On 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 11, filed 2 July 2026, with respect to the f, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of the figures has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 11, filed 2 July 2026, with respect to objection of the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 11, filed 2 July 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection of claims 1, 2, 23, 25, has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 11, filed 2 July 2026, with respect to the objection of claim 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 12 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 2 July 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1 & 27, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that that separating and selectively rejecting the peak drive level and carrier frequency of the modulated pattern is improper, Examiner points out that that both Harper and Hyde teach optimization as they both give their own optimal ranges. Since the ranges are not as specific as what is exemplified in the MEPE for a 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection, examiner elected to make an obviousness rejection. Examiner also points out that the hertz values presented in prior art do result in a different nerve sensory amounts. Finally, examiner mentions that the claim language does not specifically define the relationship between the carrier frequency and the peak drive level.
The arguments regarding the rejection of the additional actuator are not persuasive as an actuator that provides stimulation must by logical extension be able to provide supplemental stimulation when used in a combination.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0141879 hereinafter Harper.
In regards to Claim 1: A wearable device (Harper, Figure 1 Item 100) for providing vibrotactile stimulus to at least one nerve proximate an ear of a user, the device comprising:
an earpiece (Harper, Figures 1 & 3-7 Item 10; Paragraph 59) comprising a vibration device (Harper, Figure 1 & 3-7 Item 2, Paragraph 67) for application of vibrotactile stimulus proximate at least one of a concha region or an ear canal of the user (Harper, Figures 4 & 7; Paragraph 67); and
a controller (Harper, Figure 1 Item 20) connected with the vibration device (Harper, Paragraph 70), the controller configured to actuate the vibration device according to a modulated pattern (Harper, Paragraph 62 & 77) to stimulate at least one nerve proximate the ear of the user (Harper, Paragraph 55), wherein the modulated pattern is characterized by:
a peak drive level sufficient to stimulate nerve endings of at least one nerve proximate the ear of the user (Harper, Paragraphs 5 & 31; Stimulation of Cranial Nerves); and
a carrier frequency of approximately 50 Hertz (Hz) to approximately 500 Hz (Harper, Paragraph 62).
Harper does not teach the exact carrier frequency of approximately 50 Hertz (Hz) to approximately 500 range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to utilize the frequency taught in Harper, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is frequency in hertz which achieves the recognized result of modulating the activity of the sensory nerve therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 1, 6, 9, 11, 18, 20, 21, & 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0279021 hereinafter Hyde.
In regards to Claim 1: A wearable device for providing vibrotactile stimulus to at least one nerve proximate an ear of a user (Hyde Figure 2 Item 200 & 202; Paragraph 64), the device comprising:
an earpiece (Hyde, Figure 3-5) comprising a vibration device for application of vibrotactile stimulus proximate at least one of a concha region or an ear canal of the user (Hyde, Paragraph 66); and
a controller (Hyde, Paragraph 64; Figure 2 Item 208) connected with the vibration device (Hyde, Paragraph 64 Items 210 & 212), the controller configured to actuate the vibration device according to a modulated pattern (Hyde, Paragraph 100; “pulse shape”) to stimulate at least one nerve proximate the ear of the user (Hyde, Paragraph 64), wherein the modulated pattern is characterized by:
a peak drive level sufficient to stimulate nerve endings of at least one nerve proximate the ear of the user (Hyde, Paragraph 64; “stimulus sufficient to activate one or more nerves”); and
a carrier frequency of approximately 50 Hertz (Hz) to approximately 500 Hz (Hyde, Paragraph 100).
Hyde does not teach the exact carrier frequency of approximately 50 Hertz (Hz) to approximately 500 range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to utilize the frequency taught in Harper, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is frequency in hertz which achieves the recognized result of modulating the activity of the sensory nerve therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In regards to Claim 6: the vibration device vibrates at the carrier frequency, and the modulated pattern is controlled by a stimulation waveform, wherein the modulated pattern is further characterized by
a) a fast onset and a gradual decay (Hyde, Paragraph 62, “match the duration and timing of an inspiration or expiration when the device is used for overcoming sleep-disordered breathing.”),
In regards to Claim 9: The wearable device of claim 1, wherein the earpiece includes an ear tip configured to rest in an ear canal opening of the user, wherein the vibration device is encased within material of the ear tip (Hyde, Paragraph 70; Figure 3 Item 306), and
wherein the wearable device includes a wearable audio device further comprising:
an electro-acoustic transducer connected with the controller and configured to provide an audio output, wherein the audio output comprises: an audio noise signal configured to entrain the user's breathing, or a noise signal (Hyde, Paragraph 86; “delivering an auditory signal”).
In regards to Claim 18: The wearable device of claim 1, wherein the earpiece comprises an eartip and a support structure extending from the eartip, wherein the vibration device is located in the support structure (Hyde, Figure 3 Items 300, 310a-c, 306, Paragraph 70), and wherein the earpiece includes an electro-acoustic transducer for providing an audio output to the ear canal region of the user, the audio output including music and/or therapeutic audio (Hyde, Paragraph 89; “delivering an auditory signal”).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0141879 hereinafter Harper in view of 2020/0228904 hereinafter Liao.
In regards to Claim 2: Harper teaches all of claim 1 and wherein the controller is configured to adjust the modulated pattern in response to receiving biometric feedback about the user from a sensor system (Harper, Paragraph 62), but does not teach wherein the peak drive level applies a force to at least one of the concha region or the ear canal of the user of approximately;)0.1 Newton (N) to approximately 0.9 N, approximately: ii) 0.3 N to approximately 0.7 N, or iii) approximately 0.5 N.
Liao teaches wherein the peak drive level applies a force to at least one of the concha region or the ear canal of the user of approximately;)0.1 Newton (N) to approximately 0.9 N, approximately: ii) 0.3 N to approximately 0.7 N, or iii) approximately 0.5 N (Liao, Paragraph 4, 115 & 116).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to add the applied force taught in Liao to the device taught in Harper, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is force in newtons which achieves the recognized result of conveying a clear sound through the device therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0141879 hereinafter Harper in view of US 2016/0245830 hereinafter Mace.
In regards to Claim 7: Harper teaches all of claim 1 but does not teach wherein the modulated pattern approximates a breath rate of the user and has a period equal to approximately one second to approximately 20 seconds.
Mace teaches wherein the modulated pattern approximates a breath rate of the user and has a period equal to approximately one second to approximately 20 seconds (Mace, Paragraph 20 & 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to add the breath rate of the user taught in Mace to the device taught in Harper, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is time which achieves the recognized result of standardizing the breath rate of the user therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0279021 hereinafter Hyde in view of WO 2020006048 hereinafter Rosenbluth.
In regards to Claim 11: Hyde teaches of the wearable device of claim 1, further comprising: a thermal actuator connected with the controller for thermally stimulating an area proximate the ear of the user (Hyde, Paragraph 80, Figure 7 Item 742) and a frequency of approximately 0.1 Hertz (Hz) to approximately 1 Hz (Hyde, Paragraph 100), but Hyde does not teach wherein the thermal actuator applies a modulated thermal stimulation pattern characterized by: a peak thermal differential of at least approximately 15 degrees Celsius.
Rosenbluth teaches wherein the thermal actuator applies a modulated thermal stimulation pattern characterized by a peak thermal differential of at least approximately 15 degrees Celsius (Rosenbluth, Paragraph 163).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to add the thermal differential of the thermal actuator taught in Rosenbluth to the device of Hyde, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is temperature in Celsius which achieves the recognized result of regulating the temperature felt by the user therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0141879 hereinafter Harper in view of US 2010/0322454 hereinafter Ambrose.
In regards to Claim 14: Harper teaches all of claim 1 and an additional earpiece comprising an additional vibration device for application of vibrotactile stimulus proximate at least one of a concha region or an ear canal of an additional ear of the user, wherein the controller is connected with the additional vibration device and is configured to actuate the vibration device and the additional vibration device according to the modulated pattern (Harper, Paragraph 66; Figure 2). Harper does not teach the modulated pattern is further characterized by a phase difference between the user's ears, and wherein the phase difference is equal to or less than 180 degrees.
Ambrose teaches the modulated pattern is further characterized by a phase difference between the user's ears, and wherein the phase difference is equal to or less than 180 degrees (Ambrose, Paragraph 358).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to add phase difference taught in Ambrose to the device of Harper, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is degrees which achieves the recognized result of canceling out audio waves therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0279021 hereinafter Hyde in view of US 2010/0198135 hereinafter Morriss.
In regard to Claim 21: Hyde teaches all of claim 1 and the controller comprises a control circuit contained in the earpiece, wherein the control circuit is configured to receive commands from at least one of a local logic engine or a remote logic engine for actuating the vibration device according to the modulated pattern (Hyde, Paragraph 68; Figure 2 Item 202, 208 & 218). However, Hyde does not teach wherein the earpiece includes: an ear tip sized to fit in an ear canal region of the user; electrodes on the ear tip; and electrical contacts arranged on an inner surface of the ear tip, the electrical contacts electrically connected with the vibration device and the electrodes.
Morriss teaches wherein the earpiece includes: an ear tip sized to fit in an ear canal region of the user; electrodes on the ear tip; and electrical contacts arranged on an inner surface of the ear tip, the electrical contacts electrically connected with the vibration device and the electrodes (Morriss, Figure 2C Item 228; Paragraph 80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the electrodes in the ear tip taught in Morriss to the device of Hyde, the motivation being to provide greater pressure on the ear.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0141879 hereinafter Harper in view of US 2016/0245830 hereinafter Mace in view of US 2016/0279021 hereinafter Hyde.
In regard to Claim 23: A modified Harper teaches of the wearable device of claim 7, wherein the modulated pattern comprises a session of recurring modulated patterns lasting approximately 20 minutes or less, wherein the session is repeated at least two times throughout a day (Harper, Paragraph 62; “A stimulation session may be established for periods ranging from 1-2 minutes to 60 minutes”; Examiner interprets a session as short as 60 minutes can be administered multiple times a day), but does not teach wherein entrainment of the modulation pattern to the breath rate is configured to amplify a naturally occurring increase in parasympathetic tone during exhalation by the user.
Hyde teaches wherein entrainment of the modulation pattern to the breath rate is configured to amplify a naturally occurring increase in parasympathetic tone during exhalation by the user (Hyde, Paragraph 176; Examiner interprets a device that can sense a parasympathetic tone, can also use that information to adjust the devices output to increase the parasympathetic tone”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the adjustment of the parasympathetic tone taught in Hyde to the device of a modified Harper, the motivation being to lower the anxiety of the user.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0141879 hereinafter Harper in view of US 2013/0303953 hereinafter Lattner.
In regards to Claim 25: Harper teaches all of claim 1 and a tactile actuator coupled with the controller (Harper, Figure 1 Item 30; Paragraph 59), but does not teach providing a low-frequency tactile stimulus to the at least one nerve proximate the ear of the user, wherein the low-frequency tactile stimulus is characterized by a frequency of approximately ½ Hertz (Hz) or less.
Lattner teaches providing a low-frequency tactile stimulus to the at least one nerve proximate the ear of the user, wherein the low-frequency tactile stimulus is characterized by a frequency of approximately ½ Hertz (Hz) or less (Lattner, Paragraph 106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the low frequency tactile stimulus taught in Lattner to the device taught in Harper, the motivation being to provide a greater immersion of the audio.
Claim(s) 27 & 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0141879 hereinafter Harper in view of 2020/0228904 hereinafter Liao in view of 2010/0322454 hereinafter Ambrose.
In regard to Claim 27: Harper teaches a wearable device (Harper, Figure 1 Item 100; Paragraph 59) for providing vibrotactile stimulus to at least one nerve proximate an ear of a user, the device comprising:
a set of two earpieces (Harper, Figure 2) each comprising a vibration device (Harper, Figure 3-7 Item 2; Paragraph 67) for application of vibrotactile stimulus proximate at least one of a concha region or an ear canal of the user's ears (Harper, Paragraph 67; Figure 4 Item 10); and
a controller (Harper, Figure 1 Item 20; Paragraph 59) connected with the vibration devices (Harper, Paragraph 70; Figure 5 Items 2, 4, 10, & 30), the controller configured to actuate the vibration devices according to a modulated pattern (Harper, Paragraph 62 & 77) to stimulate at least one nerve proximate the ear of the user Harper, Paragraph 55), wherein the modulated pattern is characterized by:
a peak drive level sufficient to stimulate nerve endings of the at least one nerve proximate the ear of the user (Harper, Paragraphs 5 & 31);
a carrier frequency of approximately 50 Hertz (Hz) to approximately 500 Hz (Harper, Paragraph 62).
However, Harper does not teach a phase difference between application of the modulated pattern at each of the vibration devices, wherein the peak drive level is configured to apply a force to at least one of the concha region or the ear canal of the user of approximately 0.3 N to approximately 0.7 N.
Liao teaches wherein the peak drive level is configured to apply a force to at least one of the concha region or the ear canal of the user of approximately 0.3 N to approximately 0.7 N (Liao, Paragraph 4).
The combination of Harper and Liao does not teach the exact ranges given within the claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to add the force applied to the ear taught in Liao to the device taught in Harper, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is force in newtons which achieves the recognized result of conveying clear audio to the ear of the user therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Ambrose teaches a phase difference between application of the modulated pattern at each of the vibration devices (Ambrose, Paragraph 358).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to add the phase difference taught in Ambrose to the device of a modified Harper, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is phase shift which achieves the recognized result of canceling out audio waves therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In regards to Claim 28: A modified Harper teaches all of claim 27, and wherein the phase difference is equal to or less than 180 degrees (Ambrose, Paragraph 358).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0141879 hereinafter Harper in view of US 2020/0228904 hereinafter Liao in view of US 2010/0322454 hereinafter Ambrose in further view of US 2016/027021 hereinafter Hyde in view of US 2016/0245830 hereinafter Mace.
In regard to Claim 31: A modified Harper teaches all of claim 27 and a session of recurring modulated patterns lasting approximately 20 minutes or less, wherein the session is repeated at least two times throughout a day (Harper Paragraph 62), but does not teach wherein the modulated pattern is further characterized by one of:
a) a fast onset and a gradual decay,
b) a fast onset, a gradual decay, and a period of nominal vibrational force,
c) a fast onset, a gradual decay, and a period of zero vibrational force,
d) a symmetric onset and decay, or
f) a multi-frequency pattern comprising a first segment with a first frequency and a first period and a second segment with a second, higher frequency and a second, longer period, and wherein the modulated pattern: i) approximates a breath rate of the user and has a period equal to approximately one second to approximately 20 seconds.
Hyde teaches wherein the modulated pattern is further characterized by one of:
a) a fast onset and a gradual decay (Hyde, Paragraph 62, “match the duration and timing of an inspiration or expiration when the device is used for overcoming sleep-disordered breathing.”),
b) a fast onset, a gradual decay, and a period of nominal vibrational force,
c) a fast onset, a gradual decay, and a period of zero vibrational force,
d) a symmetric onset and decay, or
f) a multi-frequency pattern comprising a first segment with a first frequency and a first period and a second segment with a second, higher frequency and a second, longer period.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the modulated pattern taught in Hyde to the device of a modified Harper, the motivation being to provide a repeatable pattern that is easy for the user to follow.
Mace teaches wherein the modulated pattern: i) approximates a breath rate of the user and has a period equal to approximately one second to approximately 20 seconds (Mace, Paragraphs 20 & 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to add the breath rate of the user taught in Mace to the device taught in Harper, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is time which achieves the recognized result of standardizing the breath rate of the user therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0141879 hereinafter Harper in view of US 2020/0228904 hereinafter Liao in view of US 2010/0322454 hereinafter Ambrose in further view of US 2013/0303953 hereinafter Lattner.
In regards to Claim 44: A modified Harper teaches all of claim 27, but does not teach wherein at least one of the earpieces further comprises a tactile actuator connected with the controller for providing a low-frequency tactile stimulus to the at least one nerve proximate the ear of the user, wherein the low-frequency tactile stimulus is characterized by a frequency of approximately ½ Hertz (Hz) or less.
Lattner teaches wherein at least one of the earpieces further comprises a tactile actuator connected with the controller for providing a low-frequency tactile stimulus to the at least one nerve proximate the ear of the user, wherein the low-frequency tactile stimulus is characterized by a frequency of approximately ½ Hertz (Hz) or less (Lattner, Paragraph 106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the low frequency tactile stimulus taught in Lattner to the device taught in Harper, the motivation being to provide a greater immersion of the audio.
Claim(s) 48 & 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0141879 hereinafter Harper in view of US 2018/0264266 hereinafter Owen.
In regard to Claim 48: Harper teaches the wearable device of claim 1 but does not teach wherein the vibration device vibrates at the carrier frequency, and the modulated pattern is controlled by a stimulation waveform, wherein the modulated pattern is further characterized by: a fast onset, a gradual decay, and a period of nominal vibrational force.
Owen teaches wherein the vibration device vibrates at the carrier frequency, and the modulated pattern is controlled by a stimulation waveform, wherein the modulated pattern is further characterized by a fast onset, a gradual decay, and a period of nominal vibrational force (Owen Figure 18, Paragraph 118; Examiner interprets 1702 to be a fast onset and 1704 to be a gradual decay).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the modulated pattern taught in Owen to the device of Harper, the motivation being to prompt the user to take an immediate first action followed by a gradual release.
In regard to Claim 49: Harper teaches the wearable device of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the vibration device vibrates at the carrier frequency, and the modulated pattern is controlled by a stimulation waveform, wherein the modulated pattern is further characterized by: a fast onset, a gradual decay, and a period of zero vibrational force, a symmetric onset and decay, or a multi-frequency pattern comprising a first segment with a first frequency and a first period, and a second segment with a second, higher frequency and a second, longer period.
Owen teaches wherein the vibration device vibrates at the carrier frequency, and the modulated pattern is controlled by a stimulation waveform, wherein the modulated pattern is further characterized by: a fast onset, a gradual decay, and a period of zero vibrational force (Owen Figure 18, Paragraph 118; Examiner interprets 1702 to be a fast onset and 1704 to be a gradual decay), a symmetric onset and decay, or a multi-frequency pattern comprising a first segment with a first frequency and a first period, and a second segment with a second, higher frequency and a second, longer period.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the modulated pattern taught in Owen to the device of Harper, the motivation being to prompt the user to take an immediate first action followed by a gradual release.
Claim(s) 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0141879 hereinafter Harper in view of US 2020/0228904 hereinafter Liao in view of US 2010/0322454 hereinafter Ambrose in view of US 2016/0245830 hereinafter Mace.
In regard to Claim 50: Harper teaches of a wearable audio device for providing vibrotactile stimulus to at least one nerve proximate an ear of a user, the device comprising:
a set of two earpieces (Harper, Figure 2; Paragraph 59 & 66; Item 100) each comprising a vibration device (Harper, Paragraphs 66 & 67; Item 2) for application of vibrotactile stimulus proximate at least one of a concha region or an ear canal of the user's ears (Harper, Paragraph 67; Figures 4 & 7); and
a controller (Harper, Figure 1 Item 20) connected with the vibration devices (Harper, Paragraph 70), the controller configured to actuate the vibration devices according to a modulated pattern (Harper, Paragraph 62 & 77) to stimulate at least one nerve proximate the ear of the user (Harper, Paragraph 55), wherein the modulated pattern is characterized by:
a peak drive level sufficient to stimulate nerve endings of the at least one nerve proximate the ear of the user (Harper, Paragraphs 5 & 31; Stimulation of Cranial Nerves);
a carrier frequency of approximately 50 Hertz (Hz) to approximately 500 Hz (Harper, Paragraph 62); and
wherein the modulated pattern comprises a session of recurring modulated patterns lasting approximately 20 minutes or less, the session being repeated at least two times throughout a day (Harper, Paragraph 62; “A stimulation session may be established for periods ranging from 1-2 minutes to 60 minutes”; Examiner interprets a session as short as 60 minutes can be administered multiple times a day).
However, Harper does not teach a phase difference between application of the modulated pattern at each of the vibration devices, wherein the peak drive level is configured to apply a force to at least one of the concha region or the ear canal of the user of approximately 0.3 N to approximately 0.7 N, and wherein the modulated pattern approximates a breath rate of the user and has a period equal to approximately one second to approximately 20 seconds.
Ambrose teaches a phase difference between application of the modulated pattern at each of the vibration devices (Ambrose, Paragraph 358).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to add the phase difference taught in Ambrose to the device of a modified Harper, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is phase shift which achieves the recognized result of canceling out audio waves therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Liao teaches wherein the peak drive level is configured to apply a force to at least one of the concha region or the ear canal of the user of approximately 0.3 N to approximately 0.7 N (Liao, Paragraph 4, 115, & 116).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to add the applied force taught in Liao to the device taught in a modified Harper, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is force in Newtons which achieves the recognized result of conveying a clear sound through the device therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Mace teaches wherein the modulated pattern approximates a breath rate of the user and has a period equal to approximately one second to approximately 20 seconds (Mace, Paragraphs 20 & 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to add the breath rate of the user taught in Mace to the device taught in a modified Harper, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is time which achieves the recognized result of standardizing the breath rate of the user therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 51 & 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0141879 hereinafter Harper in view of US 2020/0228904 hereinafter Liao in view of US 2010/0322454 hereinafter Ambrose in view of US 2016/0245830 hereinafter Mace in view of US 2016/0279021 hereinafter Hyde.
In regard to Claim 51: A modified Harper teaches of the wearable audio device of claim 50, but does not teach wherein each earpiece includes an electro-acoustic transducer coupled with the controller and configured to provide an audio output including at least one of music, guided meditation, or guided breathing.
Hyde teaches wherein each earpiece includes an electro-acoustic transducer coupled with the controller and configured to provide an audio output including at least one of music, guided meditation, or guided breathing (Hyde, Paragraph 80; Figure 7 Item 742).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the audio provided being music taught by Hyde to the device of a modified Harper, the motivation being to contribute to a calming environment for the user.
In regard to Claim 52: A modified Harper teaches of the wearable audio device 51, wherein the modulated pattern has a period equal to approximately 7 seconds, and wherein approximating the breath rate of the user is configured to aid in breathing entrainment of the user (Mace, Paragraph 20 & 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to add the breath rate of the user taught in Mace to the device taught in Harper, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is time which achieves the recognized result of standardizing the breath rate of the user therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NOE R DIETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1135. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 5pm.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571)-272-4233. 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.R.D./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights