DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 13 April 2026. Claims 1-10 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10.
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 .
Specification
The amendment filed 4/13/26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “the finger distance is substantially 2.3 centimeters.”
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 1 recites “the head of a user” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending to –a head of a user—
-Claim 1 recites “is a microprocessor;” in line 34. Examiner recommends amending to –is a microprocessor; and—
-Claim 1 recites “wherein the nighttime” in line 35. Examiner recommends amending to –and wherein the nighttime—
-Claim 5 recites “an user’s head” in line 4. Examiner recommends amending to –the user’s head—
-Claim 7 recites “the acupoint agents” in lines 9, 10 and 11. Examiner recommends amending to –the plurality of acupoint agents—
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:
-Claim 5 recites “plurality of electrical stimulation agents” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is for outputting physical stimulation. Based on the specification, there is no disclosure provided to disclose the corresponding structure.
-Claim 5 recites “electrical stimulation unit” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to electrically connect to the control unit. According to the specification the electrical stimulation unit includes a plurality of electrical stimulation agents [Pg. 5, lines 7-8] and equivalents thereof.
-Claim 7 recites “plurality of acupoint agents” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is for outputting physical stimulation. Based on the specification, there is no disclosure provided to disclose the corresponding structure.
-Claim 7 recites “acupoint stimulation unit” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to electrically connect to the control unit. According to the specification the acupoint stimulation unit includes a plurality of acupoint agents [Pg. 5, line20] and equivalents thereof.
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.
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.
Claim 7 is 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. Pg. 6, lines 6-7 includes reference to two to three centimeters in the original disclosure. The original disclosure does not include reference to 2.3 centimeters according to the amended limitation.
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 1-10 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 “first loading tone” in line 17. It is unclear what is required by this limitation. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether this is referring to an aspect of the tone of the binaural beats, buffering indicators, lagging or waiting period, the frequency of the binaural beats or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 1 recites “first main carrier tone” in line 17. It is unclear what is required by this limitation. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether this is referring to an aspect of the tone of the binaural beats, amplitude, phase, the frequency of the binaural beats or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 1 recites “second loading tone” in line 27. It is unclear what is required by this limitation. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether this is referring to an aspect of the tone of the binaural beats, buffering indicators, lagging or waiting period, the frequency of the binaural beats or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 1 recites “second main carrier tone” in line 27. It is unclear what is required by this limitation. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether this is referring to an aspect of the tone of the binaural beats, amplitude, phase, the frequency of the binaural beats or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 1 recites “and the second…within the second predetermined time” in lines 31-33. This phrasing renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear whether the second binaural frequency difference or the second high binaural frequency difference is not higher than the first low binaural frequency difference and which of these differences decreases to a second low frequency within the second predetermined time. Should possibly read –and the second binaural frequency difference gradually decreases from a second high binaural frequency difference, which is not higher than the first low binaural frequency difference, to a second low frequency within the second predetermined time—
-Claim 1 recites “a second low frequency” in line 33. It is unclear which low frequency this particular low frequency is secondary two since an initial first low frequency was not previously introduced. It is possible this is referring back to a second low binaural frequency.
-Claim 1 recites “the nighttime anti-insomnia-assisted program of decreasing the second binaural frequency difference” in line 35-36. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 4 recites “if the control unit is requested to perform…image” in lines 6-14. Due to this phrasing listed in the alternative, it is unclear whether the limitations referenced in this recitation are required by the claim. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 7 recites “substantially 2.3 centimeters” in line 15. It is unclear what is required by this limitation due to the relative language. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 9 recites “earphones” in line 5. It is unclear whether these earphones are referring to the two earphones originally referenced in claim 1, line 3.
Claim limitation “electrical stimulation agents” and “acupoint agents” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no corresponding structure listed in the specification or claim language that provides insight into what these limitations include. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samec (U.S. 20170365101) in view of Zhan (CN 108451742) and in further view of Guay (U.S. 12059565).
Regarding Claim 1, Samec teaches a training device for improving insomnia [0522]—reference to treatment of insomnia and [0790]—reference to training for improved functioning, comprising: a virtual reality unit configured for being worn on the head of a user [Fig. 9D, element 80 (virtual reality display system)], wherein the virtual reality unit comprises two earphones [0473]—describes Fig. 9D, element 100 (speaker) with this element also located on the other ear canal of the user, and an eye cover connected to front sides of the two earphones and used for displaying a virtual image [Fig. 9D, element 90 (viewer)]; and a control unit configured for being electrically connected to the virtual reality unit [Fig. 9D, element 140 (local data processing module)]—describes the processor controlling the overall operation of the device, the control unit including an electronic clock which is capable of indicating a current time [0484]—reference to timing devices and clocks incorporated into the device, interpreted as “built in to the device”, and pre-storing digital information of daytime binaural beats and nighttime binaural beats [0410; “Because the display device may be worn daily, for extended durations each day, the frequency of tracking of various conditions and/or the ability to provide feedback to the user is increased, which may increase the efficacy of the treatment plan.”]-extended durations each day is interpreted to include nighttime, wherein when the current time is from 8: 00 a. m. to 5: 00 p. m., the control unit is configured to execute a daytime relaxation-assisted program [0410] and [0842]—reference to the system used for relaxation techniques; when the current time is from 7: 00 p.m. to 12: 00 a.m., the control unit is configured to execute a nighttime anti-insomnia-assisted program [0522]; when the control unit executes the daytime relaxation-assisted program, the control unit controls the two earphones to play the daytime binaural beats [0473]—describes the speaker controlling sound, and stop playing after continuing for a first predetermined time [0411]-references varying durations of applying stimulus and collecting data with corresponding time stamps to increase accuracy of analysis, and wherein the daytime binaural beats has a first main carrier tone and a first loading tone which differs from the first main carrier tone by a first difference frequency rate [0819]—reference to binaural beats applied in combination of frequencies; the first main carrier tone and the first loading tone are respectively played via the two earphones simultaneously [0816]—describes the stimuli applied simultaneously; when the control unit executes the nighttime anti-insomnia-assisted program, the control unit controls the two earphones to play the nighttime binaural beats [0410] and [0842]—reference to the system used for relaxation techniques, and stops playing after continuing for a second predetermined time [0411]-references varying durations of applying stimulus and collecting data with corresponding time stamps to increase accuracy of analysis; the nighttime binaural beats has a second main carrier tone and a second loading tone which differs from the second main carrier tone by a second binaural frequency difference [0819]—reference to binaural beats applied in combination of frequencies; the second main carrier tone and the second loading tone are respectively played via the two earphones simultaneously [0816]—describes the stimuli applied simultaneously;
Samec is silent on a first binaural frequency difference gradually decreases from a first high binaural frequency difference to a first low binaural frequency difference within the first predetermined time; and the second binaural frequency difference gradually decreases from a second high binaural frequency difference which is not higher than the first low binaural frequency difference to a second low frequency within the second predetermined time.
Zhan teaches the first binaural frequency difference gradually decreases from a first high binaural frequency difference to a first low binaural frequency difference within the first predetermined time [Fig. 5]—depicting decrease in frequency; and the second binaural frequency difference gradually decreases from a second high binaural frequency difference which is not higher than the first low binaural frequency difference to a second low frequency within the second predetermined time [Fig. 6]—depicting a second decrease in frequency in which the slope is not greater than that of the decrease shown in Fig. 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to describe the changes in the frequency rates of the binaural beats as taught by Zhan to adjustment of device output as suggested by Samec as Samec discusses varying the stimuli to ensure data accuracy [0411] with Zhan because Zhan teaches the use of gradual frequency reductions to adjust user brainwaves [0077].
Samec and Zhan are silent on wherein the control unit is a microprocessor; wherein the nighttime anti-insomnia-assisted program of decreasing the second binaural frequency difference by 1 Hz after each interval of 1-2 minutes gradually decreases the second binaural frequency difference from the second high binaural frequency difference to the second low frequency within the second predetermined time in sequence. Guay teaches wherein the control unit is a microprocessor [Col 11, lines 23-24]; wherein the nighttime anti-insomnia-assisted program of decreasing the second binaural frequency difference by 1 Hz after each interval of 1-2 minutes gradually decreases the second binaural frequency difference from the second high binaural frequency difference to the second low frequency within the second predetermined time in sequence [Col 45, lines 46-64]—describes the binaural frequency of 1 Hz with rising and falling times and one minute periods of silence separating conditions and [Col 4, lines 54-57]—detailing 60 one-minute blocks of acoustic stimulation being delivered.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include intervals of binaural beats as taught by Zhan to provide pulsed signals as suggested by Samec, and Zhan as Samec discusses varying delivery pulses at frequencies of about 1-50 Hz [0854] and Zhan which discloses reducing the audio frequency at a higher initial slope followed by a lower initial slope [0080] with Guay because Guay teaches minimizing the risk of arousing a sleeping user with sound [Col 45, lines 52-54].
Regarding Claim 2, Samec is silent on wherein the first high binaural frequency difference is 20 Hz; the first low binaural frequency difference is 10 Hz; the second high binaural frequency difference is 10 Hz; and a second low binaural frequency difference is 2 Hz. Zhan teaches wherein the first high binaural frequency difference is 20 Hz; the first low binaural frequency difference is 10 Hz; the second high binaural frequency difference is 10 Hz; and a second low binaural frequency difference is 2 Hz [0016]—describes the frequency differences being in the range of 1-20 Hz which encompasses the limitations requiring 2, 10 and 20 Hz differences.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify frequency differences within this range as taught by Zhan to apply to the user to effect change as suggested by Samec, and Guay as Samec discusses these particular frequency ranges causing brain reactions [0685] and Guay which discloses providing therapy within frequency ranges to induce unconsciousness [Col 10, lines 1-4] with Zhan because Zhan teaches the use of this particular frequency range to relieve tension and increase concentration [0074].
Regarding Claim 9, Samec teaches wherein the control unit is further configured for executing an audio-visual education program [0567]—reference to memory training through kinesthetic learning; and when the control unit executes the audio-visual education program, the control unit controls the virtual image to display a teaching course [0567]—describes memory and learning tests , and generates a teaching image and sound for teaching insomnia improvement in cooperation with the virtual reality unit and earphones [0567]—includes guided imagery and/or audio presented to the user.
Regarding Claim 10, Samec teaches wherein the virtual reality unit further comprises an operation button electrically connected to the control unit [0503]—reference to one or more buttons; the control unit is further configured for executing an evaluation program [0546]—reference to guided imagery program within detection of stimulus and registering and identifying that stimulus; when the control unit executes the evaluation program [0404]—discusses neurological evaluations and treatments, the control unit controls the virtual image to sequentially display a plurality of insomnia and sleep quality self-assessment questions for assessing insomnia conditions [0833]—describes self-exploration and [0542]—includes reference to the system prompting questions, each insomnia and sleep quality self-assessment question having a plurality of self-assessment items [0543]—reference to plurality of questions, and a plurality of selected self-assessment items can be changed by changing a direction of the eye cover [0611]—user differentiating between left and right directions; a plurality of insomnia and sleep quality self-assessment scores corresponding to the plurality of selected self-assessment item are generated after confirmation via the operation button for storage [0870]—includes a score of stimulus presence and compares with a threshold score; and after all the plurality of insomnia and sleep quality self-assessment questions have been answered, the plurality of insomnia and sleep quality self-assessment scores are summed up to generate an insomnia and sleep quality result score for storage [0474]—refers to processing, caching and storage of data and [0543]—describes aggregate score determined.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samec (U.S. 20170365101) in view of Zhan (CN 108451742) and in further view of Guay (U.S. 12059565) and in even further view of Pal (U.S. 10485972).
Regarding Claim 4, Samec, Zhan and Guay are silent on wherein, if the control unit is requested to perform the daytime relaxation-assisted program when the current time is a time other than 8: 00 a. m. to 5: 00 p. in., the control unit does not perform the daytime relaxation-assisted program and displays an unusable warning message on the virtual image; and when the current time is a time other than 7: 00 p. m. to 12: 00 a. m. and when the control unit is requested to perform the nighttime anti-insomnia-assisted program, the control unit does not perform the nighttime anti-insomnia-assisted program and displays the unusable warning message on the virtual image.
Pal teaches wherein, if the control unit is requested to perform the daytime relaxation-assisted program when the current time is a time other than 8: 00 a. m. to 5: 00 p. in., the control unit does not perform the daytime relaxation-assisted program and displays an unusable warning message on the virtual image [Col 35, lines 14-16]—includes reference to user interface operation and [Col 35, lines 27-31]—describes warning messages shown; and when the current time is a time other than 7: 00 p. m. to 12: 00 a. m. and when the control unit is requested to perform the nighttime anti-insomnia-assisted program, the control unit does not perform the nighttime anti-insomnia-assisted program and displays the unusable warning message on the virtual image [Col 35, lines 24-25]—references locking the user out until a certain operation has occurred.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a warning message as taught by Pal to prevent incorrect user operations as suggested by Samec, Zhan, and Guay as Samec discusses the use of the apparatus to present warning messages to teach the user [0577] and Zhan which teaches user control of the device to achieve overall ease of use [0097] and Guay which discusses the use of a user button to control therapeutic measures [Col 27, lines 26-27] with Pal because Pal teaches instructing the user of function of the device user interface [Col 37, lines 49-54].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samec (U.S. 20170365101) in view of Zhan (CN 108451742) and in further view of Guay (U.S. 12059565) and in even further view of Coleman (U.S. 10816939).
Regarding Claim 3, Samec teaches wherein, when the daytime relaxation-assisted program is executed, the control unit controls the eye cover to project light with a wavelength of 465-495 nm [0745]—reference to exposure to blue light, and when the nighttime anti-insomnia-assisted program is executed, the control unit controls the eye cover to project light with a wavelength of 630-670 nm [0470]—reference to red light emitted, also citing the description provided in [0456] that points to blue light encompassing the range of 435-493 nm and red light encompassing the range of 620-780 nm.
Samec, Zhan and Guay are silent on and an illumination of 2500-3000 lux via the virtual image; and an illumination of less than 30 lux via the virtual image.
Coleman teaches and an illumination of 2500-3000 lux via the virtual image [Col 92, lines 48-50]; and an illumination of less than 30 lux via the virtual image [Col 97, lines [63-64].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specified illuminance parameters as taught by Coleman to provide illumination via the virtual image as suggested by Samec, Zhan, and Guay, as Samec discusses the user observing illuminance levels of the virtual images [0769] and Zhan which discusses considerations for the weight of emitted light [0012] and Guay which discloses the use of visual stimulus for neurostimulation [Col 3, lines 48-54] with Coleman because Coleman teaches the use of the illuminance parameters to treat certain disorders [Col 97, lines 56-65].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samec (U.S. 20170365101) in view of Zhan (CN 108451742) and in further view of Guay (U.S. 12059565) and in even further view of Hagedorn (U.S. 8958882).
Regarding Claim 5, Samec teaches further comprising an electronic stimulation unit [0596]—reference to multiple types of stimulation provided, the electronic stimulation unit comprises a plurality of electrical stimulation agents provided at the two connection regions and electrically connected to the control unit [Fig. 10, element 30 (magnetic field generator), connected to element 2010 (display system)]; the plurality of electrical stimulation agents are used for physical stimulation of one of outputting a current to perform transcranial direct current stimulation and outputting an electromagnetic pulse to perform transcranial magnetic stimulation on the head of the user [0847]—references to providing tDCS and [0849]—providing pulsed magnetic field to the head;
Samec, Zhan, and Guay are silent on wherein the virtual reality unit further comprises a top-side frame configured to connect between the two earphones and upwardly across a top of an user's head, the top-side frame having a top region located at a center between the two earphones, two side regions respectively connected between the two earphones and the top region, and two connection regions respectively extending forwardly from the two side regions; and the plurality pf electrical stimulation agents respectively correspond to an F3 position and an F4 position in international 10-20 system brain wave electrode positions.
Hagedorn teaches wherein the virtual reality unit further comprises a top-side frame configured to connect between the two earphones and upwardly across a top of an user's head [Fig. 1, element 100 (helmet)], the top-side frame having a top region located at a center between the two earphones [Fig. 4 element 400 (helmet)]]-depicts the helmet centered between the earphones, two side regions respectively connected between the two earphones and the top region [Fig. 4, elements 420 and 440 (clusters)], and two connection regions respectively extending forwardly from the two side regions [Fig. 4, elements 444, 442, 446 (anodes and cathodes)]; and the plurality of electrical stimulation agents respectively correspond to an F3 position and an F4 position in international 10-20 system brain wave electrode positions [Col 19, lines 28-29].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include design the orientation of the frame to connect the stimulation agents to the original virtual reality and speaker hardware as suggested by Hagedorn to apply stimulation therapies to the user’s head as suggested by Samec, Zhan and Guay, as Samec discusses the use of the apparatus to affect the brain by stimulating nerve cells [0849] and Zhan which teaches adjustment of brainwaves [0002] and Guay which discloses the use of EEG signals with modulating unconsciousness states [Col 3, lines 58-65] with Hagedorn because Hagedorn teaches the F3 and F4 locations identified as associated with insomnia [Col 19, lines 28-32].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samec (U.S. 20170365101) in view of Zhan (CN 108451742) and in further view of Guay (U.S. 12059565) and in even further view of Northern (U.S. 20230008214).
Regarding Claim 8, Samec, Zhan and Guay are silent on further comprising a vibration bed electrically connected to the control unit and controllable to generate vibration, the vibration bed having an adjustable vibration frequency of 6-53 Hz.
Northern teaches further comprising a vibration bed electrically connected to the control unit and controllable to generate vibration [0057]—refers to device fitting into a bed, mattress, chair or cushion, the vibration bed having an adjustable vibration frequency of 6-53 Hz [0103]—reference to frequency of 30 Hz.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a vibratory bed as suggested by Northern to apply stimulation therapies to the user as suggested by Samec, and Zhan, as Samec discusses incorporating a vibratory component [0473] and Zhan which teaches attachment of the device to a massage chair [0076] with Northern because Northern teaches the incorporation of vibratory and stimulation devices in a mattress to promote sleep [0277].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 April 2026 with respect to the abstract, drawing, specification and claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 13 April 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 13 April 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive however, new rejections are
presented in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 13 April 2026 with respect to the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 9, 10 under 35 U.S.C.103 have been fully considered and but are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1, 2, 9, 10, applicant contends that Zhan fails to teach “the second binaural frequency difference gradually decreases from a second high binaural frequency difference which is not higher than the first low binaural frequency difference to a second low frequency within the second predetermined time.” The examiner notes that the referenced citation to Fig. 6 specifically takes into account frequency in reference to slopes—interpreted to be the first low binaural frequency difference and a second high binaural frequency difference. In response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to teach certain features of the invention, it is noted that the limitation involved in the teaching includes indefinite aspects and is construed as best possible as outlined in the rejection above. In further reference to this argument, the applicant contends that Zhan does not disclose a continuous relationship, connection or continuity between…daytime and nighttime modes, the binaural frequency difference is decreased in a stepwise manner. Further, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., continuous relationship, connection or continuity between…daytime and nighttime modes, the binaural frequency difference is decreased in a stepwise manner) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant contends that Zhan does not teach the amended limitation of “1 Hz after each interval of 1-2 minutes gradually decreases the second binaural frequency difference from the second high binaural frequency difference to the second low frequency within the second predetermined time in sequence.” Examiner agrees with this argument and has presented new rejections in light of this amendment citing Samec in view of Zhan and in further view of Guay for claims 1, 2, 9, and 10. Further for claim 3, new rejections are presented citing Samec, in view of Zhan and in further view of Guay, and in even further view of Coleman. For claim 4, new rejections are presented citing Samec, in view of Zhan and in further view of Guay, and in even further view of Pal. For claim 5, new rejections are presented citing Samec, in view of Zhan and in further view of Guay, and in even further view of Hagedorn. For claim 8, new rejections are presented citing Samec, in view of Zhan and in further view of Guay, and in even further view of Northern.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Marmor II 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.
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights