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 .
Amendments/Remarks
Applicant’s Amendments/Remarks filed on 11/05/2023 have been received and made of record.
Claims 1, and 8 have been amended.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Please refer to the action below.
Examiner Notes
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. However, the claimed subject matter, not the specification, is the measure of the invention.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicants’ arguments of 11/05/2025, corresponding to pages 5-6 correlating to independent claims 1 and 8 in relation to the prior arts of record citing “generating secondary data by logically comparing the primarily determined emotional tendencies……. and removing any primary data identified as "do not fit into an image” and generating a result in the form of one or more secondary emotional tendencies", and/or “wherein the server processes the primary data to generate secondary data by removing any primary data identified as "do not fit into an image"”; have been considered, but they are moot in the light of the new ground of rejection.
Secondly, Applicants’ arguments of “Claims 1-7 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang ("Fusion of Facial Expression..."). Applicant respectfully traverses and submits Huang does not anticipate the pending claims. The claims as presented herein recite elements not found in Huang and are not anticipated. The current rejection of Independent Claim 1 as previously presented argues that Huang teaches generating second data by logically comparing the primarily determined emotional tendencies as demonstrated by the secondary data in Table 1, to generate secondary data represented by the result Q therein (Office Action, Pages 5-6). As explained in Table 1 of Huang, Q represents a logical combination of an identified emotion state (happiness, neutral, sadness, fear) and an intensity level (strong, moderate, weak) (Huang, Page 4, Table 1). The combination of these two factors does not meet the requirements of Claim 1 which recites: generating secondary data by logically comparing the primarily determined emotional tendencies which have occurred at the same time in a computer-aided manner and/or automatically" Even as previously presented, the logical rules of Huang do not meet the limitation of comparing primarily determined emotional tendencies which have occurred at the same time to generate secondary data. For at least these reasons, Independent Claim 1 is not anticipated by Huang. Independent Claim 8 recites analogous limitations and are allowable for analogous reasons. The remaining claims depend from these allowable Independent Claims and are likewise allowable. Applicant, therefore, respectfully requests favorable action on all claims as presented herein", have been considered, however, they are not fully persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above assertions. As previously stated, the currently added claimed limitations arguments addressing the newly added claimed languages of “generating secondary data by logically comparing the primarily determined emotional tendencies……. and removing any primary data identified as "do not fit into an image” and generating a result in the form of one or more secondary emotional tendencies" and/or “wherein the server processes the primary data to generate secondary data by removing any primary data identified as "do not fit into an image"”; are moot in regards of the new ground of rejection.
However, the prior art of at least Huang clearly teaches the collected and forwarded primary data of at least section 2.2 and 3.1 of the NPL further comprising at least facial image data, inputted text data, and EEG data to a neural network computing system configured to form EEG results and face data results further indicative of the respective primary data sets for each recording and/or capture device and further in at least Figure 1 each EEG and Face data set as implied individually and, automatically to one or more primarily determined emotional tendencies of further Fig. 2 and sections 2.2.2-2.2.3 of the user; Yuang further teaches generating in at least Table 1 a result Q in the form of one or more secondary emotional tendencies of the recorded and/or captured user by processing the secondary data.
On pages of 7-8, applicant further argues “Claims 8-12, 14, and 15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Hatano (JP 6524049). Claim 13 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Hatano, and further in view of Frank (US 2025/0160668). Applicant respectfully traverses and submits the proposed combinations, even if proper, which Applicant does not concede, do not render the pending claims obvious. To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the references cited by the Examiner must disclose all claimed limitations. In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 180 U. S.P.Q. 580 (C.C.P.A. 1974). Even if each limitation is disclosed in a combination of references, however, a claim composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art. KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). Rather, the Examiner must identify an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed. Id. "Rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." Id., citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). For at least these reasons, Independent Claim 1 is not rendered obvious by the cited references, whether considered alone or in combination. Independent Claim recite analogous limitations and are allowable for analogous reasons. The remaining claims depend from these allowable Independent Claims and are likewise allowable. Applicant, therefore, respectfully requests favorable action on all claims as presented herein.
As previously stated above, the newly cited claim amendments citing “wherein the server processes the primary data to generate secondary data by removing any primary data identified as "do not fit into an image"”, have been considered, however, they are moot in the light of the new ground of rejection.
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 1, and 8 newly cited limitations 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 8 (being the representative claim) recites similar limitations to the respective independent claim 1, therefore discussion is omitted for brevity. Claim 1 reciting “generating secondary data by logically comparing the primarily determined emotional tendencies which have occurred at the same time in a computer-aided manner and/or automatically and removing any primary data identified as "do not fit into an image"; and generating a result in the form of one or more secondary emotional tendencies of the recorded and/or captured user by processing the secondary data.” And claim 8 reciting of (wherein the server processes the primary data to generate secondary data by removing any primary data identified as "do not fit into an image") lack written description.
The specification does not sufficiently identify the said image and/or how said primary data fits or does not into the image, as the primary data in at least pages 15-18 of the specification include in a case primary data defining captured audio data, captured video data, EEG data, pulses of a user. Secondly, the claim and/or the specification do not mention how the identifying of any primary data identified as "do not fit into an image" is done or realized or achieved as defined in MPEP 2163(I)(A). The specification merely makes reference in pages 4-6 of the primary data being “In some embodiments, audio data relating to the user (1) are generated as primary data. In some embodiments, video data relating to the user (1) are generated as primary data. In some embodiments, electroencephalography results for the user (1) are collected as primary data. In some embodiments, heart rate data relating to the user (1) are collected as primary data. In some embodiments, speech or text analysis data are collected as primary data”; and further in pages 17-18 of the specification citing “The secondary data can also be used to identify, delete and/or reject implausible data in the primary data set(s). For example, this may be carried out in an individualized manner by way of a decision by the user or in an automated manner using appropriately trained artificial intelligence. Finally, the secondary data and/or the secondary data sets, for example, are based only on primary data relating to the user which make sense during the combined consideration of all primary data within the scope of the resulting secondary data set. Primary data which in that respect "do not fit into the image" are identified, for example, during the processing of primary data sets to form secondary data and are separately assessed, rejected and/or deleted.
The claimed limitations appear to lack critical or essential elements to the practice of the invention. Furthermore, it has been stated that simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient. Examiner suggests the Applicant to make amendments to the claims to resolve the deficiencies, provided the amendments would be supported by the application as filed MPEP 2163.04, 2164.04.
Dependent claims 2-7, and 9-15 are further rejected since they depend from the rejected base claims and as they fail to solve the above problems.
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, and 8 are further 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 (being the representative claim) recites similar limitations to the respective independent claim 1, therefore discussion is omitted for brevity.
The claim requires “(processes the primary data to generate secondary data by removing any primary data identified as "do not fit into an image")”.
In relying on the claim languages, and that of the disclosure, in the case of the embodiments citing in pages 4-6 of the disclosure citing the primary data being (“In some embodiments, audio data relating to the user (1) are generated as primary data. In some embodiments, video data relating to the user (1) are generated as primary data. In some embodiments, electroencephalography results for the user (1) are collected as primary data. In some embodiments, heart rate data relating to the user (1) are collected as primary data. In some embodiments, speech or text analysis data are collected as primary data”), these claimed limitations as written are found ambiguous and unclear as to which images are being addressed and how they relate to the cited embodiments to identify any impossible or implausible primary data as claimed in pages 4-6 in the form of audio, video, speech and/or EEG data identified as "do not fit into an image”.
The claims as currently understood are rejected as being indefinite and unclear for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Applicant needs to positively recite the necessary elements, and novel subject matter to more effectively claim the subject matter which applicant regards as his invention.
Dependent claims 2-7, and 9-14 are further rejected as they fail to solve the above problems.
Examiner respectfully advises applicant to review all pending claims and to positively and particularly point out the claimed subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention, in order to expedite the precaution of the application and shorten the time of examining process.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter of this application as currently claimed is unpatentable under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Therefore, the above claim is rejected under USC 112 second, as best understood by examiner as indicated in this office action above.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-12, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yuang et al. (NPL cited in IDS), in view of Zhou et al. (JP 2020/047237, A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yuang teaches a method for recognizing the emotional tendency of a user recorded over a defined period by two or more recording and/or capture devices (Yuang teaches in at least the Abstract method for recognizing the emotional tendency of a user recorded over a defined period by two or more devices of at least sec. 3.1 including a camera, EEG sensors, and periphery sensors comprising said recording and/or capture devices),
the method comprising:
generating primary data relating to the user for each recording and/or capture device (section 2.1, 3.1 and Fig. 1 further teaches the acquired/generated further comprising the primary data relating to the user for each recording and/or capture device);
forwarding the primary data to a server (collected primary data of further section 2.2 and 3.1 further comprising at least facial image data, inputted text data, and EEG data are forwarded to a neural network computing system indicative in the art of a server which Applicant specifically cites on page 16 of 24 of the specification (“The expression "server" should be interpreted as broadly as possible so as to cover all electronic devices having data processing properties, in particular. Servers may therefore be, for example, personal computers, handheld computer systems, pocket PC devices, mobile radio devices and other communication devices which can process data in a computer-aided manner, processors and other electronic data processing devices”);
combining the primary data in the server to form respective primary data sets for each recording and/or capture device by processing the primary data (processed multimodal/fusion emotion recognition of further Figs. 1-2, Table 1, and sec. 3.1-5 further correspond to combined and fused collected primary data from the sensors devices in the neural network computing system to form EEG results and face data results further indicative of the respective primary data sets for each recording and/or capture device);
assigning each primary data set individually and, in a computer-aided manner to one or more primarily determined emotional tendencies of the user (assign further in at least Figure 1 each EEG and Face data set as implied individually and, in a computer-aided manner to one or more primarily determined emotional tendencies of further Fig. 2 and sections 2.2.2-2.2.3 of the user);
generating secondary data by logically comparing the primarily determined emotional tendencies which have occurred at the same time in a computer-aided manner and/or automatically (generating further in Table 1 secondary data by logically comparing the primarily determined emotional tendencies which have occurred at the same time at least automatically)
and
generating a result in the form of one or more secondary emotional tendencies of the recorded and/or captured user by processing the secondary data (generating in at least Table 1 a result Q in the form of one or more secondary emotional tendencies of the recorded and/or captured user by processing the secondary data).
Yuang is silent regarding the above lined out items such as generating said secondary data by logically comparing said primarily determined emotional tendencies and removing any primary data identified as "do not fit into an image" and generating said result in the form of one or more secondary emotional tendencies.
Zhou teaches an embodiment of collecting facial images of a user, and uses a virtual reality system to identify and recognize facial expressions and emotion of a user based on the collected facial images of a user, and further utilized a fusion process “considering facial features such as mouth and eyes as separate studies for facial expression analysis (ie, emotion determination). If there is an emotion / intention collision between these facial features, the fusion process can determine a new weight for the facial expression parameter and reconstruct the avatar's facial expression. Emotion / intention conflicts can occur between facial features, such as laughing and blinking eyes, or can result from two opposite emotions (happy versus sad) in facial expression recognition. In this situation, the VR device 20 responds by generating fusion parameters (ie, facial expression parameters with lighter or heavier weights) to reconstruct the appropriate facial expressions of the avatar. In other words, a fusion process can be used to reduce or even eliminate suspicion in the facial expression display to make the determined emotional result more powerful”, further implying the fusion process creates secondary data or emotional result by eliminating or remove any implausible or suspicion in the result data further creating or generating a secondary data as implied by comparing in a case primarily determined laughing and blinking eyes emotional tendencies which applicant further mentioned on page 17 of 24 in a case as “Moods and feelings which are expressed via the captured primary data are referred to as an "emotional tendency"” by removing or eliminating any identified suspicious primary data which may be referred as secondary data and do not fit into a displayed image as said generated result. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Yuang in view of Zhou to include wherein said generating secondary data by logically comparing said primarily determined emotional tendencies and removing any primary data identified as "do not fit into an image" and generating said result in the form of one or more secondary emotional tendencies, as discussed above, as Yuang in view of Zhou are in the same field of endeavor of capturing realtime user data and processing primary data relating to the captured data for determining, recognizing, and reporting secondary user emotional tendencies, Zhou’s fusion process for generating and recognizing secondary user emotional tendencies complements the automated determining, recognizing, and reporting secondary user emotional tendencies of Yuang in the sense that the fusion architecture of Zhou when combined with the architecture of the automated determining, recognizing, and reporting secondary user emotional tendencies of Yuang provides a fusion method and system with the capability of removing and/or eliminating any identified suspicious or conflicted primary data which may conflict as secondary data and/or do not fit in the or into a displayed or captured image as said generated result, and ultimately display the fusion result on the HMD device for a further user experience according to further known methods to yield predictable results since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as said combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is either commonly available and understood in the art thereby a variation on already known art (See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Regarding claim 2 (according to claim 1), Yuang further teaches wherein there are at least three recording and/or capture devices (section 3.1 and the Abstract further teaches collected data further include subject’s attention data, entered text, EEG data and the like further indicating at least at least three recording and/or capture data by these devices).
Regarding claim 3 (according to claim 1), Yuang further teaches wherein the primary data comprises audio data relating to the user (the introduction of Yuang further teaches known methods of collecting combined primary data comprises audiovisual, speech, facial expression, EEG and physiological signals including said at least audio data relating to the user for an automated multimodal emotion recognition method).
Regarding claim 4 (according to claim 1), Yuang further teaches wherein the primary data comprises video data relating to the user (captured facial attention or video data of Fig. 1 and sec. 3.1-5).
Regarding claim 5 (according to claim 1), Yuang further teaches wherein the primary data comprises electroencephalography results for the user (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6 (according to claim 1), Yuang further teaches wherein the primary data comprises heart rate data relating to the user (the introduction of Yuang further teaches known methods of collecting combined primary data comprising physiological signals of the user further comprising in a case said heart rate data relating to the user).
Regarding claim 7 (according to claim 1), Yuang further teaches wherein the primary data comprises speech or text analysis data (user entered natural language of further sec. 3.1 further comprises said text analysis primary data).
Regarding claim 8, Yuang teaches a system for recognizing the emotional tendency of a user recorded and/or captured by a sensor system (Yuang teaches in at least the Abstract, the Introduction and Figs. 1-2 an automated fusion/multimodal emotion recognition system for recognizing the emotional tendency of a user recorded over a defined period by two or more devices of at least sec. 3.1 including a camera, EEG sensors, and periphery sensors comprising said recording and/or capture devices),
the system at least comprising:
at least two devices for recording and/or capturing primary data relating to the user (devices of the Introduction and section 3.1 further comprises the at least two devices including at least a camera, EEG sensors, and periphery sensors further capturing primary data relating to the user);
a server (data collected by the devices of the Introduction, section 3.1 and Figs. 1-2 further forwarded to the fusion/multimodal emotion recognition system further comprising a neural network computing system which may serve in the art as a server which Applicant specifically cites on page 16 of 24 of the specification (“The expression "server" should be interpreted as broadly as possible so as to cover all electronic devices having data processing properties, in particular. Servers may therefore be, for example, personal computers, handheld computer systems, pocket PC devices, mobile radio devices and other communication devices which can process data in a computer-aided manner, processors and other electronic data processing devices”);
a transmitter for passing the primary data generated in this manner to the server (devices of further sec. 3.1 and Fig. 1 further understoodly forwarded captured primary data to said fusion/multimodal emotion recognition system of further Figs. 1-2 by means of an obvious transmitter);
wherein the server processes the primary data to generate secondary data (Fig. 2 and Table 1 further illustrates captured primary data being converted to said generated secondary emotion data);
Yuang is silent regarding the above lined-out items such as specifically citing generate said secondary data by removing any primary data identified as "do not fit into an image" and an output device communicating said result of the computer-aided processing of the said secondary data.
Zhou teaches an embodiment of collecting facial images of a user, and uses a virtual reality system to identify and recognize facial expressions and emotion of a user based on the collected facial images of a user, and further utilized a fusion process “considering facial features such as mouth and eyes as separate studies for facial expression analysis (ie, emotion determination). If there is an emotion / intention collision between these facial features, the fusion process can determine a new weight for the facial expression parameter and reconstruct the avatar's facial expression. Emotion / intention conflicts can occur between facial features, such as laughing and blinking eyes, or can result from two opposite emotions (happy versus sad) in facial expression recognition. In this situation, the VR device 20 responds by generating fusion parameters (ie, facial expression parameters with lighter or heavier weights) to reconstruct the appropriate facial expressions of the avatar. In other words, a fusion process can be used to reduce or even eliminate suspicion in the facial expression display to make the determined emotional result more powerful”, further implying the fusion process creates secondary data or emotional result by eliminating or remove any implausible or suspicion in the result data further creating or generating a secondary data as implied by comparing in a case primarily determined laughing and blinking eyes emotional tendencies which applicant further mentioned on page 17 of 24 in a case as “Moods and feelings which are expressed via the captured primary data are referred to as an "emotional tendency"” by removing or eliminating any identified suspicious primary data which may be referred as secondary data and do not fit into a displayed image as said generated result. Zhou further teaches in the embodiment “a head mounted display (HMD) worn by the user is used to display interactive images generated by the computing device to the user for a VR experience…. VR device 20 applies the detected speech / tone for speech analysis, so that the shape of the avatar's mouth can be more accurately generated and spoken. Contents can be displayed. Thus, a combination of different types of data actually enhances the animation of the avatar's face, so that the user's emotions are shown to interact with other players in the VR environment” further implying the HMD device as the output device further communicating a result of at least the fusion process or the computer-aided processing of the said secondary data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Yuang in view of Zhou to include wherein said generate secondary data by removing any primary data identified as "do not fit into an image" and an output device communicating said result of the computer-aided processing of the said secondary data, as discussed above, as Yuang in view of Zhou are in the same field of endeavor of capturing realtime user data and processing primary data relating to the captured data for determining, recognizing, and reporting secondary user emotional tendencies, Zhou’s fusion process for generating and recognizing secondary user emotional tendencies and the output HMD device complements the automated determining, recognizing, and reporting secondary user emotional tendencies of Yuang in the sense that the fusion architecture of Zhou when combined with the architecture of the automated determining, recognizing, and reporting secondary user emotional tendencies of Yuang provides a fusion method and system with the capability of removing and/or eliminating any identified suspicious or conflicted primary data which may conflict as secondary data and/or do not fit in the or into a displayed or captured image as said generated result, and ultimately display the fusion result on the HMD device for a further user experience according to further known methods to yield predictable results since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as said combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is either commonly available and understood in the art thereby a variation on already known art (See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Regarding claim 9 (according to claim 8), Yuang further teaches in which wherein the at least one recording and/or capture device comprises an input of a computer (Yuang further teaches in at least sec. 3.1-discussions that the eye tracker system, the camera device and the EEG mobile device comprises at least each said at least one recording and/or capture device comprising said input of a computer).
Regarding claim 10 (according to claim 8), Yuang further teaches wherein at least one in which recording and/or capture device comprises a camera (Introduction and Fig. 1 of Yuang comprises at least the camera device comprising the at least one in which recording and/or capture device).
Regarding claim 11 (according to claim 8), Yuang further teaches in which wherein at least one recording and/or capture device comprises 360° camera technology (the at least the camera device cited in the Introduction and Fig. 1 is configured as understood in the art to comprise obviously one of 360° camera technology).
Regarding claim 12 (according to claim 8), Yuang further teaches in which wherein at least one recording and/or capture device comprises an electroencephalograph (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14 (according to claim 8), Yuang further teaches wherein at least one recording and/or capture device comprises a gaze detection apparatus (the eye tracker system of further sec. 3.1-Discussions may be configured such as understood in the art configured to track gaze of the user in order to enable identification of an object the user is looking at).
Regarding claim 15 (according to claim 8), Yuang further teaches wherein at least one module of the system is mobile (Sec. 3.1 cites a mobile device comprises the at least one module of the system).
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yuang in view of Zhou, and further in view of Frank et al. (2025/0160668, previously cited).
Regarding claim 13 (according to claim 8), Yuang in view of Zhou are silent regarding in which wherein at least one recording and/or capture device comprises a smartwatch.
Frank teaches a smartwatch in at least para. 0106, 0115, and 0643 configured with at least one recording and/or capture device to detect or recognize further in at least para. 0623-0624 emotional state and/or tendencies of the user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Yuang in view of Zhou, and further in view of Frank to include said in which wherein at least one recording and/or capture device comprises a smartwatch, as discusses above as both Yuang in view of Zhou, and further in view of Frank are in the same field of endeavor of recognizing emotional tendencies or states of a user recorded and/or captured by at least two sensor systems, Frank complements the multimodal emotional tendency recognition of Yuang in view of Zhou with an augmented smartwatch capturing or detection device which may be configured in the art as an input and/or an output device to in a case provide primary data which may be forwarded to a device of Yuang in view of Zhou to further generate secondary data related to the secondary emotion tendencies of Yuang in view Zhou which ultimately may be output or reviewed to an output user to yield further predictable results since known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as said combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is either commonly available and understood in the art thereby a variation on already known art (See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCELLUS AUGUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3384. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 5 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, BENNY TIEU can be reached on 571-272-7490. 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.
/MARCELLUS J AUGUSTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682 12/29/2025
Prosecution Insights