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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or
under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on March 01, 2023; September 12, 2024; and May 22, 2025 were considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 1-2 contain photographs; however, photographs are not the only practicable medium to show the depicted elements, see 37 C.F.R. 1.84(b)(1). Furthermore, the text in Fig. 2 is too small, see 37 C.F.R. 1.84(p)(3). In addition, Figs. 5(A) and 6(A) each contain arrows without label.
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.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: an auditory analysis system, an oscillation selection module, and an output device in claim 1; a filtering module, an onset detection module, and a gain control module in claim 2; a light generation module, a light adjustment module, and a filtering component in claim 7; stimulation unit in claim 11; a built-in audio playback system in claim 15; visual output device in claim 21.
Prong 1: “system”, “device”, “module”, “unit”, and “component” are generic placeholders. See MPEP 2181 §I, subsection A, ¶1.
Prong 2: the transition word “to” is used, followed by functional language:
“auditory analysis system” (note, no transition word);
“oscillation selection module” (note, no transition word);
“output device” (note, no transition word);
“a filtering module having means to filter an incoming audio signal”;
“an onset detection module having means to detect an onset of acoustic events in said signal”;
“a gain control module having means to adjust a gain of said signal”;
“light generation module” (note, no transition word);
“light adjustment module” (note, no transition word);
“filtering component” (note, no transition word);
“one or more stimulation units for generating…”;
“built-in audio playback system” (note, no transition word); and
“displaying said light pattern on a visual output device” (note, no transition word).
Prong 3: there is not sufficient structure to modify the generic placeholders.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The examiner interprets the generic computer with input, auxiliary audio input, and microphone (see specification ¶[0036]) to cover the corresponding structure, materials, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof for the auditory analysis system.
There is no structure in the specification for the oscillation selection module. Figure 3 indicates that the oscillation selection module is a “decision algorithm”, but the specification does not specify any structure for implementing such an algorithm.
The examiner interprets the array of electromagnets or electrodes, LED lights, computer monitor, TV monitor, goggles, virtual reality headsets, augmented reality glasses, smart glasses, gloves, wearable device, smart watch, or mobile device (see specification ¶[0035] and ¶[0050]) to cover the corresponding structure, materials, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof for the output device.
There is no structure in the specification for the filtering module.
There is no structure in the specification for the onset detection module.
There is no structure in the specification for the gain control module.
There is no structure in the specification for the light generation module.
There is no structure in the specification for the light adjustment module.
There is no structure in the specification for the filtering component.
The examiner interprets the array of electromagnets or electrodes, gloves, wearable device, smart watch, or mobile device (see specification ¶[0035] and ¶[0050]) to cover the corresponding structure, materials, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof for the stimulation unit.
The examiner interprets the graphical display and input means (see specification ¶[0036]) to cover the corresponding structure, materials, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof for the built-in audio playback system.
The examiner interprets the LED lights, computer monitor, TV monitor, goggles, virtual reality headsets, augmented reality glasses, smart glasses, or mobile device (see specification ¶[0035] and ¶[0050]) to cover the corresponding structure, materials, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof for the visual output device.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations 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 limitations recite 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 Objections
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-12, 15-18, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
the hyphen used on words about the end of each corresponding line should be deleted in claims 2-4, 7, 9-12, 15-18, and 21;
in claim 2, line 3: “said signal” should be “said incoming audio signal”;
in claim 2, line 4: “said signal” should be “said incoming audio signal”;
in claim 6, line 4: “PAC” should be phase-amplitude coupling (PAC)”;
in claim 12, lines 2-3: “or an array of electromagnets or electrodes” should be “an array of electromagnets, or an array of electrodes”;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2-6, 10, and 19-25 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.
Claim 2 recites “detect an onset of acoustic events in said signal” in line 3. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 2, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the onset detection process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the onset detection process itself, but only refers to the onset detection process in a “black box” description, meaning that the onset detection process is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the onset detection process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 2.
Claim 4 recites “predict the frequencies, phases and amplitudes of a human neural response to music; and wherein said entrainment simulator provides output to said oscillation selection module in the form of one or more network states” in lines 2-5. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see specification ¶[0042]-[0043] and Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 4, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. This is a machine learning/neural network type implementation (see specification ¶[0042]-[0043] and Figure 3), but no specificity is provided with the network, such as training, layers, data propagation, logics, etc. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the prediction/neural state process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the prediction/neural state process itself, but only refers to the prediction/neural state process in a “black box” description, meaning that the prediction/neural state process is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the prediction/neural state process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 2.
Claim 6 recites “select a most prominent oscillation in the one or more frequency ranges” in lines 2-3. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see ¶[0044] and Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 6, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the selection process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the selection process itself, but only refers to the selection process in a “black box” description, meaning that the selection process is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the selection process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites “to couple a gamma frequency to a beat and rhythmic structure of music through theta-gamma and delta-theta PAC” in lines 3-4. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see ¶[0044] and Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 6, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the coupling process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the coupling process itself, but only refers to the coupling process in a “black box” description, meaning that the coupling process is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the coupling process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention. It is noted that the reference to the article by Lakatos et al. is not connected to the specific algorithm of coupling process in the present application, and thus cannot be the basis for such written description for the coupling process. There is no indication of how the specific algorithm of Lakatos et al. is applied in the different elements of the presently claimed subject matter.
Claim 10 recites “one or more selected oscillation states selected by said oscillation selection module” in lines 3-4. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see ¶[0044] and Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 10, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the selection process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the selection process itself, but only refers to the selection process in a “black box” description, meaning that the selection process is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the selection process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 recites “selecting one or more oscillations in one or more predetermined frequency ranges” in line 2. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see ¶[0044] and Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 19, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the selection process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the selection process itself, but only refers to the selection process in a “black box” description, meaning that the selection process is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the selection process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 recites “generating a stimulation pattern using said one or more oscillations” in line 3. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see ¶[0050]-[0051], ¶[0070]-[0072], and ¶[0082]; Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 19, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the generation process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the generation process itself, but only refers to the generation process in a “black box” description, meaning that the generation process is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the generation process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 19.
Claim 21 recites “filtering said acoustic signal” in line 3. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see ¶[0038] and ¶[0083]; Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 21, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the filtering process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the filtering process itself, but only refers to the filtering process in a “black box” description, meaning that the filtering process is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the filtering process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites “detecting the onset of one or more acoustic events contained within said acoustic signal” in line 4. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 21, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the onset detection process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the onset detection process itself, but only refers to the onset detection process in a “black box” description, meaning that the onset detection process is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the onset detection process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites “simulating neural entrainment to said acoustic signal using an entrainment simulator; generating one or more coupling parameters to couple said one or more oscillations; using adaptive learning algorithms to adjust said one or more coupling parameters or intrinsic parameters” in lines 5-8. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see specification ¶[0042]-[0043] and ¶[0081]; Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 21, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. This is a machine learning/neural network type implementation (see specification ¶[0042]-[0043] and Figure 3), but no specificity is provided with the network, such as training, layers, data propagation, logics, etc. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the prediction/neural state process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the prediction/neural state process itself, but only refers to the prediction/neural state process in a “black box” description, meaning that the prediction/neural state process is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the prediction/neural state process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites “selecting one or more oscillations in one or more predetermined frequency ranges for display” in lines 9-10. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see ¶[0044] and Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 21, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the selection process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the selection process itself, but only refers to the selection process in a “black box” description, meaning that the selection process is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the selection process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites “generating a light pattern using said one or more oscillations” in line 11. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see ¶[0050]-[0051], ¶[0070]-[0072], and ¶[0082]; Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 21, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the generation process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the generation process itself, but only refers to the generation process in a “black box” description, meaning that the generation process is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the generation process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 22-25 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 21.
Claim 22 recites “said step of generating a light pattern comprises selecting a light pattern based on said patient profile, and adjusting said light pattern based on said patient profile” in line 11. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see ¶[0050]-[0051], ¶[0070]-[0072], and ¶[0082]; Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 22, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the selection/adjustment process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the selection/adjustment process itself, but only refers to the selection/adjustment process in a “black box” description, meaning that the selection/adjustment process is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the selection/adjustment process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 23 recites “coupling said input using one or more coupling parameters; and using adaptive learning algorithms to adjust said one or more parameters to optimize the frequency, amplitude and phase of one or more outgoing oscillation signals” in lines 4-6. This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (see specification ¶[0042]-[0043] and ¶[0081]; Figure 3).
Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably
conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 23, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. This is a machine learning/neural network type implementation (see specification ¶[0042]-[0043] and Figure 3), but no specificity is provided with the network, such as training, layers, data propagation, logics, etc. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the prediction/neural state process. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the prediction/neural state process itself, but only refers to the prediction/neural state process in a “black box” description, meaning that the prediction/neural state process is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the prediction/neural state process itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 24 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 23.
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 1-18 and 20-25 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.
Claim 1 recites a system with elements directed towards “an entrainment stimulator”, “an oscillation selection module”, and “a brain rhythm stimulator” in lines 3-5. From the specification, these elements are directed towards computer programs, presumed to run on a generic computer (see specification ¶[0042]-[0044] and ¶[0050]; Figure 3). As the claim is a system, and recited computer programs without any required functioning, it is not clear what specific elements are required within the bounds of the claim. This renders the scope of the claim unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 limitation “oscillation selection module” in line 4 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no structure in the specification for the oscillation selection module. Figure 3 indicates that the oscillation selection module is a “decision algorithm”, but the specification does not specify any structure for implementing such an algorithm. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-18 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 2 limitation “filtering module having means” in line 2 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no structure in the specification for the filtering module. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 2 limitation “onset detection module having means” in lines 2-3 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no structure in the specification for the onset detection module. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written descrip