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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II (claims 15-25) in the reply filed on 08/01/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-14 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/01/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/22/2022, 06/20/2023, and 11/15/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 15-25 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 15 is recites the phrase “wherein the headset comprises or is coupled to a computer system comprising one or more processors”, which is unintelligible because it is not clear what the headset comprises or what the headset may be coupled to.
Regarding claim 15, is the “method” of line 4 the same or different than the “method” of line 1.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the channels" in line 7. Examiner notes line 6 recites “one or more channels”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the forehead portion of the head of the user" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the head of the user" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the one or more additional EEG sensors" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the EEG sensors" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the coupling location" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the head of the user" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the EEG sensors" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the head of the user" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 21, it is unclear how the capacitance non-dermal EEG sensor can be non-dermal, while also being able to touch the skin of the skull.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the PPG and EEG sensors" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Each of independent claim 15 recites a step applying spectral analysis techniques to one or more channels of the raw EEG data to isolate spectral components in the channels, which is a mathematical concept. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements (ie. a computer system, a processor, headset), determining values, and applying spectral analysis do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are to receiving data, processing data, and applying spectral analysis, which are all well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
MPEP 2106(III) outlines steps for determining whether a claim is directed to statutory subject
matter. The stepwise analysis for the instant claim is provided here.
Step 1 – Statutory categories
Claim 15 is directed to a method and thus meets the step 1 requirements.
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Judicial exception (j.e.)
Regarding claim 15, the following step is an abstract idea:
“applying spectral analysis techniques to one or more channels of the raw EEG data to isolate spectral components in the channels” , which is a mathematical concept when given its broadest reasonable interpretation. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), the mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. In this case, the spectral analysis technique is a fast Fourier Transform (FFT), which is a mathematical concept for converting EEG to isolate spectral frequency.
Step 2A – Prong 2 – additional elements to integrate j.e. into a practical application
Regarding claim 15, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The following claim elements do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea:
- “computer system”, “a computer program”, and “a processor” are recited at a high level of generality amounting to generic computer components for implementing abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “sensors” are data gathering structures for the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “EEG”, “spectral components”, and “brain activity” are data (gathering, selecting, and displaying) that is necessary to implement the abstract idea on a computer amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity [MPEP 2106.05(g)].
Step 2B – significantly more/inventive concept
The following claim elements do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea:
- “computer system”, “a computer program”, and “a processor” are recited at a high level of generality amounting to generic computer components for implementing abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “sensors” are data gathering structures for the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “EEG”, “spectral components”, and “brain activity” are data (gathering, selecting, and displaying) that is necessary to implement the abstract idea on a computer amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity [MPEP 2106.05(g)].
The additional elements of claim 15, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more (ie. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the computer system, processor, along with their associated functions, are recited at a high level of generality and simply amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The EEG sensor, PPG sensor, and accelerometer on a wearable headset are claimed very generically and are used only to gather the data they are designed for. These are well-understood, routine and conventional structure since the diagnostic art in Fleury et al (US 20230031613/ WO2021108922A1) teaches the use of EEG sensors to collect EEG signals, PPG sensors for PPG data, accelerometers for movement data ([0138]), on a headset (Fig. 2J).
Dependent claims 16-25 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application
and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea of claim 15. The dependent claim limitations are directed to data gathering (extra-solution activity) (claims 16-17) and to generic sensor placement of structure (claims 18-25), which are insignificant extra-solution activity and do not amount to more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
In summary, claims 15-25 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and, therefore, are patent ineligible.
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Soulet De Brugiere (US 20180368717)(Hereinafter SDB).
Regarding claim 15, SDB teaches A method for measuring EEG signals using a headset to detect brain activity, wherein the headset comprises or is coupled to a computer system comprising one or more processors programmed with computer program instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system to perform a method ([0003] “Such measuring devices usually comprise a helmet or headband provided with electrodes for measuring an encephalogram” [0071] “To this end, the device 100 may comprise one or more support elements 120 able to at least partially surround the head of the person P so as to be held there. The support elements 120 take for example the shape of one or more branches that can be arranged so as to surround the head of the person P to maintain the device 100.”[0010] “the invention firstly relates to a method for retrieving operating data from a device for measuring the brain waves of a person onto a data processing server, specifically intended to be implemented by a system comprising a data processing [computer system] server”), wherein the method comprises:
receiving, by one or more sensors, raw EEG data ([0091] “The physiological electrical signal E advantageously comprises an electroencephalogram (EEG) of the person P.”); and
applying spectral analysis techniques to one or more channels of the raw EEG data to isolate spectral components in the channels ([0126] “The predefined shapes are then determined from a frequency spectrum energy variation in predefined frequency bands such as for example an alpha (8 12 Hz), beta (>12 Hz), delta (<4 Hz) or theta (4 7 Hz) waves frequency band.” [0127] “A frequency spectrum energy in one or more of said frequency bands can be calculated, for example using a fast short-term Fourier transform.” [0090] “the acquisition means 130 comprise for example a plurality of electrodes 130” [0093] “the device 100 comprises at least three EEG measurement electrodes 130c, so as to acquire physiological electrical signals E comprising at least three electroencephalogram measuring channels [spectral analysis for 3 channels].”).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cohen (US 20200060573)(Hereinafter Cohen).
Regarding claim 15, Cohen teaches A method for measuring EEG signals using a headset to detect brain activity, wherein the headset comprises or is coupled to a computer system comprising one or more processors programmed with computer program instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system to perform a method (Fig. 18 [0130] “The processor initiates the electrodes on the headset are activated at 920. A user may select to activate particular electrodes within the headset for a particular test. For example a specific number or group of electrodes.” [0120] “Electrical control of the headset is provided by processor 8040.”), wherein the method comprises:
receiving, by one or more sensors, raw EEG data ([0224] “The EEG recordings were undertaken with a wireless, 14-channel EEG headset (Emotiv EPOC+; Emotiv Systems, Inc. San Francisco, Calif. http://www.emotiv.com). The electrodes were arranged according to the International 10-20 system (see FIG. 16B). The O1 and O2 electrodes were used as the main recording electrodes and the P3 and P4 electrodes were utilised as a reference point (P3) and for feedback cancellation (P4) respectively.”); and
applying spectral analysis techniques to one or more channels of the raw EEG data to isolate spectral components in the channels ([0147] “FIGS. 10 and 11 show example graphical representations of a Fourier transformation of signals measured by electrodes 1210.” [0144] “(a) Average amplitude (μ) between 5 Hz to 35 Hz. In other words, sum all values from the corresponding FFT bins between 5 Hz and 35 Hz, then divide by the number of bins.” [0232] “A reduction in the alpha rhythms and increase in theta rhythms (8-12 Hz) of concussed participants was also observed. Upon recovery, the alpha and theta rhythms returned to baseline conditions (see FIG. 17).”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soulet De Brugiere (US 20180368717)(Hereinafter SDB) in view of Quy et al. (US 20140221866)(Hereinafter Quy).
Regarding claim 16, SDB teaches the invention of claim 15. However, SDB does not teach combining the raw EEG data with concurrent photoplethysmography (PPG) data and inertial measurement unit (IMU) data; and applying biometric analysis and/or classification to the PPG data and IMU data. Quy, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a head worn monitoring device (Abstract and Fig. 6) with physiological sensors including EEG, PPG, and accelerometer ([0013] and [0054]), and further teaches wherein the method further comprises:
combining the raw EEG data with concurrent photoplethysmography (PPG) data and inertial measurement unit (IMU) data ([0014] “Physiological signals are easily contaminated by noise from a variety of sources, especially movement artifacts. A variety of methods are used to improve the signal to noise ratio and remove artifact...An accelerometer can be attached to the biosensor to aid monitoring and cancellation of movement artifacts.”); and
applying biometric analysis and/or classification to the PPG data and IMU data ([0014] “Physiological signals are easily contaminated by noise from a variety of sources, especially movement artifacts. A variety of methods are used to improve the signal to noise ratio and remove artifact...An accelerometer can be attached to the biosensor to aid monitoring and cancellation of movement artifacts.” [0015] “The signal may be further processed to enhance signal detection and remove artifacts using algorithms based on blind signal separation methods and state of the art machine learning techniques.”) to improve the SNR of the signal for optimal viewing ([0014]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of SDB, with the combining the raw EEG data with concurrent photoplethysmography (PPG) data and inertial measurement unit (IMU) data; and applying biometric analysis and/or classification to the PPG data and IMU data of Quy, because such a modification would allow to improve the SNR of the signal for optimal viewing.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soulet De Brugiere (US 20180368717)(Hereinafter SDB) in view of Trutna et al. (US 20160216760)(Hereinafter Trutna).
Regarding claim 17, SDB teaches the invention of claim 15. However, SDB does not teach the method further comprises moving an object on a display of the computer system using input data from an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor. Trutna, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a HMD placed on the head of a user (Abstract) with EEG sensors ([0021]), and further teaches wherein the method further comprises moving an object on a display of the computer system using input data from an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor ([0029] “The VR engine 155 executes applications within the system environment 100 and receives position information, acceleration information, velocity information, predicted future positions, or some combination thereof, of the VR headset 105 from the tracking module 150. Based on the received information, the VR engine 155 determines content to provide to the VR headset 105 for presentation to the user. For example, if the received information indicates that the user has looked to the left, the VR engine 155 generates content for the VR headset 105 that mirrors the user's movement in a virtual environment.”) to provide feedback to the user based on the action ([0029]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of SDB, with the method further comprises moving an object on a display of the computer system using input data from an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor of Trutna, because such a modification would allow to provide feedback to the user based on the action.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soulet De Brugiere (US 20180368717)(Hereinafter SDB) in view of Fleury et al. (US 20230031613)(IDS)(Hereinafter Fleury).
Regarding claim 18, SDB teaches the invention of claim 15. However, SDB does not teach the headset further comprises: a curved frame comprising: a frontal curved frame portion configured to be worn on the forehead portion of the head of the user; and an upper curved frame portion configured to be worn on an upper head portion of the head of the user; one or more PPG sensors coupled to the frontal curved frame portion; and one or more EEG sensors coupled to the frontal curved frame portion and/or upper curved frame portion. Fleury, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a flexible wearable device worn on the head with bio-signal sensors (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the headset further comprises:
a curved frame (Fig. 4 (100)) comprising:
a frontal curved frame portion configured to be worn on the forehead portion of the head of the user (Fig. 4(12)); and
an upper curved frame portion configured to be worn on an upper head portion of the head of the user (Fig. 4(18A));
one or more PPG sensors coupled to the frontal curved frame portion (Fig. 30G (3216 found within 32 (Electronics module) [0368]-[0371] Fig. 2J (electronics module 32 found on forehead of user)); and
one or more EEG sensors coupled to the frontal curved frame portion and/or upper curved frame portion ([0213] “FIG. 2J, in some embodiments, bio-signal sensor 20 is configured to contact at least part of a frontal region of user 10's head. In some embodiments, bio-signal sensor 20 is an electroencephalography (EEG) sensor.”) to observe physiological changes of the body ([0369]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of SDB, with the headset further comprises: a curved frame comprising: a frontal curved frame portion configured to be worn on the forehead portion of the head of the user; and an upper curved frame portion configured to be worn on an upper head portion of the head of the user; one or more PPG sensors coupled to the frontal curved frame portion; and one or more EEG sensors coupled to the frontal curved frame portion and/or upper curved frame portion of Fleury, because such a modification would allow to observe physiological changes of the body.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soulet De Brugiere (US 20180368717)(Hereinafter SDB) in view of Aimone et al. (US 20180348863)(Hereinafter Aimone).
Regarding claim 21, SDB teaches the invention of claim 15. However, SDB does not teach wherein each of the EEG sensors is a capacitive non-dermal contact type EEG sensor that is configured to be positioned either in direct contact with skin or be positioned over hair on the head of the user, when the headset is worn by the user. Aimone, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a sensor headset with electrodes for measuring EEG (Abstract), and further teaches wherein each of the EEG sensors is a capacitive non-dermal contact type EEG sensor that is configured to be positioned either in direct contact with skin or be positioned over hair on the head of the user, when the headset is worn by the user ( [0237] “capacitive electrode 4300 may be a noncontact electrode that does not come into direct contact with skin 12 of user 10.”) to collect brain wave physiological data ([0237]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of SDB, with each of the EEG sensors is a capacitive non-dermal contact type EEG sensor that is configured to be positioned either in direct contact with skin or be positioned over hair on the head of the user, when the headset is worn by the user of Aimone, because such a modification would allow to collect brain wave physiological data.
Claim(s) 19-20 and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soulet De Brugiere (US 20180368717)(Hereinafter SDB) in view of Henson et al. (US 20150011857)(Hereinafter Henson).
Regarding claim 19, SDB teaches the invention of claim 15. However, SDB does not teach wherein the one or more additional EEG sensors are coupled to only the upper curved frame portion. Henson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a sensor headset with electrodes for measuring EEG (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the one or more additional EEG sensors are coupled to only the upper curved frame portion (See Fig. 4A 406 at the top of the head and to the side of the head.) to provide a secure and predictable connection for the headset ([0059]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of SDB, with the one or more additional EEG sensors are coupled to only the upper curved frame portion of Henson, because such a modification would allow to provide a secure and predictable connection for the headset.
Regarding claim 20, SDB teaches the invention of claim 15. However, SDB does not teach wherein each of the EEG sensors comprises a curved outer surface, and wherein the coupling location of each EEG sensor to the frontal curved frame portion and/or upper curved frame portion and a shape of the curved outer surface of each EEG sensor are configured to correspond with a corresponding location and curvature of the upper head portion of the head of the user. Henson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a sensor headset with electrodes for measuring EEG (Abstract), and further teaches wherein each of the EEG sensors comprises a curved outer surface, and wherein the coupling location of each EEG sensor to the frontal curved frame portion and/or upper curved frame portion and a shape of the curved outer surface of each EEG sensor are configured to correspond with a corresponding location and curvature of the upper head portion of the head of the user (Fig. 3C where electrodes 306 are different locations of the head. [0056] “the EEG sensor headset 100 can include at least nineteen electrodes that provide at least sixteen EEG channels and one or more reference channels.”) to provide a secure and predictable connection for the headset ([0059]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of SDB, with the curved frame further comprises a posterior curved frame portion, and each of the EEG sensors comprises a curved outer surface, and wherein the coupling location of each EEG sensor to the frontal curved frame portion and/or upper curved frame portion and a shape of the curved outer surface of each EEG sensor are configured to correspond with a corresponding location and curvature of the upper head portion of the head of the user of Henson, because such a modification would allow to provide a secure and predictable connection for the headset.
Regarding claim 23, SDB teaches the invention of claim 15. However, SDB does not teach wherein the curved frame further comprises a posterior curved frame portion, and wherein one or more additional EEG sensors are coupled to the posterior curved frame portion. Henson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a sensor headset with electrodes for measuring EEG (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the curved frame further comprises a posterior curved frame portion, and wherein one or more additional EEG sensors are coupled to the posterior curved frame portion (Fig. 2(212, 220, 216, 224, 106) See equivalent in Fig. 4B(472 and 476) that are posterior curved frames with electrode 456/106 to obtain EEG. See [0059]-[0060].) to provide a secure and predictable connection for the headset ([0059]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of SDB, with the curved frame further comprises a posterior curved frame portion, and wherein one or more additional EEG sensors are coupled to the posterior curved frame portion of Henson, because such a modification would allow to provide a secure and predictable connection for the headset.
Regarding claim 24, SDB teaches the invention of claim 15. However, SDB does not teach wherein the curved frame further comprises a posterior curved frame portion comprising two posterior parts, wherein the headset further comprises one or more electrodes coupled to at least one of the two posterior parts. Henson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a sensor headset with electrodes for measuring EEG (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the curved frame further comprises a posterior curved frame portion comprising two posterior parts, wherein the headset further comprises one or more electrodes coupled to at least one of the two posterior parts (Fig. 2(212, 220, 216, 224, 106) See equivalent in Fig. 4B(472 and 476) that are posterior curved frames with electrode 456/106 to obtain EEG. See [0059]-[0060].) to provide a secure and predictable connection for the headset ([0059]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of SDB, with the curved frame further comprises a posterior curved frame portion comprising two posterior parts, wherein the headset further comprises one or more electrodes coupled to at least one of the two posterior parts of Henson, because such a modification would allow to provide a secure and predictable connection for the headset.
Regarding claim 25, SDB teaches the invention of claim 15. However, SDB does not teach wherein the two posterior parts are coupled together via an elastic member. Henson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a sensor headset with electrodes for measuring EEG (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the two posterior parts are coupled together via an elastic member ([0060] “A left ear piece 220, having an electrode 106, can be coupled to the left extension 212 by a sixth lateral flex joint 222. A right ear piece 224, having an electrode 106, can be coupled to the right extension 216 by a sixth lateral flex joint 226” Fig. 2(222 and 236 are elastic members) [0050] “Lateral flex joints (LFJ) can be formed in a flex circuit by removing a portion of the flex circuit strip, thereby providing a bendable joint perpendicular to a plane of the flex strip while maintaining rigidity within the plane.” Since the join can bend and return back to its original shape, it may be elastic.) to provide a secure and predictable connection for the headset ([0059]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of SDB, with the two posterior parts are coupled together via an elastic member of Henson, because such a modification would allow to provide a secure and predictable connection for the headset.
However, SDN and Henson do not teach the coupling being elastic. Although Henson teaches that the join is bendable and flexible, the joint can be elastic to maintain rigidity of the headset. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the member elastic, for the purpose of maintaining rigidity of the structure, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soulet De Brugiere (US 20180368717)(Hereinafter SDB) in view of Henson et al. (US 20150011857)(Hereinafter Henson) and Fleury et al. (US 20230031613)(IDS)(Hereinafter Fleury).
Regarding claim 22, SDB teaches the invention of claim 15. However, SDB does not teach wherein the curved frame further comprises a posterior curved frame portion, and wherein one or more additional EEG sensors are coupled to the posterior curved frame portion. Henson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a sensor headset with electrodes for measuring EEG (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the frontal curved frame portion comprises an adjustable single frontal piece coupled between opposite side portions of the curved frame (Fig. 3A (342)), and
wherein the …EEG sensors are positioned along the single frontal piece (Fig. 3B(EEG electrode 344)) to provide a securable, adjustable, and predictable connection for the headset ([0059]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of SDB, with the curved frame further comprises a posterior curved frame portion, and wherein one or more additional EEG sensors are coupled to the posterior curved frame portion of Henson, because such a modification would allow to provide a provide a securable, adjustable, and predictable connection for the headset.
However, SDB does not teach one or more PPG sensors. Fleury, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a flexible wearable device worn on the head with bio-signal sensors (Abstract), and further teaches wherein the headset further comprises: one or more PPG sensors (Fig. 30G (3216 found within 32 (Electronics module) [0368]-[0371] Fig. 2J (electronics module 32 found on forehead of user)); and to observe physiological changes of the body ([0369]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of SDB, with the headset further comprises: a curved frame comprising: a frontal curved frame portion configured to be worn on the forehead portion of the head of the user; and an upper curved frame portion configured to be worn on an upper head portion of the head of the user; one or more PPG sensors coupled to the frontal curved frame portion; and one or more EEG sensors coupled to the frontal curved frame portion and/or upper curved frame portion of Fleury, because such a modification would allow to observe physiological changes of the body.
Although Fleury teaches a PPG sensor on the forehead, Altaf does not teach the PPG sensor on the single frontal piece. Since the PPG sensor can placed on the face, placing the PPG sensor on the single frontal piece would optimize the location for acquiring the best signal based on the location. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to place the PPG sensor on the single frontal piece, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUSSA M HADDAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6341. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-6:00.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/MOUSSA HADDAD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/REX R HOLMES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796