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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1: at least one input apparatus configured for capturing at least one bio-signal of a user
Claim 1: a processing module configured for adjusting a sensory signal relative to a default setting of the sensory signal
Claim 1: a signal interface configured for outputting the adjusted sensory signal to a signal playback device arranged for being perceivable to the user
Claim 24-25: “a recommender system for recommending media content”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure:
Claim 1: at least one input apparatus configured for capturing at least one bio-signal of a user; As identified by the specification (page 3, line 7), “The input apparatus may comprise a sensor”.
Claim 1: a processing module configured for adjusting a sensory signal relative to a default setting of the sensory signal; As identified by the specification (page 14, line 1), “Processing module 102 may e.g. be a logical software module incorporated on an electronic system comprising a processor and a memory..”
Claim 1: a signal interface configured for outputting the adjusted sensory signal to a signal playback device arranged for being perceivable to the user; As identified by the specification (page 14, line 4), “The signal interface may e.g. comprise a transmitter configured for transmitting the signal to the signal playback device, or it may be directly coupled to the signal playback device.”
Claims 24-25: “a recommender system for recommending media content”; The specification does not appear to have any corresponding structure, see associated 112b rejection below.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 and 27 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 25, the claim uses the transitional phrase “characterized in”. It is suggested the claim be rewritten to conform to standard US practice using the transitional phrase “comprising”. Please see MPEP section 2111.03.
Regarding claim 27, there is no transitional phrase present in this claim. Please see MPEP section 2111.03.
Regarding claim 28, it is suggested that “computer-readable data carrier” be rewritten as “non-transitory computer-readable medium” to both conform with standard US practice and to avoid a possible 101 rejection for claiming signals per se.
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.
Claims 1, 5-8, 16, 18, 19, 24-27 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 limitation “recommender system” in claims 24-25 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is insufficient structure to the recommender system as it described in the specification as being composed of a sensor, input apparatus, and the playback device. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 describes a “reliable level” and “reliability” but does not provide a definition of this level or term in the claims or specification. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as a threshold level.
Regarding claims 5 and 16, the claims read “adjusting is further based on at least one pre-set, wherein the at least one pre-set comprises at least one of: an equalizer”. According to page 6 of the specification, “The pre-set may preferably be manually set by the user prior to the adjusting, or it may be a default pre-set set by an operator of the system”. However, this claim says the pre-set can be an equalizer which is a physical object. It is unclear whether a pre-set is a setting level that can be adjusted or a physical structure of the bio-feedback system.
Regarding claims 6 -7 and 17-18, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, claim 8 describes adjusting the audio signal to prevent audio distortion and maintaining higher harmonic frequencies but does not provide additional details in the claims or specification on how this is done.
Regarding claim 24, it does not appear the steps of the claims match the preamble of “providing a recommender system”. Furthermore, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “a recommender system” in the last line of the claim as it is unclear if this is referring to the recommender system in the preamble or is a different recommender system.
Regarding claim 25, it is unclear if Claim 25 includes all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends, claim 24. Claim 25 appears to only includes the step of training the recommender system from claim 24 and does not include performing the method of claim 12.
Regarding claim 26, claim 26 reads “determining an equalizer based on the adjusting” it is unclear how one “determines” an equalizer when an equalizer is a thing, a noun. It is suggested the applicant means a signal for equalization is being determined based on the adjusting, however applicant’s specification does not appear to have support for now an equalization signal is determined based on the adjusting. See MPEP 2161.01.I on computer-implemented functional claim limitations.
Regarding claim 26 the term “an equalizer” also lacks antecedent basis as it is unclear if this is referring to the equalizer in the preamble or is a different equalizer.
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 is dependent on the equalizer in claim 26 but details are not provided on how the equalizer will be used.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 5-6, 11-12, 14-17, 22, 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Garten (US 2019/0387998) (as cited in the applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Garten teaches a system for biofeedback (abstract "A system and method may be provided for associating bio-signal data"), comprising:
at least one input apparatus configured for capturing at least one bio-signal of a user (paragraph [0016] "a plurality of bio-signal sensors to capture bio-signal data from a plurality of users; an input device for at least one user to change a state of a rules engine;")
a processing module (paragraph [0027] "The system may have at least one processor") configured for adjusting a sensory signal relative to a default setting of the sensory signal (paragraph [0006] "using a rules engine, determining if a condition is met, based at least in part on the physiological state of each of the users and the environmental state associated with each user; upon the condition being met, executing an associated action including generating a sensory signal; and sending the sensory signal to transducers to output a sensory output to each of the users based on the sensory signal." And paragraph [0288] “an EEG controlled equalizer is provided that uses a control signal or test music to adjust the settings of an equalizer for a room based on the brain state of the user.” The setting before being adjusted being a “default setting”);
a signal interface configured for outputting the adjusted sensory signal to a signal playback device arranged for being perceivable to the user (paragraph [0122] "transducer 104 may provide a sensory output to each of the users 101 based on a sensory signal generated by computing device 120 and/or remote computing device 140" paragraph [1052] “One example is that people are wearing sensors such as brain sensing headbands, and other biological sensors that are connected to a mobile device (e.g. using bluetooth, NFC, wireless).”);
wherein the adjusting comprises: determining at least one characteristic based on the at least one bio-signal (paragraph [0016] " determine a physiological state of each of the users based at least in part on the bio-signal data of that user;");
adjusting the sensory signal based on the at least one characteristic, using a machine learning procedure or based on an output from a pre-trained machine learning system (paragraph [0006] "using a rules engine, determining if a condition is met, based at least in part on the physiological state of each of the users and the environmental state associated with each user; upon the condition being met, executing an associated action including generating a sensory signal; and sending the sensory signal to transducers to output a sensory output to each of the users based on the sensory signal." and paragraph [0027] "machine learning engine to transform the set of sonic features, the set of biological features, the set of metadata, and the set of user attributes into, for each epoch of music, a set of categories that the respective epoch belongs to using one or more predictive models to predict a user reaction of music; and a music recommendation engine configured to provide at least one music recommendation based on the set of labels or classes.");
and characterized in that the processing module is configured for:
defining the at least one characteristic determined at the end of the calibration period as a reliable level of the at least one characteristic (paragraph [1128] “Once the person's busy mind score stays below a threshold (lower the score, the calmer the mind) a tone starts building up rising to a crescendo and then if one maintains the crescendo then it “unravels” into an interesting musical story.” The examiner notes the characteristic is a busy mind and the reliable level is the score and/or threshold.)
during the adjusting, detecting whether a reliability of the at least one characteristic becomes less than the reliable level (The examiner notes that Garten teaches detecting the characteristic of having a busy mind falling below a threshold (a reliable level).); and
upon detecting that the reliability of the at least one characteristic becomes less than the reliable level, temporarily suspending the adjusting of the sensory signal until another calibration period has passed (paragraph [1128] " The next level is a trait feedback when one has maintained a certain state for a minimum period of time or a cumulative feedback. Once the person's busy mind score stays below a threshold (lower the score, the calmer the mind) a tone starts building up rising to a crescendo and then if one maintains the crescendo then it “unravels” into an interesting musical story. ." The examiner notes that when the crescendo stops building the sensory signal is suspended. The examiner notes that the minimum period of time is the calibration period, and since this is a feedback process that the user will be monitored after the adjusting of the signal to check the reliable level.)
Garten further teaches a calibration period of at least 5 seconds prior to the adjusting. (paragraph [0036] "detect an EEG response as a segment of the brainwave data at a time period on the timeline, the EEG response defining a change in brain state;" and paragraph [0276] "The present disclosure may determine the user's emotional response once, after a predetermined time has passed while playing a song, such as for example 5 seconds, or during a group experience.” Paragraph [0288] “In accordance with an aspect of the present disclosure, an EEG controlled equalizer is provided that uses a control signal or test music to adjust the settings of an equalizer for a room based on the brain state of the user.” The examiner notes that the prior art can use EEG to detect emotional response after a predetermined period before adjusting the settings of the equalizer for a room. Therefore, the calibration period of 5 seconds is prior to the adjusting.)
However, Garten fails to teach wherein the determining spans a calibration period of at least 10, preferably at least 20, seconds.
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system taught in Garten to have a calibration period of at least 10-20 seconds. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05, II; and in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Garten teaches the system of claims 1 and 12 wherein the at least one bio-signal comprises at least one of the following:- brainwaves (paragraph [0007] "detecting an EEG response based on the bio-signal data;"); - a muscular activity (paragraph 1042] " EMG can be used to determine a user's level of muscular tension"); - a heart rate (paragraph [0117] "Bio-signal data may include, for example, brain metrics, heart metrics, or breath metrics, such as EEG, ECG, or breath rate."); - a heart rate variability (paragraph [0117] “heart metrics”); - a breath rhythm (paragraph [0117] “breath metrics”; - a blood pressure; - a body temperature; - a gas content of blood; - a perspiration; - an electrodermal activity; - a facial expression; - a dexterity performance parameter; and - a voice pattern.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Garten discloses the system of claims 1 and 12, wherein the at least one characteristic is a signal characteristic of the at least one bio-signal (characteristic interpreted as busy mind per claim 1, wherein the busy mind is a characteristic of the brainwaves bio signal, paragraph [1127]) and/or wherein the at least one characteristic is a user characteristic selected for distinguishing a group to which the user belongs among a plurality of groups or distinguishing the user individually from other users.
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Garten discloses the system of claims 1 and 12, wherein the adjusting is further based on at least one pre-set, wherein the at least one pre-set comprises at least one of: an equalizer (paragraph [0288] “an EEG controlled equalizer is provided that uses a control signal or test music to adjust the settings of an equalizer for a room based on the brain state of the user.“), a genre, and a timbre.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Garten discloses the system of claims 1 and 12 wherein the sensory signal is a media signal (paragraph [0215] “Sensory signal generation software 340 may be configured to generate a sensory signal, for example, to cause an audio, visual, or tactile output for a user 101.”), wherein the sensory signal is based on, preferably selected from, a plurality of media signals belonging to a predetermined media library of the user (paragraph [0554] “Dean uses Spotify with the system of the present disclosure to create a playlist based on his brain state.” The examiner notes that Spotify is a media library.)
Regarding claims 11 and 22, Garten discloses the system of claims 1 and 12, wherein the sensory signal comprises a light signal (paragraph [0181] “what is generated by sensory signal generation software 340 is a sound and light signal.”), and wherein the adjusting comprises at least one of:- changing a combination of electromagnetic frequencies of the light signal (Paragraph [121] “Transducer 104 may also generate a variety of colour and brightness of light.” The examiner notes that changing the electromagnetic frequencies of the light signal is changing the color of the light .); - amplifying or weakening at least one light amplitude over at least one frequency range of the light signal (Paragraph [121] “Transducer 104 may also generate a variety of colour and brightness of light.” The examiner notes that amplifying or weakening the light amplitude changes the brightness of the light.); and - varying at least one light amplitude of the light signal over a time pattern.
Regarding claim 24, Garten discloses a method for providing a recommender system for recommending media content to a user (paragraph [0209] “rules engine 330 may generate a music recommendation for a user 101 using any of the music recommendation techniques, as described herein, for example, by detecting an emotion state of a user 101, and making an appropriate music recommendation on the basis of the user's responses.”), comprising:
Performing the method of claim 12 (see claims 1 and 12 rejection) and
- based on associations of the captured at least one bio-signal, the sensory signal, and the adjusted sensory signal, performing a machine learning process in order to train a recommender system configured for recommending media content to the user (paragraph [1013] “A user is played sound/music during a session. This could be: a. random snippets of sound at random times (birds chirping, someone making dinner, a protest march, classical music, etc); b. continuous sound with predictable changes; c. dynamically adjusting depending on the state of mind of the user: increasing difficulty as the user has more focus and less difficult if the user is distracted; or d. user has the ability to choose their difficulty level, for example.” And paragraph [0208] “Rules engine 330 may function as an algorithm that supports a therapeutic function or training or experiential goal. This music algorithm may change or some way at affect the music track depending on the aggregate of bio-signal data, determined physiological data, environmental data (such as sound in an environment) and possibly with the input of a human guide or instructor providing external input, for example, by way of an external computing device (not shown).”)
Regarding claim 25, Garten teaches a recommender system for recommending media content in that the recommender system has been trained according to the method of claim 24. (paragraph [0213] “an action executed by rules engine 330 specifies a machine learning approach, and whether supervised learning or unsupervised learning is to be applied.” The examiner notes that figure 4 shows the recommender system. Please see claim 24 rejection.)
Regarding claim 26, Garten teaches a method for providing an equalizer comprising:
Performing the method of claim 12 (please see claims 1 and 12 rejection) and
Determining an equalizer based on the adjusting (paragraph [0288] “In accordance with an aspect of the present disclosure, an EEG controlled equalizer is provided that uses a control signal or test music to adjust the settings of an equalizer for a room based on the brain state of the user.”)
Regarding claim 27, Garten teaches the use of an equalizer provided by the method of claim 26 (please see claim 26 rejection).
Regarding claim 28, Garten teaches a computer-readable data carrier, carrying a computer program comprising instructions that (paragraph [1160] “It will be appreciated that any module or component exemplified herein that executes instructions may include or otherwise have access to computer readable media such as storage media, computer storage media, or data storage devices (removable and/or non-removable)”), when executed on at least one processor (paragraph [0027] “the system may have at least one processor”), cause the at least one processor to perform the method of claim 12 (please see claim 12 rejection).
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garten in view of in view of Douglas (US 6702767).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Garten teaches the system of claims 1 and 12 wherein the sensory signal comprises an audio signal (paragraph [0215] “Sensory signal generation software 340 may be configured to generate a sensory signal, for example, to cause an audio, visual, or tactile output for a user 101.”) but fails to teach wherein the adjusting comprises at least one of:- amplifying or weakening audio amplitudes of the audio signal over at least 3, preferably at least 5, frequency bands; and - removing or adding at least one audio tone from or to at least one frequency band.
Douglas teaches a system for sensory stimulation of a user teach wherein the adjusting comprises at least one of:- amplifying or weakening audio amplitudes of the audio signal over multiple frequency bands. (column 14, line 62 “the effect box 310 may be used to change signals to increase or decrease sound reverberation or to change treble and base frequencies as desired.” And column 16, line 61 “the processors and players can manipulate existing files from the media program database. In this manner changes can be made such as adjusting the volume” The examiner notes that treble and base each encompasses multiple frequencies, therefore if the treble and base is being adjusted the audio signal is being adjusted over at multiple frequencies.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system taught in Garten to adjust the audio signal by increasing or decreasing the volume and frequencies as taught in Douglas. One of ordinary skill would be able to recognize that each user would need a customizable signal depending on their current physiological and mental state to reach the target state as taught in Garten.
However, Douglas does not teach that the audio signal should be adjusted over at least 3, preferably at least 5, frequency bands.
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system taught in Garten to adjust the audio signal over at least 3, preferably at least 5, frequency bands. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that this is routine optimization. It is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Each user of the system would require different adjustments based on the physiological characteristics and the target mental state desired by the user.
Claims 8, 10, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garten in view of Douglas further in view of LeBlanc (US 2009/0271186).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Garten and Douglas teach the system of claims 7 and 18 but fail to teach wherein the adjusting is performed in such a way that hearable audio distortion is prevented near edges of the frequency bands and that higher harmonic frequencies of the audio signal are maintained.
LeBlanc teaches a method for modifying audio signals for play back to prevent audio distortion and maintain higher frequencies. (paragraph [0008] “a method is described herein for limiting distortion of an audio signal being processed for playback by an audio device.” Paragraph [0043] “Dynamic high pass filter 202 is configured to receive an input audio signal 210 from another digital signal processing element within digital signal processing logic 110 and to filter input audio signal 210 to produce a filtered audio signal 212.” Paragraph [0051] “Compressor 204 is configured to receive filtered audio signal 212 from dynamic high-pass filter 202 and to apply compression to filtered audio signal 212 to produce a compressed audio signal 214…This overdriving of soft clipper 206 will lead to some level of clipping distortion. However, through careful selection of the compression limit and the soft clipping limit, the amount of clipping distortion can advantageously be held to an acceptable level while maintaining loudness.” The examiner notes that in claim 7 Douglas teaches adjusting frequencies and that changing the frequencies would alter the frequencies to be a harmonic frequency. The examiner is modifying that system to have the audio distortion prevention system as taught by LeBlanc.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system taught by Garten and Douglas to prevent audio distortion by maintaining higher frequencies as taught by LeBlanc. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize when a user increases the playback volume of an audio device, the dynamic range of the audio signal is increased. If the dynamic range of the audio signal is increased to a point at which it exceeds the limits associated with any of the processing stages, distortion of the audio signal may result. For example, in the absence of any logic to address such over-driving of a processing stage, hard clipping of the audio signal may result. In hard clipping, the portions of the audio signal that cannot be passed or represented by the processing stage (typically the peaks and troughs of the audio waveform in the time domain) are simply cut off. Such hard clipping distorts the audio waveform and creates strong harmonics in the high-frequency range, thereby degrading the quality of the audio signal as perceived by the user. See paragraph [004] of LeBlanc.
Regarding claims 10 and 21, Garten and Douglas teach the system of claims 7 and 18, Garten further teaches that the system can be applied to individual users and/or different groups of users (paragraph [0085] “Systems and methods described herein may recommend audio or music on the basis of users physiological state (for example, bio-signal data) and the users' environment to generate a group experience,”) and that the adjusting is based on different cut-off frequencies and/or different attenuation values ( paragraph [1096] – [1098] “The Following is a List of Music Effects that the Music Processor can Apply: change of tempo, filtering—changing the amplification level of different frequency bands in the music.” And paragraph [1111] “The rate and number of changes are parameters of the algorithm that can be adjusted based on the preferences of the user.”)
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garten in view of Hwang (US 2016/02140407).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Garten teaches the system of claims 1 and 12, wherein the sensory signal comprises a video signal (paragraph [0129] “Visual components may include video projection,”) but fails to teach wherein the adjusting comprises at least one of:- amplifying or weakening at least one of the following: a light output value; a colour value; a video framerate; a video blur; and a video focus; - removing or adding at least one video frame of the sensory signal; and - removing or adding at least one video component from or to at least one video frame of the sensory signal.
Hwang teaches a system for processing content based on bio-signals that can
amplify or weaken at least one of the following: a light output value; a colour value; a video framerate; (paragraph [0062] “For example, the device 100 may alter …richness of … color, …saturation, brightness, contrast, transparency, etc. of the content according to the reproduction parameter.” Paragraph [0189] “The video processor 1635 may perform various types of image processing, such as decoding, scaling, noise filtering, frame-rate conversion, and resolution conversion, on image data.”)
- removing or adding at least one video frame of the sensory signal (paragraph [189] “The video processor 1635 may perform various types of image processing, such as decoding, scaling, noise filtering, frame-rate conversion, and resolution conversion, on image data” The examiner notes that by converting the frame-rate a video frame is added or removed.) and
- removing or adding at least one video component from or to at least one video frame of the sensory signal (paragraph [0130] “the device 100 determines that a user is in a normal state, i.e., sees a real view, from brainwave signals of the user, the device 100 may turn off a display (1010). Alternatively, the device 100 may increase the transparency of the display so that the real view may be seen well via the display. The device 100 may allow the user to see the real view more clearly by controlling the display.”).
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system taught by Garten to be able to modify the video signal as taught by Hwang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that different users will require different settings to achieve the target state desired (ex: relaxation, focus, etc) therefore multiple video signal alterations would be needed to accommodate various users.
Claims 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garten in view of Rose (WO 2006/105085).
Regarding claim 23, Garten teaches the method of claim 12, but fails to teach that the method is performed repeatedly over a plurality of biofeedback sessions, each session having a duration of at least 5 minutes, preferably at least 10 minutes, more preferably at least 15 minutes, and wherein the plurality of biofeedback sessions spans at least a time period of 3 days, preferably at least 7 days, more preferably at least 28 days.
Rose teaches a biofeedback method and apparatus that repeats sessions multiple times over a time period. (Paragraph [0024] – [0025] “The session is repeated at least twice. The session may be repeated on a daily basis, and may form part of an ongoing regimen of stress reduction or performance enhancement, which may not have specific endpoint. Preferably, the session is repeated multiple times per week. Alternatively, in embodiments, a regimen of stress reduction comprises repeating the session about 10 to about 20 times over the course of 2 to about 6 weeks. The method has been shown to be effective in the context of improving sports performance with a regimen of sessions lasting about 30 minutes, repeated 3 to 4 times per week for 3 to 4 weeks. There are a wide range of repetitive patterns that produce different effects or degrees of impact that can be tailored to specific results desired.”)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system taught in Garten to repeat the bio-feedback sessions multiple times as taught in Rose. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that this is routine optimization. It is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Each user of the system would require different amounts of sessions based on the physiological characteristics and the target state desired by the user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zoetekouw teaches a system for biofeedback customized to a user (WO 2010/020924).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIANA JOY LACAY DECASTRO whose telephone number is (571)272-8316. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:30.
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at 571-272-5596. 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.
/A.L.D./
Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights