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 .
Notice of Amendment
This communication is responsive to the amendment(s) and/or argument(s) filed 10/28/25. The previous ground(s) of objection and/or rejection is/are withdrawn. The following new and/or reiterated ground(s) of rejection is/are set forth hereinbelow.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) s 1-7 and 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daulton (9/8/23 IDS NPL citation #4, “DAULTON, "Tremolo, Nyquist Plug-in, Version 3", https://github.com/audacity/audacity/archive/refs/tags/Audacity-2.2.2.zip, July, 2012, 1 page”) in view of Martorell et al. (2/21/23 IDS NPL citation #1, “MARTORELL et al., "Multi-sensory gamma stimulation ameliorates Alzheimer’s-associated pathology and improves cognition", Cell 2019 Apr 4;177(2):2 56-271.e22. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.02.014, 40 pages”, and hereinafter Martorell.
For claim 1, Daulton discloses a signal processing apparatus capable of improving cognitive function, comprising: a memory (memory storing Daulton’s code, pg 1) that stores instructions (instructions of Daulton’s code, pg 1); a processor (processor the executes Daulton’s code, pg 1) that executes the instructions stored in the memory to receive an input acoustic signal (control portion of Daulton’s code, pg 1); amplitude-modulate the received input acoustic signal to generate an output acoustic signal having a configurable amplitude that is capable of being between 35 Hz and 45 Hz (tremolo waveform of Daulton’s code, pg 1); and output the generated output acoustic signal (generate section of Daulton’s code, pg 1).
For claim 1, Daulton discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly disclosing it is for improving cognitive function and that the output acoustic signal has an amplitude change corresponding to a frequency between 35-45 Hz of the amplitude-modulated input acoustic signal.
For claim 1, Martorell in the same field of signal processing for acoustic output endeavor, teaches a signal processing apparatus for improving cognitive function (Martorell, pgs 4, 10-12) and that the output acoustic signal has an amplitude change corresponding to a frequency between 35-45 Hz of the amplitude-modulated input acoustic signal (Martorell, pgs 4, 10-12).
Thus for claim 1, since both Daulton and Martorell are considered analogous in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Daulton to incorporate the teachings of Martorell to provide a 35-45 Hz signal because doing so would aid in the predictable result of effecting gamma entrainment in a subject’s brain (Martorell pages 10-12).
For claim 2, Daulton in view of Martorell teaches the claimed the signal processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the output acoustic signal has an asymmetric rise and fall of an envelope of an amplitude waveform (Daulton pg 1, pwlv coefficient & wet level).
For claim 3, Daulton in view of Martorell teaches the signal processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the rise of the envelope of the amplitude waveform in the output acoustic signal is steeper than the fall of the envelope (Daulton pg 1, pwlv coefficient & wet level).
For claim 4, Daulton in view of Martorell teaches the signal processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the envelope of the amplitude waveform of the output acoustic signal is an inverse-sawtooth waveform (Daulton pg 1, inverse sawtooth).
For claim 5, Daulton in view of Martorell teaches the signal processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the fall of the envelope of the amplitude waveform in the output acoustic signal is steeper than the rise of the envelope (Daulton pg 1, pwlv coefficient & wet level).
For claim 6, Daulton in view of Martorell teaches the signal processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the envelope of the amplitude waveform of the output acoustic signal is sawtooth waveform (Daulton pg 1, sawtooth).
For claim 7, Daulton in view of Martorell teaches the signal processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein an envelope of an amplitude waveform of the output acoustic signal is sinusoidal waveform. (Daulton pg 1, sine table)
For claim 9, Daulton in view of Martorell teaches the signal processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the input acoustic signal includes an audio signal corresponding to music content ((Daulton pg 1, Nyquist plugins).
For claim 16, Daulton in view of Martorell teaches the signal processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor further executes the instructions stored in the memory to: determine a modulation method based on characteristics of the input acoustic signal (control portion of Daulton’s code, pg 1), wherein the output acoustic signal is generated by performing modulation processing according to the determined modulation method on the received input acoustic signal (control portion of Daulton’s code, pg 1).
For claim 10, Daulton discloses a signal processing method capable of improving cognitive function, comprising: receiving an input acoustic signal (control portion of Daulton’s code, pg 1); amplitude-modulating the received input acoustic signal to generate an amplitude change corresponding to a configurable amplitude that is capable of being between 35 Hz and 45 Hz (tremolo waveform of Daulton’s code, pg 1); and outputting the generated output acoustic signal (generate section of Daulton’s code, pg 1).
For claim 10, Daulton discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly disclosing it is for improving cognitive function and that the output acoustic signal has an amplitude change corresponding to a frequency between 35-45 Hz of the amplitude-modulated input acoustic signal.
For claim 10, Martorell in the same field of signal processing for acoustic output endeavor, teaches a signal processing method for improving cognitive function (Martorell, pgs 4, 10-12) and that the output acoustic signal has an amplitude change corresponding to a frequency between 35-45 Hz of the amplitude-modulated input acoustic signal (Martorell, pgs 4, 10-12).
Thus for claim 10, since both Daulton and Martorell are considered analogous in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Daulton to incorporate the teachings of Martorell to provide a 35-45 Hz signal because doing so would aid in the predictable result of effecting gamma entrainment in a subject’s brain (Martorell pages 10-12).
For claim 11, Daulton in view of Martorell teaches the signal processing method according to claim 10, wherein the output acoustic signal has an asymmetric rise and fall of an envelope of an amplitude waveform (Daulton pg 1, pwlv coefficient & wet level).
For claim 12, Daulton in view of Martorell teaches the signal processing method according to claim 10, wherein an envelope of an amplitude waveform of the output acoustic signal is sinusoidal waveform (Daulton pg 1, sine table).
For claim 13, Daulton discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium that stores a program which causes a computer to execute a method capable of improving cognitive function comprising: receiving an input acoustic signal (control portion of Daulton’s code, pg 1);
amplitude-modulating the received input acoustic signal to generate an output acoustic signal having a configurable amplitude that is capable of corresponding to a frequency between 35 Hz and 45 Hz (tremolo waveform of Daulton’s code, pg 1); and outputting the generated output acoustic signal (generate section of Daulton’s code, pg 1).
For claim 13, Daulton discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly disclosing it is for improving cognitive function and that the output acoustic signal has an amplitude change corresponding to a frequency between 35-45 Hz of the amplitude-modulated input acoustic signal.
For claim 13, Martorell in the same field of signal processing for acoustic output endeavor, teaches a computer programming for improving cognitive function (Martorell, pgs 4, 10-12) and that the output acoustic signal has an amplitude change corresponding to a frequency between 35-45 Hz of the amplitude-modulated input acoustic signal (Martorell, pgs 4, 10-12).
Thus for claim 13, since both Daulton and Martorell are considered analogous in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Daulton to incorporate the teachings of Martorell to provide a 35-45 Hz signal because doing so would aid in the predictable result of effecting gamma entrainment in a subject’s brain (Martorell pages 10-12).
For claim 14, Daulton in view of Martorell teaches the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 13, wherein the output acoustic signal has an asymmetric rise and fall of an envelope of an amplitude waveform (Daulton pg 1, pwlv coefficient & wet level).
For claim 15, Daulton in view of Martorell teaches the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium according to claim 13, wherein an envelope of an amplitude waveform of the output acoustic signal is sinusoidal waveform (Daulton pg 1, sine table).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 10/28/25, with respect to the statutory nature of the amended claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection of the claims is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 9-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
However, with respect to reliance on the Daulton reference for the applicable portions of the 103 rejection set forth above, Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/25 regarding Daulton have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to the degree upon which Daulton continues to be relied upon hereinabove.
Applicant argues the following:
Daulton, by contrast, discloses only a digital audio tremolo plug-in intended for musical effects. While Daulton allows a user to select an arbitrary modulation frequency, there is no disclosure or suggestion that modulation is specifically constrained to the 35-45 Hz range for the purpose of inducing gamma waves, nor that the modulation is for improving cognitive function. At most, Daulton permits a user to enter a numeric value such as 40 Hz as a parameter for an audio effect, but this incidental capability is not disclosure of the claimed combination of (i) modulation at 35-45 Hz and (ii) improving cognitive function.
Even accepting the Office's reading that Daulton permits a 40 Hz value, anticipation requires that every claimed element be expressly or inherently disclosed in a single reference. Daulton fails to disclose the claimed subject matter because it provides no recognition of physiological entrainment, no mention of gamma waves, and no application to cognitive function.
Further, the dependent claims recite additional limitations such as asymmetric rise/fall envelopes (claims 2-6), sinusoidal waveforms (claims 7, 12, 15), and modulation method determination based on signal characteristics (claim 16). These features are likewise absent from Daulton, which is confined to basic audio effects and contains no teaching relevant to brainwave entrainment or listener cognition.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and in response notes the following:
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., “for the purpose of inducing gamma waves”, “physiological entrainment”, “mention of gamma waves”, “application to cognitive function”, “brainwave entrainment”, and/or “listener cognition”) 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’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 1, 10, and 13. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for improving cognitive function” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
For claims 1 and 13, and in response to applicant's argument that Daulton fails to perform the recited functions of improving cognitive function, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding deficiencies of Daulton, the Examiner respectfully notes Daulton explicitly discloses the modulation wave functions of asymmetric rise/fall envelopes as wetness in convert section and sinusoidal waveforms in waveform section. The modulation method determination is based on the programmed, input, or modified desired signal characteristics, particularly in instances of multiple distinct program executions. As secondary extrinsic evidence supporting the anticipatory rejection the Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to NPL citations 1, 2, 4 and 5 filed contemporaneously with Daulton on the 9/8/23 IDS.
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 Jeffrey G. Hoekstra whose telephone number is (571)272-7232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday from 5am-3pm 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 A. 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.
Jeffrey G. Hoekstra
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/JEFFREY G. HOEKSTRA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791