach all limitations of claim 27. The modified invention of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips teaches the spherically shaped body (Shi: “ball body” page 2 paragraph 1, Figure 1).
The modified invention of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips does not teach the indicator is embedded within the spherically shaped body and/or wherein the indicator is covered by a transparent or semi- transparent cover.
However, Ratner discloses “patient ventilation systems” (column 1 line 7) and teaches a indicator is embedded within a body and/or wherein an indicator (“indicator”, column 2 line 16) is covered by a transparent or semi- transparent cover (“clear plastic cover or disc 26”, column 2 line 16). 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 apparatus of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips to incorporate the indicator is embedded within the spherically shaped body and/or wherein the indicator is covered by a transparent or semi- transparent cover, as taught by Ratner, for the benefit of view[ing] while in use (Ratner: claim 1) and provid[ing] the desired treatment to a patient.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips, as applied in claim 27, in view of Shennib (US 20070191728 A1).
Regarding claim 39, Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips teach all limitations of claim 27. The modified invention of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips does not teach the indicator is configured to trigger vibration or expansion of essentially the entire body of the apparatus.
However, Shennib discloses a “non-invasive monitoring of vital signs” ([0003]) and teaches an indicator is configured to trigger vibration (“an indicator transducer is a vibrating element for imparting tactile sensations to the mother during a stress condition”, [0055]) or expansion of essentially the entire body of the apparatus.
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 apparatus of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips such that the indicator is configured to trigger vibration or expansion of essentially the entire body of the apparatus, as taught by Shennib, for the benefit of informing the user at different state of mind (Shennib: [0055]).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips, as applied in claim 27, in view of Shennib (US 20060264767 A1, hereinafter “Shennib 767”).
Regarding claim 41, Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips teach all limitations of claim 27. The modified invention of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips does not teach the apparatus further comprising communication means functionally connectable to an external device, wherein the communication means comprise wires, or are wireless communication means.
However, Shennib 767 discloses a “non-invasive monitoring and detection of risk patterns” ([0003]) and teaches an apparatus further comprising communication means functionally connectable to an external device (“external handheld programmer 5” [0036] Figure 1),
wherein the communication means comprise wires, or are wireless communication means (“Bluetooth”, [0049]; “Internet” [0050]) (“wirelessly and sends wireless commands via wireless signals 6”, [0036]).
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 apparatus of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips such that the apparatus further comprising communication means functionally connectable to an external device, wherein the communication means comprise wires, or are wireless communication means, as taught by Shennib 767, for the benefit of providing “an inexpensive non-invasive device and method to monitor” (Shennib 767: [0019]) and alerting the user when in a stress condition (Shennib 767: [0022]).
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (CN 204910071 U, see attached translation) in view of Teller et al (US 20040034289 A1, hereinafter “Teller”) in view of Mault (US 20040254501 A1) in view of Motomura et al (US 20110157088 A1, hereinafter “Motomura”) in further view Philips Avent my easy sippy cup (2015, NPL: U, see attached, hereinafter “Philips”) in further view of Drury (US 20170188864 A1).
Regarding claim 44, Shi teaches a system for a stress reducing and/or mindfulness inducing apparatus (“a nerve rehabilitation appliance technology field”, abstract) comprising:
a substantially spherically shaped body "huggable" by two hands of a user (“a hand-held pressure balloon”, abstract, Figure 1), the substantially spherically shaped body comprising;
at least a first pair and a second pair of indentations (“finger recesses 4”, page 2 paragraph 14) located on an outer surface of said body (Figure 1),
wherein each of the first and the second pair of indentations comprise two indentations (Figure 1), located on opposing sides of said body surface, and are suitable for placing corresponding fingers from each hand of the user (“finger recesses 4”, page 2 paragraph 14).
Shi does not teach the indentations located on opposing sides of said body surface,
wherein each of the first and the second pair of indentations comprises one or more sensors, wherein the one or more sensors selected from a galvanic skin response (GSR), an electrocardiogram (ECG), a photoplethysmogram (PPG), and a blood pressure sensor, and are configured to sense one or more parameters associated with the user's stress and/or mindfulness state,
selected from skin conductivity, heart performance comprising heart rate and/or heart rate variability, rate of blood flow, and blood pressure; and
an indicator configured to provide the user with an indication regarding stress and/or mindfulness state having at least two modes of operation,
a first mode being indicative of a first stress and/or mindfulness state of the user and a second mode being indicative of a second stress and/or mindfulness state of the user
wherein the first and/or the second modes of the indicator are configured to provide feedback to the user based on the one or more parameters and to assist the user to modulate stress level or mindfulness state.
However, Teller discloses “a portable, handheld biosensor device that is held between two fingers of the same hand or otherwise contacts two points on a user's skin” (abstract) and teaches one or more sensors (“At least one of the sensors” [0005]; “] Sensor device 10” [0031] Figure 1) are selected from a galvanic skin response (GSR) (“galvanic skin response or GSR” [0031]), an electrocardiogram (ECG) (“ECG” [0031]), a photoplethysmogram (PPG), and a blood pressure sensor (“blood pressure sensors” [0005]; “blood pressure” [0031]), and configured to sense one or more parameters associated with the user's stress and/or mindfulness state selected from skin conductivity ([0059]), heart performance comprising heart rate and/or heart rate variability ([0059]), rate of blood flow ([0059]), and blood pressure ([0059]) (“Methods for generating data indicative of various physiological parameters and sensors to be used therefor are well known.” [0031] “to provide an indicator to the user of his or her stress level” and “to provide indicators to the user of his or her sleep patterns over a desired time period” [0059]); and
an indicator (“indicators” [0059]) configured to provide the user with an indication regarding stress and/or mindfulness state (“Methods for generating data indicative of various physiological parameters and sensors to be used therefor are well known.” [0031] “to provide an indicator to the user of his or her stress level” and “to provide indicators to the user of his or her sleep patterns over a desired time period” [0059])).
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 apparatus of Shi such that the one or more sensors are selected from a galvanic skin response (GSR), an electrocardiogram (ECG), a photoplethysmogram (PPG), and a blood pressure sensor, and configured to sense one or more parameters associated with the user's stress and/or mindfulness state selected from skin conductivity, heart performance comprising heart rate and/or heart rate variability, rate of blood flow, and blood pressure; and to include an indicator configured to provide the user with an indication regarding stress and/or mindfulness state, as taught by Teller, for the benefit of monitoring health, wellness and fitness (Teller: [0002]).
The modified invention of Shi and Teller does not teach the indentations located on opposing sides of said body surface,
wherein each of the first and the second pair of indentations comprises one or more sensors,
the indicator having at least two modes of operation,
a first mode being indicative of a first stress and/or mindfulness state of the user and
a second mode being indicative of a second stress and/or mindfulness state of the user, wherein the first and/or the second modes of the indicator are configured to provide feedback to the user based on the one or more parameters and to assist the user to modulate stress level or mindfulness state.
However, Mault discloses a “process for assisting a person to achieve a relaxed state” (abstract) and teaches an indicator ([0028]) having at least two modes of operation ([0028] – [0029]),
a first mode being indicative of a first stress and/or mindfulness state of a user (“indicator light status can change in a manner corresponding with the metabolic rate” [0028]; [0029]) and
a second mode being indicative of a second stress and/or mindfulness state of the user (“the indicator light can be illuminated when a steady state relaxation has been achieved” [0028]; [0029]), wherein the first and/or the second modes ([0028] – [0029]) of the indicator ([0028]) are configured to provide feedback to the user based on the one or more parameters and to assist the user to modulate stress level or mindfulness state (“Relaxation of the person can be assisted by providing feedback correlated with the person's metabolic rate.” [0028]; “The feedback can be correlated with the metabolic rate, for example the pitch, waveform, modulation, component phases, beat frequency component, loudness, or periodicity of one or more components of an audible signal can be correlated with the metabolic rate. Similarly, the characteristics of feedback in the form of a visual presentation on the display can be correlated with the metabolic rate” [0041]).
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 apparatus of Shi and Teller, such that the indicator includes at least two modes of operation, a first mode being indicative of a first stress and/or mindfulness state of the user and a second mode being indicative of a second stress and/or mindfulness state of the user, wherein the first and/or the second modes of the indicator are configured to provide feedback to the user based on the one or more parameters and to assist the user to modulate stress level or mindfulness state, as taught by Mault, for the benefit of “assist[ing] the person to achieve a relaxed state” (Mault: abstract).
The modified invention of Shi, Teller and Mault does not teach the indentations located on opposing sides of said body surface,
wherein each of the first and the second pair of indentations comprises one or more sensors.
However, Motomura discloses “an apparatus, method and program for measuring, by numerical values, a feel that a person would have when he or she touches something and reproducing or searching for such a feel” ([0001]) and teaches an indentation (Figure 7(b)) comprises one or more sensors (Figures 4 - 5 and 20, “position sensor […] force sensor” [0021], “tactile sensor” [0025] [0063] [0067] [0070], “image sensor” [0087]).
The modified invention of Shi, Teller, Mault and Motomura does not teach the indentations located on opposing sides of said body surface and a charger configured to provide power to the spherically shaped body.
However, Philips discloses “a unique rippled container shape – easy for baby to grip” (page 1) and teaches the indentations located on opposing sides of said body surface (see annotated Figure 1 below). 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 system of Shi, Teller, Mault and Motomura such that the indentations located on opposing sides of said body surface, as taught by Philips, for the benefit of providing better grip for users (page 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
831
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The modified invention of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips does not teach a charger configured to provide power to the body.
However, Drury discloses “a spherical handheld biosensor array device for physiological status monitoring” and teaches a charger (“charger or dock for charging”, [0231]) configured to provide power to a body (“a spherical handheld biosensor array device for physiological status monitoring” abstract; “the device is spherical” [0008]) ([0231]). 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 system of Shi, Teller, Mault Motomura and Philips a charger configured to provide power to the body, as taught by Drury, for the benefit of providing rechargeable power and ease of charging (Drury: [0231]).
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips, as applied in claim 27, in view of Drury (US 20170188864 A1) in further view of Fukamizu et al (JP 2013215334 A, hereinafter “Fukamizu”).
Regarding claim 45, Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips teach all limitations of claim 27. The modified invention of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips teaches the apparatus of claim 27.
The modified invention of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips does not teach a biofeedback method of reducing stress and/or inducing mindfulness comprising:
holding the apparatus using two hands and while placing the fingers in the designated indentations;
receiving a first stress and/or mindfulness related indication from the indicator,
self-adjusting a stress and/or mindfulness level; and
receiving a second stress and/or mindfulness related indication from the indicator.
However, Drury discloses “a spherical handheld biosensor array device for physiological status monitoring” (abstract) and teaches a biofeedback method ([0009] – [0010], [0024]) of reducing stress and/or inducing mindfulness comprising:
holding an apparatus (Figures 1 – 4B) using two hands (“simply holding a spherical device with both hands”, [0021]) and while placing the fingers in the designated indentations ([0368] Figure 3B);
receiving a stress and/or mindfulness related indication from the indicator ([0009] – [0010], [0024], [0368]).
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 apparatus of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips to incorporate a biofeedback method of reducing stress and/or inducing mindfulness comprising:
holding the apparatus using two hands and while placing the fingers in the designated indentations;
receiving stress and/or mindfulness related indication from the indicator, as taught by Drury, for the benefit of “monitoring physiological vital and non-vital parameters of a user that is portable” (Drury: [0006]).
The modified invention of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura, Philips, and Drury does not teach receiving a first second stress and/or mindfulness, self-adjusting stress and/or mindfulness level, and receiving a second stress and/or mindfulness.
However, Fukamizu discloses a “device for measuring and displaying stress of a subject calms down the mind and lowers a stress degree” and teaches receiving a first stress and/or mindfulness related indication,
self-adjusting stress and/or mindfulness level (“tension and anxiety is captured from the change in the RR interval” page 1 paragraph 8) (page 6 paragraph 5), and
receiving a second stress and/or mindfulness related indication (page 6 paragraph 5; Examiner interprets the device of Fukamizu receives “a second stress and/or mindfulness related indication” when evaluation circuit changes the pulse signal.).
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 invention of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura, Philips, and Drury to incorporate receiving a first second stress and/or mindfulness, self-adjusting stress and/or mindfulness level, and receiving a second stress and/or mindfulness and, as taught by Fukamizu, for the benefit of “calm[ing] down the mind and lower[ing] a stress degree” (Fukamizu: abstract).
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips, as applied in claim 27, in view of Zaimi (US 20110190570 A1).
Regarding claim 46, Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips teach all limitations of claim 27. The modified invention of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips teaches the apparatus of claim 27.
The modified invention of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips does not teach a kit comprising a leaflet with instructions regarding how to reach a reduced stress level and/or how to induce mindfulness.
However, Zaimi discloses “Biofeedback techniques enable individuals to regulate involuntary physiological parameters such as heart rate” (abstract) and teaches teach a kit (“kit”, [0060]) comprising a leaflet (“a pamphlet providing information regarding stress avoidance and techniques for promoting positive thoughts and inducing relaxation”, [0060]) with instructions regarding how to reach a reduced stress level and/or how to induce mindfulness ([0060]).
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 apparatus of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips to incorporate a kit comprising the apparatus and a leaflet with instructions regarding how to reach a reduced stress level and/or how to induce mindfulness, as taught by Zaimi, for the benefit of providing information to the user of how to use the apparatus/device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 8 March 2026, with respect to specification objection has been fully considered and is persuasive in light of the amendments. The specification objection of 19 September 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 8 March 2026, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The claim objections for claims 40 and 44 of 19 September 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8 - 9, filed 8 March 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 of 19 September 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, page 10, filed 8 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends “the balloon of Shi is clear not meant to be huggable, an particularly huggable by two hands of a user, since it is meant and designed to be squeezed by a single hand, as is the natural way to squeeze (and based on the figures).” However, the balloon of Shi is able to be hugged by two hands and the term “huggable” is not clearly defined/recited within the claim.
Applicant's arguments, page 10, filed 8 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends Motomura teaches “the device measures physical parameters related to the interaction of the subject and the device”, rather than physiological parameters of the subject as claimed. However, upon further consideration and as necessitated by the amendments to the claims, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shi (CN 204910071 U, see attached translation) in view of Teller et al (US 20040034289 A1, hereinafter “Teller”) in view of Mault (US 20040254501 A1) in view of Motomura et al (US 20110157088 A1, hereinafter “Motomura”) in further view Philips Avent my easy sippy cup (2015, NPL: U, see attached, hereinafter “Philips”). See rejection above.
Applicant's arguments, page 10, filed 8 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends “With respect to Philips, this document describes a bottle that is easy for a baby to grip, However, this is very different from the balloon of Shi, which is intended to be squeezed. While holding with both hands improves grip, it does not make squeezing easier, since a single hand squeezing is the normal and comfortable way”. However, the claims do not include the limitation of easier squeezing of the apparatus and how “easier/comfortable squeezing” is to be measured. Additionally, 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 apparatus of Shi, Teller, Mault and Motomura such that the indentations located on opposing sides of said body surface, as taught by Philips, for the benefit of providing better grip for users (page 1).
Applicant's arguments, page 11, filed 8 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends “adding indentations for placing both hands would also require enlarging the balloon” to make place for the indentations and (for both hands), which will change the parameters of the balloon and may, in fact, make it less easy to use. However, the balloon of Shi fits in two hands and the modified invention of Shi, Teller, Mault, Motomura and Philips teaches “adding indentations for placing both hands”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 at (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
/CARRIE R DORNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791