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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/16/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 10, “generating temporal” should be –generating a temporal--.
In claim 2, line 8, “consists environmental features” should be –consists of environmental features--.
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 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 limitation(s) is/are: “acoustic output unit” in claim 14, and “visual output unit” in claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Based in Applicant’s specification “acoustic output unit” is a speaker, musical instrument, noise isolator/canceller, or combinations thereof (page 9, lines 14-16) and “visual output unit” can be a projector, light source, display, or some combination thereof (page 10, lines 1-3).
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, 2, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 18-21, 23, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35, and 38 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 the limitation "said desired physiological response" in line 5 and “the desired effect” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “optional physiological responses” in line 6. This renders the claim unclear as it cannot be determined what this is meant to encompass and can possibly be indefinite.
Claims 2, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 18-21, 23, 26, 28, and 29 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 and are likewise rejected.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a similar sense” in line 7. It is not clear what this is supposed to encompass.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “similar time-depended relations”. It is not clear what are the metes and bounds of the term “similar” in this context.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "each two following periodical schemes" in lines 1-2 and “said N periodical schemes” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that amending the claim to depend on claim 9 fixes the issue.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the desired visual profile" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "said desired physiological response" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation “said physiological response” in line 8. It is not clear which physiological response is being referred to as there can be more than one physiological response, and there are also two different physiological responses mentioned in the claim.
Claims 31, 33, 35, and 38 inherit the deficiencies of claim 30 and are likewise rejected.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “a similar sense” in line 4. It is not clear what this is supposed to encompass.
Claim 35 recites the limitation “similar time-depended relations” in line 5. It is not clear what are the metes and bounds of the term “similar” in this context.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 18-21, 23, 26, 28-31, 33, 35, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0080246 (Knight).
In regards to claims 1 and 30, Knight discloses a system for planning and/or controlling environmental features in a space for enhancing or inhibiting at least one physiological response of a subject (see title; abstract; paragraphs [0035]-[0147], specifically [0038], [0054]), comprising:
a processing circuitry configured for implementing the following steps:
(i) receiving input data of said desired physiological response (paragraphs [0054]-[0055]);
(ii) in response to the received input data, extracting from a pre-obtained database selected environmental features to be applied on the space, said selected environmental features are classified to result in the desired effect and generates a temporal execution profile of said selected environmental features (paragraphs [0055]-[0065], [0108]-[0112], [0117],[0132]; therapy profiles include durations of stimulation which would be the temporal execution profile);
(iii) outputting an output data indicative of the extracted environmental features (paragraph [0109]).
In regards to claims 2 and 31, Knight discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 30. In addition, paragraphs [0077]-[0096] describe environmental settings in a database that produce a physiological response (in this case vitamin D production or increased relaxation), which is known to effect mood (thus an effect on brain waves). Figures 5A-E and paragraphs [0128]-[0132] show the scoring of therapy (the user reported stress) and the environmental settings pre and post therapy (such as light settings, audio settings, aroma settings, and temperature settings), which would cover the subcategories of light, smell, touch, and hearing. Due to 112 issues of the claim, Knight would meet the limitations of the claim.
In regards to claim 6, Knight discloses the limitations of claim 1. Knight further shows in figures 3 and 4A-E and paragraphs [0069]-[0096] [0106]-[0127] show an execution profile for each of the therapy types with space and/or time dependent relations between at least two of the selected environmental features (administration of visual, acoustic, and aromatherapy that varies parameters of therapies based on duration of therapy) and paragraph [0088] discloses scents used in the aromatherapy that can be considered as natural scents that promote relaxation.
In regards to claim 9, Knight discloses the limitation of claim 2. Knight further shows in paragraphs [0069]-[0096] [0106]-[0127] the execution of at least two selected environmental features which would naturally have at least one periodical scheme, with similar time-dependent relations of two environmental features.
In regards to claim 10, Knight discloses the limitations of claim 2. In addition as noted in paragraphs [0069]-[0096] [0106]-[0127], there can be many different phases of administration of therapy with different parameters. Without better definition of the characteristics of the transition scheme, one could define any of the phases between two phases as a transition scheme with its own execution profile with at least one environmental feature different than the execution profile of different periodical schemes (Ex. Ramp up to plateau to ramp down stimulation where the plateau can be considered as the transition scheme).
In regards to claim 12, Knight discloses the limitations of claim 9. In addition, Knight discloses the usage of scent/aromas from aromatherapy sources/dispensers and configured with different scent and concentration combinations that are changed according to the duration and time administration of therapy in paragraphs [0088]-[0096].
In regards to claim 14, Knight discloses the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Knight discloses in paragraphs [0048], [0082]-[0087] that a speaker can be used for acoustic output and is one of the selected features and has its intensity and/or frequency changed depending on the therapy session, duration, and time administered, which is the temporal execution profile.
In regards to claim 18, Knight discloses the limitations of claim 14. Knight clearly shows in paragraphs [0048], [0082]-[0087] that a speaker can be used for acoustic output and that the output includes music, soundscapes and frequencies where they music has physiological responses at the cellular level. Note that without specifying how the elements are combined. Knight would meet the limitation of the claim as different sounds following each other sequentially as shown in in the notated paragraphs would meet this limitation. Furthermore, the usage of speakers would make the system use ASMR technology.
In regards to claims 19-20, Knight discloses the limitations of claim 14. In addition, King shows in in paragraphs [0082]-[0090] that there are settings that combine two or more acoustic elements to generate an output to obtain the desired physiological response (music and nature sounds would have more than one acoustic element in the output). These acoustic outputs would naturally have an acoustic frequency that matches neural oscillations associated with the desired physiological response (without specifics as to what neural oscillations associated with the desired physiological response is, Knight would meet the limitation).
In regards to claim 21, Knight discloses the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Knight shows in paragraphs [0055]-[0059] and [0069]-[0081] the application of a visual output from light sources (126) such as bulbs or screens/displays (light from light therapy) and shows that that visual output is one of the selected features and has its intensity and/or frequency, duration, dimming and light cycle delivery changed depending on the therapy session, duration, and time administered, which would require visual execution data.
In regards to claim 23, Knight discloses the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Knight shows in paragraphs [0092]-[0096] and [0106]-[0127] that some of the environmental features being modified include temperature and humidity conditions.
In regards to claim 26, Knight discloses the limitations of claim 1. While Knight does not state the presence of a taste-related feature, as currently written the taste-related feature is recited to be instructions, which can be interpreted as nonfunctional descriptive material. The instructions can potentially be a sign with writing, word file with the instructions, or pdf file with instructions, which falls within the realm of printed matter as there is currently no functional relationship to the physical structure and printed matter. Thus, as currently written, Knight would anticipate the limitations of claim 26.
In regards to claim 28, Knight discloses the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Knight discloses in paragraphs [0009], [0011], [0054]-[0055], [0078], and [0125] notes that the responses include alertness and awareness.
In regards to claim 29, Knight discloses the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Knight in paragraphs [0038], [0054], [0062]-[0063], [0112]-[0114], and [0125] shows that the physiological response to therapy looks at changes in to indicia related to stress such as heart rate, body temperature, blood pressure, and breathing rate.
In regards to claim 33, Knight discloses the limitations of claim 30. In addition, Knight discloses in paragraphs [0077]-[0096] environmental settings in a database that produce a physiological response (in this case vitamin D production or increased relaxation), which is known to effect mood (thus an effect on brain waves). Figures 5A-E and paragraphs [0128]-[0132] show the scoring of therapy (the user reported stress) and the environmental settings pre and post therapy (such as light settings, audio settings, aroma settings, and temperature settings), which would cover the subcategories of light, smell, touch, and hearing. Due to 112 issues of the claim, Knight would meet the limitations of the claim. Knight further shows in figures 3 and 4A-E and paragraphs [0069]-[0096] [0106]-[0127] show an execution profile for each of the therapy types with space and/or time dependent relations between at least two of the selected environmental features (administration of visual, acoustic, and aromatherapy that varies parameters of therapies based on duration of therapy) and paragraph [0088] discloses scents used in the aromatherapy that can be considered as natural scents that promote relaxation.
In regards to claim 35, Knight discloses the limitations of claim 33. Knight further shows in figures 3 and 4A-E and paragraphs [0069]-[0096] [0106]-[0127] show an execution profile for each of the therapy types with space and/or time dependent relations between at least two of the selected environmental features (administration of visual, acoustic, and aromatherapy that varies parameters of therapies based on duration of therapy) and paragraph [0088] discloses scents used in the aromatherapy that can be considered as natural scents that promote relaxation. In addition, there can be many different phases of administration of therapy with different parameters. Without better definition of the characteristics of the transition scheme, one could define any of the phases between two phases as a transition scheme with its own execution profile with at least one environmental feature different than the execution profile of different periodical schemes (Ex. Ramp up to plateau to ramp down stimulation where the plateau can be considered as the transition scheme). Knight further discloses the usage of scent/aromas from aromatherapy sources/dispensers and configured with different scent and concentration combinations that are changed according to the duration and time administration of therapy in paragraphs [0088]-[0096].
In regards to claim 38, Knight discloses the limitations of claim 33. In addition, Knight discloses in paragraphs [0048], [0082]-[0087] that a speaker can be used for acoustic output and is one of the selected features and has its intensity and/or frequency changed depending on the therapy sessions desired outcome, duration, and time administered, which is the temporal execution profile and that the speaker can be used for acoustic output that includes music, soundscapes and frequencies where they music has physiological responses at the cellular level. Note that without specifying how the elements are combined. Knight would meet the limitation of the claim as different sounds following each other sequentially as shown in in the notated paragraphs would meet this limitation. The usage of speakers would make the system use ASMR technology. King shows in in paragraphs [0082]-[0090] that there are settings that combine two or more acoustic elements to generate an output to obtain the desired physiological response (music and nature sounds would have more than one acoustic element in the output). These acoustic outputs would naturally have an acoustic frequency that matches neural oscillations associated with the desired physiological response (without specifics as to what neural oscillations associated with the desired physiological response is, Knight would meet the limitation).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA DARYL DEANON LANNU whose telephone number is (571)270-1986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 AM - 5 PM, Friday 8 AM -12 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, Charles Marmor can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/JOSHUA DARYL D LANNU/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CARRIE R DORNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
