DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-27 are pending.
This action is Non-Final.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 11/28/2022 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1-5, 7-8 are poor quality photocopies/line thickness, Figures 2, 10 text is too small; Figures 1-10 “Fig” are too small; Figures 5, 7 has text on shaded surfaces . 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
The drawings in the brief description are not all discussed in the detailed description; see Rule 1.74. Please check all Figures, but at least Figure 1 is missing.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The use of the term Bluetooth, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: see drawing objections.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-19, 21-23 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 4-19, 21-23 are not been further treated on the merits.
Claims 1 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the head of a person” should read “a head of a person”. Claims 1, 20, 24, abbreviations should be defined prior to usage for clarity: EEG is never defined in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 20, 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1-3, the following issues render the claims indefinite:
Claim 1 is to an attachment which is set forth with intended use/inferential use of such being coupled to a control unit, but not that such attachment includes said structure as part of the defining corners of the claimed product. This is clear as the claim further defined the attachment to “comprising electrodes”. The claim then further defines structures/functions related to the inferential/intended elements. As such, it is not clear what elements are intended to be required and which elements are intended to not be required. This makes the metes and bounds of the claims unclear which renders the claims indefinite. For examination purposes, the claims are interpreted as an attachment comprising electrodes; where the structures of a control unit, microprocessor, A/D converter, actuator element and associated functions are merely claimed as intended use/inferential structures to the required claimed structures and are therefore outside the defined product of the attachment.
Further claim 1 refers to Figures 5 and 6 which is improper. This further makes the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
See MPEP 2173.05(s) Reference to Figures or Tables [R-10.2019]
Where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table “is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim. Incorporation by reference is a necessity doctrine, not for applicant’s convenience.” Ex parte Fressola, 27 USPQ2d 1608, 1609 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (citations omitted).
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description and the drawings may be used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims. Generally, the presence or absence of such reference characters does not affect the scope of a claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m) for information pertaining to the treatment of reference characters in a claim.
Further claim 1 recites “preferably not on the human head” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In addition, the term lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 2 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 1, and dependency.
Claim 3 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 1, and dependency. In addition, claim 3 recites “wherein two earlobe electrodes are arranged…the other electrodes…the EEG signals” are all terms which lack proper antecedent basis which renders the claim indefinite.
For these reasons the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear and render the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “A measurement method for detecting a disease-related change in the chemosensorically-, in particular olfactorily-conditioned signal partitions of an EEG” renders the claim indefinite. The claim is to a method but no steps are recited merely an intended result. This makes the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. As there is no method steps being claimed, no prior art can be speculatively applied.
Regarding claim 24-27, the following issues render the claims indefinite:
Claim 24 is to an attachment which is set forth with intended use/inferential use of such being coupled to a control unit, glasses, and head phones, but not that such attachment includes said structures as part of the defining corners of the claimed product. This is clear as the claim further defined the attachment to “comprising electrodes”. The claim then further defines structures/functions related to the inferential/intended elements. As such, it is not clear what elements are intended to be required and which elements are intended to not be required. This makes the metes and bounds of the claims unclear which renders the claims indefinite. For examination purposes, the claims are interpreted as an attachment comprising electrodes; where the structures of a control unit, glasses, headphones, microprocessor, A/D converter, actuator element and associated functions are merely claimed as intended use/inferential structures to the required claimed structures and are therefore outside the defined product of the attachment.
Further claim 24 refers to Figures 5 and 6 which is improper. This further makes the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
See MPEP 2173.05(s) Reference to Figures or Tables [R-10.2019]
Where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table “is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim. Incorporation by reference is a necessity doctrine, not for applicant’s convenience.” Ex parte Fressola, 27 USPQ2d 1608, 1609 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (citations omitted).
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description and the drawings may be used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims. Generally, the presence or absence of such reference characters does not affect the scope of a claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m) for information pertaining to the treatment of reference characters in a claim.
Further claim 24 recites “preferably not on the human head” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In addition, the term lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 25 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 1, and dependency.
Claim 26 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 1, and dependency.
Claim 27 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 1, and dependency. Further, claim 27 is unclear whether the “a modified olfactometer” is the same or different from “an olfactometer” inferentially claimed in claim 26. Additionally, “wherein the control unit (T) is coupled to a modified olfactometer integrated in the attachment” further makes the metes and bounds unclear. The limitations further limit inferential elements by using structures not previously claimed as part of the attachment. For examination purposes such limitation is interpreted as further intended use.
For these reasons the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear and render the claim indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Amores (Amores al, "Promoting relaxation using virtual reality, olfactory interfaces and wearable EEG", 2018 IEEE 15th International Conference on Wearable and Implantable Body Sensor Networks, March 4, 2018; cited by Applicant on IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Amores teaches an attachment for the head of a person, the attachment coupled to a first control unit (T) and comprising electrodes (E.sub.1 to E.sub.4) for receiving cerebral electrical activity or brain potentials, the electrodes leading to the first control unit (T); wherein the first control unit (T) has a microprocessor that is capable of recording signals from the electrodes (E.sub.1 to E.sub.4) in a time-related manner via an analog-to-digital converter; wherein the first control unit (T) is coupled to or actuates an actuator element (A.sub.1) that is capable (LDZ.sub.1) of releasing a fragrance in pulses as a stimulus in a flow from at least one pressurized cartridge (K.sub.1); wherein the signals of the electrodes (E.sub.1 to E.sub.4) have an EEG signal level in order to record (FIG. 5, FIG. 6) a group of chemosensorically-evoked potentials or at least the chemosensorically-influenced temporal sections thereof in a time-related manner and to analyze them - preferably not on the human head (see entire document, especially Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 2, Amores teaches wherein the electrodes are arranged in a 10/20 distribution on the attachment, so that, when the attachment is placed on the head of the person, cerebral electrical activity or brain potentials are or can be tapped there and can be transmitted to the analog-to-digital converter and the microprocessor (see entire document, especially Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 3, Amores teaches wherein two earlobe electrodes (A1, A2) are arranged laterally on the attachment for creating one or two reference potentials for the other electrodes and for the reference potential-defined acquisition of the EEG signals from the person as subject or test person (see entire document, especially Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 24, Amores teaches an attachment for the head of a person, the attachment coupled to a control unit (T), virtual-reality glasses and headphones, and comprising electrodes (E.sub.1 to E.sub.4) in a respective helmet segment holder for receiving cerebral electrical activity or brain potentials, the electrodes leading to the first control unit (T); wherein the first control unit has a microprocessor that is capable of recording signals from the electrodes (E.sub.1 to E.sub.4) in a time-related manner via an analog-to-digital converter; wherein the first control unit (T) is coupled to an actuator element (A.sub.1) that is capable of releasing a flow of humidified air from a pressurized first cartridge (K.sub.1) and capable of feeding, separately therefrom, a pulsed fragrance as a stimulus into the flow of air; wherein the signals of the electrodes have an EEG signal level in order to record (FIG. 5, FIG. 6) a group of chemosensorically evoked potentials or at least the chemosensorically-influenced temporal sections thereof in a time-related manner and to analyze them - preferably not on the human head (see entire document, especially Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 25, Amores teaches wherein the control unit (T) is configured to trigger a sensory stimulus embedded in a flow of air, the stimulus being feedable with an odorous substance or odorant into the flow of air in a pulsed manner in a time window of less than 250 ms (see entire document, especially Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 26, Amores teaches wherein the control unit (T) is coupled to an olfactometer and actuates the same. (see entire document, especially Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 27, Amores teaches wherein the control unit (T) is coupled to a modified olfactometer integrated in the attachment. (see entire document, especially Figures 1-3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2017/0042439, 2019/0387998, and US 2020/0302825 teach related subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R BLOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3252. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 EST.
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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571)272-3672. 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.
/MICHAEL R BLOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791