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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/US2022/50755, filed 11/22/2022, which claims benefit of application no. 63/282,635, filed 11/23/2021. The instant application has the effective filing date of 23 November 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/13/2023 and 06/22/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings, submitted on 11/23/2022, are accepted by the examiner.
Specification: Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it appears only the first page of a WIPO publication was provided. 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more, as detailed in the analysis below.
Eligibility Step 1: Subject matter eligibility evaluation in accordance with MPEP § 2106:
Claims 1-6 are directed to a statutory category (method).
Claims 7-13 are directed to a statutory category (product).
Claims 14-20 are directed to a statutory category (system).
Therefore, in accordance with MPEP § 2106.03 all claims have patent eligible subject matter.
[Eligibility Step 1: YES]
Eligibility Step 2A: This step determines whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception in accordance with MPEP § 2106.
Eligibility Step 2A -- Prong One: Limitations are analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that could equate to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon). Possible judicial exceptions are explored below.
Recitations of Judicial Exceptions:
Claims 1, 7 and 14: analyzing the sensor data using a machine learning model to determine one or more changes to a user state; determining, based at least in part upon the analyzed sensor data, one or more modifications to be made to the virtual bioadaptive environment; (mathematical concept, mental process)
Claims 8 and 15: determine, based at least in part upon the analyzed sensor data, that at least a subset of the sensor data is below a threshold level; (mental process)
Step 2A – Prong One Analysis:
Analysis techniques such as making mental determinations of observable data, requiring nothing more than the human mind and pen/paper, read on observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, and fall under the mental process grouping of abstract ideas.
Analysis techniques such as using machine learning algorithms to analyze data, recite mathematical calculations and relationships that fall under the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas.
Therefore, the claims are found to recite judicial exceptions.
[Eligibility Step 2A – Prong One: YES]
Eligibility Step 2A – Prong Two: A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. If the claim contains no additional claim elements beyond the abstract idea, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). Additional elements are recited, categorized, and analyzed below.
Data Inputting/Outputting Elements:
Claims 1, 7, and 14: providing, from a presentation device, a virtual bioadaptive environment for experience by a user;
receiving, from the presentation device, sensor data associated with the user;
providing a modified virtual bioadaptive environment on the presentation device.
Claims 2, 9, and 17: wherein the virtual bioadaptive environment includes at least one of audio stimuli, visual stimuli, and olfactory stimuli.
Claims 4, 11, and 18: wherein the visual stimuli include at least one of scene imagery and an avatar guide.
Claim 6: further comprising: storing the changed virtual bioadaptive environment to a user profile specific to the user.
Claims 8 and 15: provide the modified virtual bioadaptive environment based, at least in part, upon the subset of the sensor data being below the threshold level.
Computer Components Elements:
Claim 1: Computer-implemented method
Claim 7: A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to
Claim 14: A system, comprising: a presentation device; at least one processor; and memory, the memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to
Bioadaptive Environment Elements:
Claims 3 and 10: wherein the virtual bioadaptive environment is provided, at least in part, using virtual reality, augmented reality, or enhanced reality.
Claims 5, 12, and 19: wherein the virtual bioadaptive environment is changed automatically in real time or near-real time.
Claims 13 and 20: wherein changing the virtual bioadaptive environment includes changing at least one of: audio type, audio pitch, audio volume, scene type, scene brightness, and scent.
Step 2A – Prong Two Analysis:
The data inputting and outputting elements complete necessary data gathering activities to complete the judicial exceptions, classified as insignificant extra-solution activity per Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Generic computer components and implementations provide mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas onto a technological environment per Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
The bioadaptive environment elements as instantly recited are provided on a presentation device (claim 1), such as a generic computer monitor. As such, they are also drawn to necessary data outputting steps, classified as insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP 2106.05(g).
As such, the additional elements, when viewed separately and in the context of a whole claimed invention, do not integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
[Eligibility Step 2A – Prong Two: NO]
Eligibility Step 2B: Claim elements are probed for inventive concept equating to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(II)).
Step 2B Analysis:
The data gathering elements are further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional at Step 2B per Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) of MPEP 2106.05 (g).
The computer components are further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional per Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 for storing and retrieving information in memory and Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (MPEP 2106.05 (a)).
The bioadaptive environment elements are drawn to a type of outputting/displaying data on a presentation device, which may be a monitor. The limitations under this category are found well-understood, routine, and conventional per Elor et al. (Frontiers in Virtual Reality; Vol. 1: 585993; 2020), which reviews immersive virtual reality systems which utilize adaptive biofeedback signal processing.
As such, the additional elements are further found to lack inventive concept.
[Eligibility Step 2B: NO]
Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to judicial exceptions without significantly more and are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(a)(2) as being anticipated by Coleman et al. (US 2019/0113973).
Claims 1, 7, and 14 are directed to methods, computer readable mediums and systems that providing, from a presentation device, a virtual bioadaptive environment for experience by a user; receiving, from the presentation device, sensor data associated with the user; analyzing the sensor data using a machine learning model to determine one or more changes to a user state.
Coleman et al. describes systems and methods for collecting, analyzing, and sharing bio-signal and non-bio-signal data.
Coleman et al. teaches a Multi-modal EEG Data-Collection and Adaptive Signal Processing System (MED-CASP System) for enabling single or multi-user mobile brainwave or brain activity applications [0068]; in which data may be processed, analyzed, and categorized as it is received from the sensors [0131]; and machine learning is used to discover brain-signatures on a per person basis across a number of their sessions [0176] and determine patterns across a user's sessions to change and adapt a particular user's pipeline [0083].
Claims 1, 7, and 14 are further directed to determining, based at least in part upon the analyzed sensor data, one or more modifications to be made to the virtual bioadaptive environment; and providing a modified virtual bioadaptive environment on the presentation device.
Coleman et al. teaches brain signatures can be used to provide quantitative and or qualitative real-time or post-session feedback to a user in a number of ways [0176]; machine learning may be used to determine patterns across a user's sessions to change and adapt a particular user's pipeline [0083]; and the user's data is uploaded to a cloud database where machine learning algorithms can process the data and thereby customize the brainwave processing algorithms to better fit the user's brainwaves; and the adaptations are then offered back to the user through the user's online profile, to enhance the user's experience [0440].
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are directed to wherein the virtual bioadaptive environment includes at least one of audio stimuli, visual stimuli, and olfactory stimuli.
Coleman et al. teaches the app may apply the pipeline parameters to process the EEG data in the device and it is used to provide feedback to the user through visual screen graphics, audio or tactile feedback [0080].
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are directed to wherein the virtual bioadaptive environment is provided, at least in part, using virtual reality, augmented reality, or enhanced reality.
Coleman et al. teaches in some embodiments, audio/visual display may be a single display device, for example, a monitor, an art exhibit, or an augmented reality (“AR”) or virtual reality (“VR”) experience [0468].
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are directed to wherein the visual stimuli include at least one of scene imagery and an avatar guide.
Coleman et al. teaches an augmented reality meditation environment may be provided where visual world changes when in different phases of meditation [0356]; using visual illusions such as the Necker cube, Schroeder staircase and Rubin's vase [0444]; and one of one or more audio/visual displays in the form of light and sound panels, to produce a shared experience [0473], such as that simulating a fire [0477].
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are directed to wherein the virtual bioadaptive environment is changed automatically in real time or near-real time.
Coleman et al. teaches the cloud may calculate feedback in real time using the pipeline defined by that pipeline ID [0084]; and the user can enjoy new neurofeedback guided sessions i.e. feedback in real time as to the strength (i.e. distance of their calculated features to the training data they recorded during the calibration session)[0280].
Claim 6 is directed to storing the changed virtual bioadaptive environment to a user profile specific to the user.
Coleman et al. teaches each person's brain may also learn over time, requiring the system platform to change algorithm parameters over time in order to continue to analyze the person's brainwaves; new parameters may be calculated based on collected data, and may form part of a user's dynamic profile; and this profile may be stored in the cloud, allowing each user to maintain a single profile across multiple computing devices [0072].
Coleman et al. further teaches in some embodiments, a user's profile stored in the cloud may be used in the creation of an encryption key unique to that user [0072].
Claims 13 and 20 are directed to wherein changing the virtual bioadaptive environment includes changing at least one of: audio type, audio pitch, audio volume, scene type, scene brightness, and scent.
Coleman et al. teaches using audio/visual displays in the form of light and sound panels, to produce a shared experience, in which the light and sound panels may change colour, brightness and audio, as generated by sensory feedback generator [0473].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman et al. (US 2019/0113973) as applied to claims 1-7, 9-14, and 16-20 above.
Coleman et al. teaches a method of bio-signal data collection and adaptive signal processing applied to a biofeedback system, as described above.
Claims 8 and 15 are directed to determining, based at least in part upon the analyzed sensor data, that at least a subset of the sensor data is below a threshold level; and providing the modified virtual bioadaptive environment based, at least in part, upon the subset of the sensor data being below the threshold level.
Coleman et al. further teaches, if the EEG signal quality exceeds a minimum threshold while being worn by the user, and privacy settings allow, then EEG data streams are transmitted to the cloud [0082]; the EEG signal data may form shared data that is transferred to real-time streaming servers and processed by algorithm processor to form results data [0476]; and as shown in FIG. 23, results data is then sent to a sensory feedback generator [0467].
Coleman et al. does not explicitly teach providing modified sensor data based on the data subset being below a given threshold.
Coleman et al. further teaches data may be processed, analyzed, and categorized as it is received in the creation of encryption key [0426]; and results or readings from bio-signal data that fall within thresholds, for example in bins, for a particular sequence may be used to form encryption key [0390].
Therefore Coleman et al. teaches providing the modified virtual bio-adaptive environment based on a subset of data above a certain threshold; and that results can also be modified below a certain threshold. As such, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the technique of sub-setting analyzed bio-signal data below a threshold can be similarly be applied to data sent to an adaptive feedback generator with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
No claims are currently allowed.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Milana Thompson whose telephone number is (571)272-8740. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00-6:00 ET.
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, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached at (571) 272-1113. 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.
/M.K.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/Karlheinz R. Skowronek/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights