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 listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 4A-4F contain illegible text. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The use of the term “Remee”; and “NovaDreamer” (and those of several other trademarked sleeping devices named in the Prior Art section of the Specification) are trade names or marks used in commerce, which has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 9-12 and 15-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: at line 5 of claim 1, “when executed” should apparently read –that when executed,--; at line 6 of claim 1, “instruction” should apparently read –instructions,--; at line 1 of claim 2, “one or more activity” should apparently read –one or more user activities--; at line 1 of claims 9-12 and 15-18, “described in” should apparently read –according to--.
Claim 9 is objected to as it contains multiple sentences; a claim must contain only one sentence per MPEP 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 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 at line 1 recites the limitation "the dreams". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
At line 7 of claim 1, it is unclear if “at least one sensor” is the same as or different than “at least one sensor” recited at line 2.
Claim 1 at line 10 recites the limitation "the predetermined sleep stage". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
At line 1 of claim 3, it is unclear if “at least one sensor” is the same as or different than “at least one sensor” recited in claim 1.
In claim 4, it is unclear how a processor itself would comprise an interface for user selection.
In claim 4, it is unclear if the limitations in parentheses are required by the claim or not.
In claim 5, it is unclear if the limitations in parentheses are required by the claim or not.
Claim 6 at line 1 recites the limitation "the form of a dream script". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 6, it is unclear if the limitations following “i.e.” are required by the claim or not.
At line 1 of claim 7, it is unclear if “at least one of a physical or environment stimulus” is the same as or different than “at least one of a physical or environment stimulus” recited in claim 1. A suggested amendment to claim 7 is – the at least one of a physical or environment stimulus--.
Claim 7 at line 2 recites the limitation "a wearable". It is unclear what “a wearable” is describing.
In claim 7, it is unclear if the limitations in parentheses are required by the claim or not.
At line 4 of claim 7, it is unclear if the limitations following “including” are required by the claim or not since line recites “at least one of….”.
At line 2 of claim 8, it is unclear if “at least one sensor” is the same as or different than “at least one sensor” recited in claim 1.
At line 3 of claim 8, it is unclear if “physical or environmental stimuli” is the same as or different than “at least one of a physical or environmental stimuli” recited in claim 1 at line 9.
At line 3 of claim 8, it is unclear if “a predetermined sleep stage” is the same as or different than “the predetermined sleep stage” recited in claim 1 at line 10.
Claim 9 depends from claim 8, however claim 9 only refers to the system recited in claim 8 and not the method also recited in claim 8. Therefore, it is unclear if the method recited in claim 8 is required by claim 9 or not.
Claim 9 at line 1 recites the limitation "the intensity of triggered environmental or physical environmental stimuli". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites “them” at line 2. It is unclear what/who “them” refers to.
Claim 9 at line 2 recites the limitation "[t]his adjustment". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites “A method….further comprising” however claim 10 depends from claim 1, which is a system and does not describe a method with method steps, therefore claim 10 is indefinite as “further comprise” implies previously recited method steps.
Claim 11 is indefinite as it appears to only recite an intended use of the system (“to specify a wake-up window”) without setting forth positively recited steps in a method as required by line 1 of claim 11.
Claim 12 recites “A method of using the system described in claim 1 and playing….” however claim 12 depends from claim 1, which is a system and does not describe a method with method steps, therefore claim 12 is indefinite as “and playing” implies previously recited method steps.
Claim 12 at line 2 recites the limitation "the dream script". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites “it” at line 1. It is unclear what “it” refers to.
Claim 15 is indefinite as it appears to recite a use of the system of claim 1 with an eye movement detection mask, however the claim does not appear to setting forth any positively recited steps in a method as required by line 1 of claim 15.
Claim 15 recites that the mask “can act as a “dream joystick”. However, it is unclear what is imparted to the claim language by merely reciting that the mask “can act as a “dream joystick”.
Claim 15 at line 2 recites the limitation "said Dream Directing System". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 is indefinite as it appears to only recite an intended use of the system (“to implement shared dreams”) without setting forth positively recited steps in a method as required by line 1 of claim 16.
At line 2 of claim 16, it is unclear what “incubate a shared dream” means/implies.
At line 2 of claim 16, it is unclear how “a shared dream” is “connected via the intentional playback of the same dream script” in light of the disclosure.
Claim 16 at line 2 recites the limitation "the intentional playback". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 at line 3 recites the limitation "the same dream script". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 16, it is unclear if the limitations in parentheses are required by the claim or not.
Claim 17 is indefinite as it appears to only recite an intended use of the system (“to implement sex dreams”) without setting forth positively recited steps in a method as required by line 1 of claim 17.
At line 2 of claim 18, it is unclear what “other measures” implies/references.
Claim 18 at lines 2-3 recites the limitations "the actions" and “the dreamer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
In claim 18, it is unclear how gathering data about the claimed eye movements, expressions, vocalization and “other measures” relates to “projection onto a digital avatar as part of dream visualization”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 depends from claim 8, however claim 9 only refers to the system recited in claim 8 and not the method also recited in claim 8. Claim 13 depends from claim 10, however claim 13 does not reference the method or system recited in claim 10. Claim 14 depends from claim 13, and is also improper for the same reasons. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-9, 11 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jorgensen (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0374786). Regarding claim 1, Jorgensen teaches a system for directing the dreams of a user during a sleeping event (Abstract and [0085]-[0087]), the system comprising:
at least one sensor for detecting one or more user activities during said sleeping event and for obtaining measurements of the user relating to the one or more activities detected ([0016], [0018], [0021], [0055]-[0056], [0072]);
a general processor (of the “DPD”/phone 166) for receiving the measurements, the general processor having a series of instructions ([0021]-[0022]; [0049]-[0052]; [0055]-[0060], [0091], [0097], [0100]), when executed allows the general processor to execute the series of instruction to perform the steps of:
determining a sleep stage of the user based on the measurements received from at least one sensor ([0087]; [0091]-[0094] and Fig. 7); and
triggering at least one of a physical or environmental stimulus to the user for manipulating the dream of the user during the predetermined sleep stage of the sleeping event ([0087]-[0095], [0104], [0012]).
Regarding claim 2, the one or more activity of the user during the sleeping event is determined to be Rapid Eye Movement (REM) sleep ([0002],[0004]-[0005], [0054]-[0056], [0087]).
Regarding claim 3, the at least one sensor comprises at least one of a wearable device, a REM sleep detection mask, an EEG headset, a bed insert, an infrared video camera, a webcam, or a microphone (Figs. 2A-3, 5A-6 and [0072]).
Regarding claim 4 and in view of its indefinite nature, the DPD/phone/computer comprises a processor and an interface for allowing the user to select a scenario to be experienced during the sleeping event ([0056]-[0061], [0107]).
Regarding claim 5, the scenario is a predetermined scenario (“dream stimulatory program”) stored in a memory device accessible by the general processor ([0050] and [0087]).
Regarding claim 6 and in view of its indefinite nature, the interface allows the user to enter a series of events to be experienced by the user during the sleeping event in the form of a dream script, i.e., a sequence of user-specified cues ([0050], [0053], [0057]-[0061] and [0106]-[0107]).
Regarding claim 7, the at least one of a physical or environmental stimulus includes one of a visual stimulus, an auditory stimulus, vibration of a wearable, movement of a rocking bed insert on which the user sleeps during the sleeping event, an olfactory stimulus (scent), and electrical stimulation, including electrical shock, tACs and tDCs ([0005], [0012], [0017], [0048]).
Regarding claim 8, Jorgensen teaches a method for directing a user's dream during sleep using the system of claim 1, comprising determining the user's sleep stage based on measurements from at least one sensor ([0087]; [0091]-[0094] and Fig. 7) and triggering physical or environmental stimuli to manipulate the user's dream during a predetermined sleep stage ([0054], [0087]-[0095], [0104], [0012]).
Regarding claim 9 and in view of its indefinite nature, an intensity of the stimuli may be adjusted by the user or managed by a machine learning model or algorithm ([0057]-[0059]).
Regarding claim 11 and in view of its indefinite nature, the system of Jorgensen is programmable by the user/operator to write their own dream stimulatory program ([0057]-[0061]), and is therefore capable of meeting the intended use recited in claim 11.
Regarding claim 15 and in view of its indefinite nature, the system of Jorgensen is programmable by the user to control the system to effect more lucid dreaming states during non-lucid dreaming states via preprogrammed commands ([0057]-[0059] and [0104]).
Regarding claim 16 and in view of its indefinite nature, the system/method of Jorgensen enables people to share dream information via user voice command through integrated voice technologies [0107] and via a server 156 ([0049], [0051]).
Regarding claim 17 and in view of its indefinite nature, the system/method of Jorgensen is capable of implementing sex dreams as the system/method provides stimulation for inducing a more lucid dreaming experience for the subject who wants control over their dreams to make them more memorable and intense [0104].
Regarding claim 18 and in view of its indefinite nature, the system/method of Jorgensen is capable of gathering data about “other measures” (“sensory data”) to help visualize the actions of the dreamer [0061].
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.
Claims 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgensen (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0374786) in view of Weiss et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0236202). Regarding claims 10 and 13, Jorgensen discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra; however Jorgensen fails to disclose explicitly that the method further comprises waking the user with a selected alarm and capturing an auditory dream report. Weiss et al. (hereinafter Weiss) teaches a method/system for directing the dreams of a user during a sleep event [0065], wherein the method further comprising waking the user gently with a selected alarm ([0083]-[0084] and [0094]) and capturing a feedback report to provide maximal lucid dream induction and minimal sleep disruption ([0065]-[0067]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the steps of waking the user gently with an alarm and capturing a feedback report as taught by Weiss, in a method for directing the dreams of a user as taught by Jorgensen, as Jorgensen recognizes the necessity of inducing a more lucid dream experience [0104] and providing feedback to enable the user to exert some control over dreams ([0104] and [0108]), and Weiss teaches that an alarm will gently awaken the user ([0083]-[0084] and [0094]) such that they may provide feedback or a report on how the stimulation promoted lucid dream induction ([0065]-[0067]). While Weiss dose not disclose explicitly that the feedback report is auditory via text, Jorgensen does teach that features and settings of the apparatus, such as receiving feedback, may be chosen/selected/modified by the user via voice command through integrated voice technologies ([0106]-[0108], rendering obvious auditory feedback via voice-to-text.
Regarding claim 12, Jorgensen discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra; however Jorgensen fails to disclose explicitly that the method further comprises playing an auditory dream ad or user-selected dream ad that plays as part of the dream script or as a wake-up alarm. Weiss teaches a method/system for directing the dreams of a user during a sleep event [0065], wherein the method further comprising waking the user gently with a selected/automatic alarm ([0083]-[0084] and [0094]) which triggers commencement of a gentle sound to awaken the subject [0096], wherein the automatic sound may be in the form of an “ad” such as “personal forecast” which pops up on the screen when the alarm goes of to include a message (“ad”) indicative of the subject’s sleep quality and other personal health data generated by the apparatus [0102]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the steps of waking the user gently with an alarm and personal dream “ad” as taught by Weiss, in a method for directing the dreams of a user as taught by Jorgensen, as Jorgensen recognizes relaying monitored data to a user [0055] and providing such data to allow the user to modify or intensify the dream stimulatory program/script [0055]-[0060] and Weiss teaches that such data may be presented to a user upon being awoken by an alarm.
Regarding claim 14, Jorgensen teaches the ability of sharing data on social media via a mobile device and server as indicated above; however Jorgensen fails to disclose explicitly that the method further comprises the capability of converting said text dream report into a series of images or video that can be shared by the user on social media. Weiss teaches a method/system for directing the dreams of a user during a sleep event [0065], wherein the method further comprises determining, via machine learning, a probability that a subject has a sleep disorder and displaying such (which would constitute an image) via a system/smartphone 80 ([0113] and [0089]) and communicate such data ([0114] and [0123]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the steps of converting a text dream report into a series of images as taught by the combination of Jorgensen and Weiss, into a method for sharing/communicating information of a user’s sleep feedback as suggested by Jorgensen, as Jorgensen recognizes the ability to display/communicate feedback information and Weiss teaches using machine learning to determine data related to a sleep disorder for further dissemination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE HOPKINS MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-9058. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791