DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10-14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gesotti (US Patent 6704603) in view of Hamilton et al. (PG Pub. 2013/0123568).
Regarding Claims 1-3 and 11-13, Gesotti discloses a method comprising: receiving an acceleration data stream (see sensor 110; col. 3, lines 59-61); generating using multiple electrodes connected to a human head (see electrodes 1472-1 and 1472-2 on headband 1400; Fig. 14) a stimulation pattern causing a first movement of the human head (see col. 13, lines 12-15), wherein the stimulation pattern is based on the acceleration data stream and a set of parameters (see col. 13, lines 7-12); measuring a resulting movement of the human head, wherein the resulting movement of the human head occurred in response to the stimulation pattern (see col. 12, lines 27-50). Gesotti does not explicitly disclose an interferential stimulation pattern or comparing the resulting movements to a predicted movement.
Hamilton discloses delivering an interferential stimulation pattern (see par. 53) and comparing the resulting movement to a predicted movement (see par. 51), wherein the predicted movement is based on a calibration profile (see par. 67, #4); adjusting the set of parameters based on the comparing to create an adjusted set of parameters (see par. 51); and generating using the multiple electrodes (see par. 19), a second interferential stimulation pattern based on the adjusted set of parameters (see par. 57). Hamilton discloses this is repeated until results of comparing the resulting movement to the predicted movement do not improve (see par. 56 and par. 67 #14) or falls within a threshold (see tolerance; par. 61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply interferential stimulation in a closed loop manner because Hamilton teaches interferential stimulation allows universal use for a variety of treatments (see par. 53) and the prediction/adjustment helps to provide the appropriate stimulation for achieving success in real-time (see par. 52 and 54).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Gesotti discloses wherein the multiple electrodes are positioned around the ears of the human head (see Fig. 14). The examiner considers the word “around” is relative and the electrodes on Gesotti’s headband read on the claim as the head is near the ears.
Regarding Claims 10 and 20, Gesotti discloses wherein the set of parameters include a frequency parameter, a wavelength parameter, and an amplitude parameter of the interferential stimulation pattern (see col. 4, lines 10-14).
Claims 5-7, 9, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gesotti (US Patent 6704603) in view of Hamilton et al. (PG Pub. 2013/0123568), and further in view of Segil et al. (PG Pub. 2023/0400923).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Gesotti discloses wherein multiple electrodes (see electrodes 1472-1 and 1472-2) are positioned in a headband (see headband 1400; Fig. 14), but does not explicitly disclose a headset. Segil discloses a similar vestibular stimulator (see par. 115) wherein the electrodes are positioned on a headset (see par. 190). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make Gesotti’s headband into a headset because Segil teaches both allow proximity to the user’s vestibular system which is in charge of orientation and balance (see par. 190).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Segil further discloses wherein the set of parameters is calculated based on matching the acceleration data stream with the movement of a body part (see par. 104). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to match the acceleration data to the movement of the body part because Segil teaches it helps induce the desired sensory impression (see par. 111).
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Segil further discloses wherein the set of parameters is calculated based on counteracting the acceleration data stream (see par. 115). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to calculate parameters that counteract the acceleration data because Segil teaches it prevents the unintended or undesirable signaling (see par. 115).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Gesotti discloses the input data is from a simulation (see col. 12, lines 14-21), but does not disclose acceleration data from an extended reality simulation. Segil further discloses wherein the acceleration data stream is received directly from an extended reality (XR) simulation (see par. 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to receive acceleration data from an XR simulation because Segil teaches the simulation and calibration profiles can be used to produce and provide a number of sensory experiences for a user (see par. 98 and 144).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gesotti (US Patent 6704603) in view of Hamilton et al. (PG Pub. 2013/0123568), and further in view of Ghaffarzadegan et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0195981).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Gesotti and Hamilton do not disclose a vehicle. Ghaffarzadegan discloses monitoring head movement (see par. 17-18) where the acceleration data stream is received from at least one Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) measuring acceleration of a vehicle (see par. 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include vehicular acceleration data because Ghaffarzadegan teaches it helps in position and orientation recognition of the driver in relation to the vehicle (see par. 17).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5818. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 M-F Eastern.
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, James Kish can be reached at (571) 272-5554. 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.
/N.P/ Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/JAMES M KISH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights