DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on February 13, 2023 and October 11, 2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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 limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “head tilt detection unit” in claims 1 and 21 (and dependent claims 2, 14, and 20), “motion assistance notification unit” in claims 1 and 21 (and dependent claims 2, 5-8, 10-14, 17-20).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 1 recites “a head tilt detection unit that detects a tilt of a head of a user”, which encompasses a part of the human body. This rejection could be overcome by reciting “a head tilt detection unit that is configured to detect a tilt of a head of a user”. Claim 21 recites “a notification assisting in a head tilt motion’ and “a head tilt detection unit that detects a tilt of a head of a user”, which encompass a part of the human body. This rejection could be overcome by reciting “a notification configured for assisting in a head tilt motion” and “a head tilt detection unit that is configured to detect a tilt of a head of a user”.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-21 are directed to a system and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for detecting head tilt motion using a computational algorithm, which is an abstract idea. Claims 1-21 do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons provided below which are in line with the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, p 74618, December 16, 2014), the July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 146, p. 45429, July 30, 2015), the May 2016 Subject Matter Eligibility Update (Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 88, p. 27381, May 6, 2016), and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, page 50, January 7, 2019).
The analysis of claim 1 is as follows:
Step 1: Claim 1 is drawn to a machine.
Step 2A – Prong One: Claim 1 recites an abstract idea. In particular, claim 1 recites the following limitations:
[A1] – “detects a tilt of a head of a user”.
The element [A1] of claim 1 is drawn to an abstract idea since it involves a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and using pen and paper.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Claim 1 recites the following limitations that are beyond the judicial exception:
[A2] – “a head tilt detection unit”;
[B2] – “a motion assistance notification unit that makes a motion assistance notification that is a notification for assisting in a head tilt motion that is a motion in which the user tilts the head”; and
[C2] – “the motion assistance notification unit makes the motion assistance notification on a basis of the tilt detected by the head tilt detection unit”.
These elements [A2]-[C2] of claim 1 do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the element [A2] is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g). The elements [B2-C2] are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data display and output. Furthermore, elements [A2-C2] are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. In particular, the recitations [A2-C2] do not qualify as significantly more because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
Claims 2-20 depend from claim 1, and recite the same abstract idea as claim 1. Furthermore, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the algorithm), with the following exceptions:
Claim 2: “motion assistance notification unit” and “head tilt detection unit”;
Claim 5: “motion assistance notification unit”;
Claim 6: “motion assistance notification unit”;
Claim 7: “motion assistance notification unit”;
Claim 8; “motion assistance notification unit”;
Claim 10: “motion assistance notification unit”;
Claim 11: “motion assistance notification unit”;
Claim 12: “motion assistance notification unit”;
Claim 13: “motion assistance notification unit”;
Claim 14: “motion assistance notification unit” and “head tilt detection unit”;
Claim 17: “γ wave light output unit” and “motion assistance notification unit”;
Claim 18: “γ wave sound output unit” and “motion assistance notification unit”;
Claim 19: “motion assistance notification unit”; and
Claim 20: “motion assistance notification unit” and “head tilt detection unit”.
Each of these claim limitations does not integrate the exception into a practical application. In particular, the elements of claims 2-20 are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, each of these limitations does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself because they are merely insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea that uses conventional, routine, and well-known elements or simply displaying the results of the algorithm that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements. In particular, the “motion assistance notification unit”, “head tilt detection unit”, “γ wave light output unit”, and “γ wave sound output unit” are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions (that is, one of display) that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations of each claim as an ordered combination in conjunction with the claims from which they depend (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
The analysis of claim 21 is as follows:
Step 1: Claim 21 is drawn to a machine.
Step 2A – Prong One: Claim 21 recites an abstract idea. In particular, claim 21 recites the following limitations:
[A1] – “detects a tilt of a head of a user”.
The element [A1] of claim 21 is drawn to an abstract idea since it involves a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and using pen and paper.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Claim 21 recites the following limitations that are beyond the judicial exception:
[A2] – “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a head tilt motion assistance program causing a computer to implement a motion assistance notification unit that makes a motion assistance notification that is a notification for assisting in a head tilt motion that is a motion in which a user tilts a head of the user”; and
[B2] – “the motion assistance notification unit makes the motion assistance notification on a basis of the tilt detected by a head tilt detection unit that detects the tilt of the head”; and
These elements [A2]-[B2] of claim 21 do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the element [B2] is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g). The elements [A2-B2] are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data display and output. Furthermore, elements [A2-B2] are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Claim 21 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. In particular, the recitations [A2-B2] do not qualify as significantly more because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations of each claim as an ordered combination in conjunction with the claims from which they depend (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a notification for assisting in a head tilt motion that is a motion in which the user tilts the head”. It is unclear whether “that is a motion in which the user tilts the head” is meant to define “a head tilt motion”, or “a notification for assisting”. Is the assistance being given via the notification indicating a motion in which the user tilts the head, or is this limitation merely describing “a head tilt motion”?
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For example, claim 2 recites “the motion assistance notification unit determines the score on a basis of on at least score determination criteria that are criteria for determination of the score and the actual execution detail of the head tilt motion” and claim 6 recites “a range consisting of all of degree that the relaxation degree of the user in the head tilt motion can be is divided into a plurality of levels”, and claim 8 “a range consisting of all of quantity that the quantity of the type of the executed preprocessing can be is divided into a plurality of levels”. It is unclear how to interpret these limitations, as they do not follow clear sentence structure.
Claim 2 recites “an actual execution detail” and “an execution detail”. It is unclear what is meant by the term “execution detail” in the context of the claims and the disclosure, as this is not a well-known or understood term in the art. For the purpose of examination, “execution detail” may refer to any information collected or analyzed by the system. Claim 2 also recites “on a basis of the tilt detected by the head tilt detection unit”. It is unclear if this “basis” is meant to refer to the same “basis of the tilt detected by the head tilt detection unit”, or if these are different bases.
Claim 3 recites “the tilt exists in a first area among a plurality of areas obtained by dividing a space into the plurality of areas” and “the tilt exists in a second area among the plurality of areas”. It is unclear where these plurality of areas are located, and if the tilt is able to exist in both areas at the same time. Are the areas located in the area surrounding the head? The claim also recites “the second area exists on a side opposite to the first area with respect to the center point”, but it is unclear where these areas are located with respect to the head of the user.
Claim 4 recites “a first area”, “a second area”, “a third area”, and “a fourth area”. It is unclear where these areas are located with respected to the head of the user, and if the tilt is able to exist in all four of the plurality of areas at the same time. Further clarification is needed.
Claim 5 recites “a criterion” in line 10. It is unclear whether this criterion is meant to refer to the same “criterion” or a different criterion as recited in line 2. Additionally, it is unclear if the recitations of “criterion” in claim 5 are meant to be the same as “a criterion” recited in claim 2, upon which claim 5 depends, or if these are different criteria.
Claim 6 recites “a criterion” in lines 8-9. It is unclear whether this criterion is meant to refer to the same “criterion” or a different criterion as recited in line 2. Additionally, it is unclear if the recitations of “criterion” in claim 6 are meant to be the same as “a criterion” recited in claim 2, upon which claim 6 depends, or if these are different criteria.
Claim 7 recites “an actual execution detail” and “an execution detail”. It is unclear what is meant by the term “execution detail” in the context of the claims and the disclosure, as this is not a well-known or understood term in the art. For the purpose of examination, “execution detail” may refer to any information collected or analyzed by the system. Claim 7 also recites “a criterion” in lines 8 and 11. It is unclear whether this criterion is meant to refer to the same “criterion” or a different criterion as recited in line 2. Additionally, it is unclear if the recitations of “criterion” in claim 7 are meant to be the same as “a criterion” recited in claim 2, upon which claim 7 depends, or if these are different criteria.
Claim 8 recites “an actual execution detail” and “an execution detail”. It is unclear what is meant by the term “execution detail” in the context of the claims and the disclosure, as this is not a well-known or understood term in the art. For the purpose of examination, “execution detail” may refer to any information collected or analyzed by the system. Claim 8 also recites “a criterion” in lines 11-12. It is unclear whether this criterion is meant to refer to the same “criterion” or a different criterion as recited in line 2. Additionally, it is unclear if the recitations of “criterion” in claim 8 are meant to be the same as “a criterion” recited in claim 2, upon which claim 8 depends, or if these are different criteria.
Claim 14 recites “an actual execution detail” and “an execution detail”. It is unclear what is meant by the term “execution detail” in the context of the claims and the disclosure, as this is not a well-known or understood term in the art. For the purpose of examination, “execution detail” may refer to any information collected or analyzed by the system.
Claim 15 recites “the tilt exists in a first area among a plurality of areas obtained by dividing a space into the plurality of areas” and “the tilt exists in a second area among the plurality of areas”. It is unclear where these plurality of areas are located, and if the tilt is able to exist in both areas at the same time. Are the areas located in the area surrounding the head? The claim also recites “the second area exists on a side opposite to the first area with respect to the center point”, but it is unclear where these areas are located with respect to the head of the user.
Claim 16 recites “a first area”, “a second area”, and “a third area”. It is unclear where these areas are located with respected to the head of the user, and if the tilt is able to exist in all three of the plurality of areas at the same time. Further clarification is needed.
Claim 21 recites “a notification for assisting in a head tilt motion that is a motion in which the user tilts the head”. It is unclear whether “that is a motion in which the user tilts the head” is meant to define “a head tilt motion”, or “a notification for assisting”. Is the assistance being given via the notification indicating a motion in which the user tilts the head, or is this limitation merely describing “a head tilt motion”? Further clarification is needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2022008004 A (Matsuda Tomoo, herein after referred to as “Tomoo”).
Regarding claim 1, Tomoo teaches a head tilt motion assistance system comprising:
a head tilt detection unit that detects a tilt of a head of a user ([0059] “The posture U of the head of the subject 1 measured by the simplified electroencephalograph 10 (for example, measured values of three axis acceleration and three axis angular velocity)”; [0127]; [0131]); and
a motion assistance notification unit that makes a motion assistance notification that is a notification for assisting in a head tilt motion that is a motion in which the user tilts the head ([0059] “On the basis of the evaluation value 4 calculated by the analysis control device 40, the evaluation value 4 is returned to the smartphone 20 as the image display device to perform visual feedback, and is output to the stereo earphone 30 to perform audio feedback by a quiet sound 7.”), wherein
the motion assistance notification unit makes the motion assistance notification on a basis of the tilt detected by the head tilt detection unit ([0059] “The posture U of the head of the subject 1 measured by the simplified electroencephalograph 10 (for example, measured values of three axis acceleration and three axis angular velocity) and the measured value of the brain wave 2 are input to the analysis control device 40 via the smartphone 20 as a signal relay device and processed, and an evaluation value 4 is calculated. On the basis of the evaluation value 4 calculated by the analysis control device 40, the evaluation value 4 is returned to the smartphone 20 as the image display device to perform visual feedback”).
Regarding claim 2, Tomoo teaches the head tilt motion assistance system according to claim 1, wherein
the motion assistance notification includes a notification of a score of the head tilt motion ([0059] “evaluation value 4”),
the motion assistance notification unit identifies an actual execution detail of the head tilt motion on a basis of the tilt detected by the head tilt detection unit ([0079] “displays a numerical value only in a case where the evaluation value 4 is equal to or less than the upper limit value, and displays "electrode abnormality" in a case where the evaluation value 4 indicates an abnormal numerical value exceeding the upper limit value, which is easy to understand without misunderstanding for the entrant”),
the motion assistance notification unit determines the score on a basis of on at least score determination criteria that are criteria for determination of the score and the actual execution detail of the head tilt motion ([0037] “When the numerical value data as the evaluation value 4 calculated from the posture U and the brain wave 2 is within the setting range of the numerical value intended by the user or the designer”; [0059]), and
the score determination criteria include a criterion according to an execution detail of the head tilt motion ([0065] “when the analysis control device 40 receives the posture U and the measurement value of the brain wave 2 relayed from the smartphone 20 by the relay display application, the analysis control device 40 calculates a parameter (for example, numerical data of a number or an image to be displayed) for drawing the visual feedback as the evaluation value 4, returns display data for the visual feedback to the smartphone 20, and displays an image (a numerical value or an image) for the visual feedback by the relay display application installed in the smartphone 20.”).
Regarding claim 3, Tomoo teaches the head tilt motion assistance system according to claim 2, wherein
the score determination criteria include a criterion for increasing the score when, in a case where a stop of tilt change that is a stop of change in the tilt in the head tilt motion is executed in a state where the tilt exists in a first area among a plurality of areas obtained by dividing a space into the plurality of areas with a center point of the tilt as a center, the stop of tilt change executed immediately after the stop of tilt change executed in a state where the tilt exists in the first area is the stop of tilt change executed in a state where the tilt exists in a second area among the plurality of areas ([0041] “Therefore, the inclination angle of the head and the movement of the posture (these multi-channel data are collectively referred to as a posture U) are measured by a three axis acceleration sensor, a three axis angular velocity sensor, or the like incorporated in the brain wave measuring means 3. In a case where the posture is inclined due to a decrease in concentration, dozing, or the like during the practice of meditation, the sound of the feedback changes from silence (small volume) to an alarm (large volume), and it is possible to warn of the collapse of the posture using the audio feedback”), and
the second area exists on a side opposite to the first area with respect to the center point ([0099] “FIG. 5 a is a diagram showing a relationship between the front-rear tilt angle θ and the tilt index u. In order to simplify the description, it is assumed that θ = 0 when the posture is upright, and the simplified electroencephalograph 10 is mounted such that the X axis of the simplified electroencephalograph 10 facing the front direction is horizontal at that time. In this case, when the posture is inclined in the forward direction, the sine (Sin θ) of the forward-backward inclination angle θ of the posture is detected as the X-axis direction component of the gravitational acceleration on the X axis of the three axis accelerometer. Therefore, at the sampling time tn, the inclination index u (tn) = Sin θ (tn) is set, and the polarity of θ is defined below so that the inclination index u becomes a negative value at the time of the forward inclination.”).
Regarding claim 4, Tomoo teaches the head tilt motion assistance system according to claim 2, wherein the score determination criteria include a criterion for increasing the score in a case where a stop of change in the tilt in the head tilt motion is executed in all a state where the tilt exists in a first area among a plurality of areas obtained by dividing a space into the plurality of areas with a center point of the tilt as a center, a state where the tilt exists in a second area among the plurality of areas, a state where the tilt exists in a third area among the plurality of areas, and state where the tilt exists in a fourth area among the plurality of areas ([0041] “Therefore, the inclination angle of the head and the movement of the posture (these multi-channel data are collectively referred to as a posture U) are measured by a three axis acceleration sensor, a three axis angular velocity sensor, or the like incorporated in the brain wave measuring means 3. In a case where the posture is inclined due to a decrease in concentration, dozing, or the like during the practice of meditation, the sound of the feedback changes from silence (small volume) to an alarm (large volume), and it is possible to warn of the collapse of the posture using the audio feedback”; Fig. 5a, 5d),
the second area exists on a side opposite to the first area with respect to the center point ([0099] Fig. 5a),
the third area exists with 90° shift from the second area around the center point (Fig. 5d), and
the fourth area exists on a side opposite to the third area with respect to the center point (Fig. 5d; Figs. 5a and 5d and [0099] describe the areas surrounding the head of the user where the tilt may exist (a front area, back area, left area, and right area)).
Regarding claim 5, Tomoo teaches the head tilt motion assistance system according to claim 2, wherein
the score determination criteria include a criterion according to a duration of a stop of change in the tilt in the head tilt motion ([0101] “after the posture is returned to the upright posture again at the time tb, the posture is slightly inclined forward again, is returned to the upright posture, is substantially upright after the time tc, and the adjustment is repeated until the posture is stabilized”; [0108]),
the motion assistance notification unit determines the score on a basis of at least the score determination criteria and an actual duration of the stop of change in the tilt in the head tilt motion ([0101] “the reference value is drawn so as to converge to w = 0 for the sake of explanation. However, in the actual meditation, the inclination index u continues to slightly vary around the upright state, and the reference value w of the posture converges to a numerical value corresponding to a stable posture close to
the upright state (w = 0). From a practical point of view, when a predetermined time of about 5 to 10 minutes has elapsed from the start of meditation, it is considered that the posture at the time of meditation is suitable for stabilization, and the reference value w of the posture can be fixed to a numerical value at that time.”),
a range consisting of all of time that the duration of the stop of change in the tilt in the head tilt motion can be is divided into a plurality of levels ([0101] “From a practical point of view, when a predetermined time of about 5 to 10 minutes has elapsed from the start of meditation, it is considered that the posture at the time of meditation is suitable for stabilization, and the reference value w of the posture can be fixed to a numerical value at that time. Actually, as 30 minutes or 60 minutes elapses from the start of meditation, the posture continues to change little by little from the stable reference value, and finally, the meditation may become poor. In order to prevent this phenomenon, the above-described design of "fixing the numerical value of the reference value w of the posture when a predetermined time has elapsed after the start of meditation" is also practical”), and
the criterion according to the duration of the stop of change in the tilt in the head tilt motion is a criterion in which higher score corresponds to a level associated with a longer duration of the stop of change in the tilt in the head tilt motion ([0101] “as 30 minutes or 60 minutes elapses from the start of meditation, the posture continues to change little by little from the stable reference value,”).
Regarding claim 6, Tomoo teaches the head tilt motion assistance system according to claim 2, wherein
the score determination criteria include a criterion according to a relaxation degree of the user in the head tilt motion ([0099] “Example of Audio Feedback for Warning Inclination of Posture during Meditation> FIG. 5 shows an example in which an inclination of the posture which tends to cause a disorder of meditation is warned”; [0201), and
the motion assistance notification unit determines the score on a basis of at least the score determination criteria and an actual relaxation degree of the user in the head tilt motion ([0099-0101] “in the actual meditation, the inclination index u continues to slightly vary around the upright state, and the reference value w of the posture converges to a numerical value corresponding to a stable posture close to the upright state (w = 0). From a practical point of view, when a predetermined time of about 5 to 10 minutes has elapsed from the start of meditation, it is considered that the posture at the time of meditation is suitable for stabilization,”),
a range consisting of all of degree that the relaxation degree of the user in the head tilt motion can be is divided into a plurality of levels ([0139] “As a general tendency at the time of meditation, the intensity Pw of the gamma wave rapidly decreases from the time t0 at which the eyes are closed and meditation is started, and the intensity Pw of the gamma wave has a low value from the time t1 during the
period in which the eyes are closed to the time te at which meditation is ended. When the meditation is ended and the eyes are opened at time te, the intensity Pw of the gamma wave rapidly returns to a high value. In Modification 2, the target value Tg of the intensity Pw of the gamma wave is set to a certain numerical value in advance before the start of meditation. [0201] “the silent feedback means 5 (or the silent biofeedback device 9) of the present invention has an industrial utility value as a training means for meditation skills aiming at a mental relaxation effect from the viewpoint of prevention and early detection of MCI.”), and
the criterion according to the relaxation degree of the user in the head tilt motion is a criterion in which higher score corresponds to a level associated with a higher relaxation degree of the user in the head tilt motion ([0101] “as 30 minutes or 60 minutes elapses from the start of meditation, the posture continues to change little by little from the stable reference value, and finally, the meditation may become poor. In order to prevent this phenomenon, the above-described design of "fixing the numerical value of the reference value w of the posture when a predetermined time has elapsed after the start of meditation" is also practical.”).
Regarding claim 7, Tomoo teaches the head tilt motion assistance system according to claim 2, wherein
the score determination criteria include a criterion according to an execution detail of preprocessing of the head tilt motion ([0115] “calculation processing is performed by the smartphone 20 will be described. In step 1230, the received longitudinal component α x of the gravitational acceleration is used. As described with reference to FIG. 5 a, the inclination index u is calculated by defining the front-rear inclination angle θ of the posture in a direction in which the inclination index u = sin θ becomes a negative numerical value in the case of the forward inclination. (That is, depending on the design of the coordinate system of the simplified electroencephalograph 10, for example, u = α x or u = - α x)”),
the motion assistance notification unit determines the score on a basis of at least the score determination criteria and an actual execution detail of the preprocessing of the head tilt motion ([0017] “a numerical value close to a value to which the inclination index u converges when the posture is stabilized during meditation can be represented by the reference value w.”),
the criterion according to the execution detail of preprocessing of the head tilt motion includes a criterion according to a degree of execution of the preprocessing ([0108] “If the posture is greatly inclined forward or backward due to a decrease in concentration or dozing during meditation, the volume increases as the absolute value of the forward-backward sway index p approaches V from S, and the volume is saturated at the maximum value Max when the absolute value of the forward-backward sway index p exceeds V at time tv.”),
a range consisting of all of degree that the degree of the execution of the preprocessing can be is divided into a plurality of levels ([0111] “In the range of -V ≦ p ≦ - S or + S ≦ p ≦ + V when the posture is inclined forward or backward”), and
the criterion according to the degree of the execution of the preprocessing is a criterion in which higher score corresponds to a level associated with a higher degree of the execution of the preprocessing ([0111] “Further, when the posture is largely inclined forward or backward and the absolute value of p exceeds V, the sound volume of the sound image 11 is saturated at Max and only the position of the sound image moves to the right ear or near the left ear”).
Regarding claim 8, Tomoo teaches the head tilt motion assistance system according to claim 2, wherein
the score determination criteria include a criterion according to an execution detail of preprocessing of the head tilt motion ([0115] “In step 1230, the received longitudinal component α x of the gravitational acceleration is used. As described with reference to FIG. 5 a, the inclination index u is calculated by defining the front-rear inclination angle θ of the posture in a direction in which the inclination index u = sin θ becomes a negative numerical value in the case of the forward inclination. (That is, depending on the design of the coordinate system of the simplified electroencephalograph 10, for example, u = α x or u = - α x)”),
the motion assistance notification unit determines the score on a basis of at least the score determination criteria and an actual execution detail of the preprocessing of the head tilt motion ([0101] “the reference value is drawn so as to converge to w = 0 for the sake of explanation. However, in the actual meditation, the inclination index u continues to slightly vary around the upright state, and the reference value w of the posture converges to a numerical value corresponding to a stable posture close to
the upright state (w = 0). From a practical point of view, when a predetermined time of about 5 to 10 minutes has elapsed from the start of meditation, it is considered that the posture at the time of meditation is suitable for stabilization, and the reference value w of the posture can be fixed to a numerical value at that time.”; [0115] “calculation processing is performed by the smartphone 20 will be described. In step 1230, the received longitudinal component α x of the gravitational acceleration is used. As described with reference to FIG. 5 a, the inclination index u is calculated by defining the front-rear inclination angle θ of the posture in a direction in which the inclination index u = sin θ becomes a negative numerical value in the case of the forward inclination”),
the criterion according to the execution detail of preprocessing of the head tilt motion includes a criterion according to a quantity of a type of an executed preprocessing ([0108] “If the posture is greatly inclined forward or backward due to a decrease in concentration or dozing during meditation, the volume increases as the absolute value of the forward-backward sway index p approaches V from S, and the volume is saturated at the maximum value Max when the absolute value of the forward-backward sway index p exceeds V at time tv.”),
a range consisting of all of quantity that the quantity of the type of the executed preprocessing can be is divided into a plurality of levels ([0111] “In the range of -V ≦ p ≦ - S or + S ≦ p ≦ + V when the posture is inclined forward or backward”), and
the criterion according to the quantity of the type of the executed preprocessing is a criterion in which higher score corresponds to a level associated with a larger quantity of the type of the executed preprocessing ([0111] “Further, when the posture is largely inclined forward or backward and the absolute value of p exceeds V, the sound volume of the sound image 11 is saturated at Max and only the position of the sound image moves to the right ear or near the left ear”).
Regarding claim 9, Tomoo teaches the head tilt motion assistance system according to claim 2, wherein the motion assistance notification includes a notification of a reason for the score ([0129] “it is possible to explicitly notify that "the posture during meditation is stable" by using the silent voice 7.”; [0101] “when a predetermined time of about 5 to 10 minutes has elapsed from the start of meditation, it is considered that the posture at the time of meditation is suitable for stabilization, and the reference value w of the posture can be fixed to a numerical value at that time.).
Regarding claim 10, Tomoo teaches the head tilt motion assistance system according to claim 2, wherein the motion assistance notification unit sets the score determination criteria for a case where a fatigue degree of a brain of the user after execution of the head tilt motion is greater than or equal to a specific degree such that the score is determined to be low as compared with the score determination criteria for a case where the fatigue degree of the brain of the user after execution of the head tilt motion is less than the specific degree ([0050] “calling attention and reducing sleepiness, and feeds back the disorder of the posture, which is a major premise for concentrating on meditation and controlling brain waves”; [0082] “In a case where pulsation occurs in the waveform of the posture in the time-series graph during meditation, the mind and body are not stable and concentration is lacking. It is one of the know-hows of meditation training that the state of lack of concentration can be read from the time-series chart.”), and
the fatigue degree of the brain of the user is acquired by at least one of input by the user and measurement by a test ([0108] “If the posture is greatly inclined forward or backward due to a decrease in concentration or dozing during meditation, the volume increases as the absolute value of the forward-backward sway index p approaches V from S, and the volume is saturated at the maximum value Max when the absolute value of the forward-backward sway index p exceeds V at time tv.”).
Regarding claim 11, Tomoo teaches the head tilt motion assistance system according to claim 1, wherein
the motion assistance notification includes a notification of a state of a stop of change in the tilt ([0101] “after the posture is returned to the upright posture again at the time tb, the posture is slightly inclined forward again, is returned to the upright posture, is substantially upright after the time tc, and the adjustment is repeated until the posture is stabilized”; [0108-0109], and
the motion assistance notification unit makes the notification of the state of the stop of change in the tilt during execution of the head tilt motion ([0109] “Further, as the posture is largely inclined due to dozing during meditation, the sound image 11 having a larger sound volume appears, and in a case where the posture is inclined in the front-rear direction by a predetermined value V or more, it is possible to issue a strong warning with a large sound volume (maximum value Max) as the eyes are awakened.”).
Regarding claim 12, Tomoo teaches the head tilt motion assistance system according to claim 1, wherein
the motion assistance notification includes a notification of a relaxation degree of the user ([0099] “Example of Audio Feedback for Warning Inclination of Posture during Meditation> FIG. 5 shows an example in which an inclination of the posture which tends to cause a disorder of meditation is warned”; [0201]), and
the motion assistance notification unit makes the notification of the relaxation degree of the user during execution of the head tilt motion ([0108] “If the posture is greatly inclined forward or backward due to a decrease in concentration or dozing during meditation, the volume increases as the absolute value of the forward-backward sway index p approaches V from S, and the volume is saturated at the maximum value Max when the absolute value of the forward-backward sway index p exceeds V at time tv.