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:
“sensory actuator” in claim 1, line 4; equivalent structure found in para. 0031. Therefore, in light of the specification, a “sensory actuator” is best understood as a digital visual generation device, a digital scent generator capable of creating aroma or scent, a taste generator device that can recreate taste sensations associated with food, a speaker/auditory device, or a haptic/touch sensory device, and equivalents thereof.
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.
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 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.
Claim 12 is 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 12 recites the limitation "the reinforcement learning model" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the reinforcement learning model” will be read as “a reinforcement learning model”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sumant et al. (US 2020/0206631).
Regarding claim 1, Sumant et al. teaches a computer-implemented method of processing a stream of sensory data (paras. 0005; Fig. 4), the method comprising:
obtaining an input stream of sensory data from a source (Fig. 1B, video game 112; paras. 0116-0119, para. 0092, wherein the one or more state variables and/or game settings, such as the video game’s lighting and music, are being construed as the input stream of sensory data and the video game 112 is being construed as the “source”), wherein the input stream of sensory data comprises input for a sensory actuator of a user device (para. 0117, wherein the user computer system 110 embodied as a touch-capable computing device is being construed as a “sensory actuator”; para. 0118, “The user computing system 110 includes a touchscreen display 602 and a touchscreen interface 604, and is configured to execute a game application 610. This game application may be the video game 112”, essentially, the video game provides input for the touch-capable computing device);
obtaining state information (Fig. 4, block 402; para. 0097; para. 0026, “the biometric data can include heart rate, breath rate, skin or body temperature”), wherein the state information comprises information indicating a first state of a user (Fig. 4, block 404; paras. 0005, 0222, 0025, and 0098. “the emotion analysis system 126 of the retention analysis system 140 uses a prediction model to determine a predicted emotional state for the user based at least in part on the set of sensory and biometric data received” – a predicted emotional state is being construed as “a first state of a user”);
determining, using a machine learning model (para. 0052, “The model generation system 146 can use one or more machine learning algorithms to generate one or more prediction models”), a desired second state of the user based on the obtained state information (Fig. 4, block 406; paras. 0022, 0048 and 0099, “the retention analysis system 140 determines a desired emotional state for the user playing the video game 112. The desired emotional state may be determined based at least in part on a churn rate associated with the predicted emotional state of the user”; para. 0052, “a prediction model can be used to determine an expected churn rate” – the desired emotional state is being construed as the “desired second state of the user”);
determining an action (para. 0074, wherein an action may be “to make the game less scary”) to process the input stream of sensory data based on the desired second state of the user (Fig. 4, block 410; para. 0102; para. 0034 and 0049-0050, wherein the game configuration system 134 adjusts or sets the state of configuration of a video game 112; the configuration of the video game is modified based on one or more of a predicted emotional state of the user; para. 0005);
generating an output stream of sensory data by processing the input stream of sensory data in accordance with the determined action and the first state of the user (Fig. 4, block 410; para. 0102; para. 0074, “less scary by adjusting light or music in the game”; para. 0034, “lighting in the game may be increased, noise made by monsters or enemies may be increased or detectable from a further distance within the video game, music may be modified to be less sinister, or enemies may appear further away from the user-playable character, and the like”); and
rendering the output stream of sensory data to the sensory actuator of the user device (Fig. 4, block 412; para. 0103; para. 0005; Fig. 6, wherein the modified game application 610, i.e., video game 112, is displayed to the user via the touchscreen display 602).
Regarding claim 4, Sumant et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 as stated above wherein the source comprises one or more of: a camera (para. 0123), a speaker, a headphone, or a network node.
Regarding claim 5, Sumant et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 as stated above wherein the state information is obtained from one or more sensors (paras. 0035-0036, 0047, and 0086).
Regarding claim 6, Sumant et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 as stated above wherein the determined action (para. 0050, “less scary”) is one of a plurality of discrete actions (para. 0050, “the video game 112 can be modified to make it more or less bloody, more or less gory, more or less scary, more or less humorous, more or less serious, and the like”) from a predefined action space (para. 0050, “modify various different aspects of video game 112… the game configuration system 134 can modify aspects of the video game 112 that changes the atmosphere of video game 112” - modifying a state or configuration of the video game is being construed as the “predefined action space”).
Regarding claim 7, Sumant et al. teaches the method according to claim 6 as stated above wherein the plurality of discrete actions comprises an adjustment to a level of the input stream of sensory data (para. 0050, “the amount of lighting or the color of the shaders or textures can be modified to adjust the mood or atmosphere of the video game 112”; para. 0092, “non-limiting changes to the video game 112 may relate to difficulty, the amount of blood or gore, the music, the sound effects, the volume level of music or sound effects, the lighting, textures or shaders used”) and the predefined action space comprises a range of possible levels of the input stream of sensory data (para. 0092, wherein the modifying the state or configuration of the video game comprises modifying the visual and/or audio stream, i.e., lighting or music, presented to the user).
Regarding claim 8, Sumant et al. teaches the method according to claim 7 as stated above wherein the input stream of sensory data comprises one or more of a stream of audio data (para. 0092, “the music, the sound effects, the volume level of music or sound effects”), a stream of visual data (para. 0050, “the amount of lighting or the color of the shaders or textures can be modified to adjust the mood or atmosphere of the video game 112”), a stream of gustatory data, a stream of olfactory data, or a stream of tactile data, and
wherein the input stream of sensory data is broken into one or more constituents (para. 0092, “some non-limiting changes to the video game 112 may relate to difficulty, the amount of blood or gore, the music, the sound effects, the volume level of music or sound effects, the lighting, textures or shaders used, particular game events…”).
Regarding claim 9, Sumant et al. teaches the method according to claim 8 as stated above wherein the one or more constituents comprise one or more of:
amplitude, frequency, pitch, timbre, or duration for the stream of audio data,
hue, brightness, lightness (paras. 0034 and 0092), or saturation for the stream of visual data,
bitter, sour, sweet, salty, or umami for the stream of gustatory data,
musky, putrid, pungent, camphoraceous, ethereal, floral, pepperminty, fragrant, woody/resinous, fruity (non-citrus), chemical, sweet, popcorn, lemon, or decayed for the stream of olfactory data, or
pressure, heat, chill, or pain for the stream of tactile data.
Regarding claim 10, Sumant et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 as stated above wherein the first state of a user and the desired second state of the user correspond to one or more of:
happiness (paras. 0021, 0064, and 0074) , sadness (para. 0064), fear (paras. 0021 and 0047), disgust (paras. 0074 and 0089), anger, or surprise, or
a measure of valence and a measure of arousal.
Regarding claim 11, Sumant et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 as stated above wherein the machine learning model comprises an unsupervised reinforcement learning (paras. 0054 and 0065; Fig. 1C, prediction model 160).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Sumant et al. teaches the method according to claim 11 as stated above further comprising training the reinforcement learning model (Fig. 1D, prediction models 160A, 160B-160N) using a plurality of training samples (Fig. 2, machine learning process 200; paras. 0065 and 0076-0078), wherein each training sample comprises:
an action used to process an input stream of sensory data (para. 0049, “This…prediction model may determine one or more aspects of a configuration or a state of the video game 112 to modify based on one or more of a predicted emotional state of the user”; para. 0050, “the video game 112 can be modified to make it more or less bloody, more or less gory, more or less scary, more or less humorous, more or less serious, and the like”; para. 0005, “selecting, from the plurality of potential video game state modifications, the first modification to the state of the video game that is associated with changing the emotional state of the user from the predicted emotional state to the desired emotional state”) ,
a state of the user before the action (para. 0052, “a prediction model can be used to determine or predict an emotional state of a user based on one or more sensory data inputs to the prediction model”; para. 0005, “where determining the predicted emotional state comprises: providing the set of sensory data to a parameter function, the parameter function generated based at least in part on a machine learning algorithm”), and
a state of the user after the action (para. 0005, “where subsequent to modifying the state of the video game, the method further comprises: receiving a second set of sensory data from the user playing the video game; using the first prediction model, determining a second predicted emotional state for the user based at least in part on the second set of sensory data”).
Regarding claim 13, Sumant et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 as stated above further comprising: obtaining second state information (Claim 12; para. 0005, “receiving a second set of sensory data from the user playing the video game”), wherein the second state information comprises information indicating a third state of a user (para. 0005, “determining a second predicted emotional state for the user based at least in part on the second set of sensory data”).
Regarding claim 14, Sumant et al. teaches the method according to claim 13 as stated above further comprising calculating a penalty (p) (Fig. 1C, penalties 166; paras. 0067 and 0082-0083) or reward (r) for the machine learning model.
Regarding claim 20, Sumant et al. teaches a device (Fig. 1B; paras. 0008, 0037, and 0109) adapted to perform the method according to claim 1 as stated above.
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumant et al. in view of Weast et al. (US 9,355,356).
Regarding claim 2, Sumant et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 as stated above. Sumant et al. fails to teach wherein the state information further comprises information indicating a state of an environment of the user.
In the same field of endeavor, Weast et al. teaches wherein the state information further comprises information indicating a state of an environment of the user (Col. 4, lines 28-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Sumant et al. with the state information comprising information indicating a state of the user’s environment of Weast et al. Implementing sensors configured to measure the ambient temperature, wind speed, and humidity may assist the user in capturing aspects of their daily life and surrounding environment (Weast et al., Col. 4, lines 19-40).
Regarding claim 3, Sumant et al. in view of Weast et al. teaches the method according to claim 2 as stated above wherein the state of an environment of the user comprises one or more of: a level of ambient noise, a level of lighting, a current temperature (Weast et al., Col. 4, lines 28-38), a sound of an engine, a vibration of a vehicle, a speed of a vehicle, a configuration of one or more wearable devices, a height above sea level, barometric pressure, humidity, or gas concentration.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumant et al. in view of Yoo et al. (“A Dynamic Penalty Function Approach for Constraint-Handling in Reinforcement Learning”), hereinafter “Yoo et al.”.
Regarding claim 15, Sumant et al. teaches the method according to claim 14 as stated above. Sumant et al. fails to teach wherein the calculating the penalty (p) or reward (r) comprises the following formula:
p= |
S
d
e
s
i
r
e
d
-
S
n
e
x
t
|/|
S
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
-
S
d
e
s
i
r
e
d
|,
r=1/p,
S
d
e
s
i
r
e
d
is the determined desired second state of the user,
S
n
e
x
t
is the third state of the user, and
S
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
is the first state of the user.
In the same field of endeavor, Yoo et al. teaches calculating a penalty (page 489, Table 1. Parameters for the penalty function; entirety of sections titled, 4.1 Vehicle Control Example and 3.1 1-Dimensional Example; page 490, Table 2. Penalty Function Types).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Sumant et al. with the assorted penalty calculations of Yoo et al. Uniform and linear penalty functions are regarded in the art as excellent priori fixed functions. These fixed uniform and linear penalty functions may provide a reference point for comparing against dynamically varied penalty functions (Yoo et al., page 489, entirety of the section titled, 3.1 1-Diemnsional example).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumant et al. in view of Stoneman et al. (US 2018/0344969).
Regarding claim 16, Sumant et al. teaches the method according to claim 1 as stated above. Sumant et al. further teaches wherein the determined desired second state of the user comprises one or more physiological measurements not indicative of motion sickness (paras. 0047 and 0077). Sumant et al. fails to teach wherein the information indicating the first state of the user comprises one or more physiological measurements indicative of motion sickness.
Stoneman et al. teaches an analogous method wherein the information indicating the first state of the user comprises one or more physiological measurements indicative of motion sickness (paras. 0034-0036 and 0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Sumant et al. with the physiological measurements indicative of motion sickness of Stoneman et al. Sensors configured to detect an occupant’s temperature and brainwaves, as well as the vehicle’s acceleration, speed, and tilt may generate signals indicative of an existing or potential motion sickness condition. These measurements may inform symptom mitigation efforts (Stoneman et al., paras. 0036-0037).
Regarding claim 17, Sumant et al. in view of Stoneman et al. teaches the method according to claim 16 as stated above wherein the input stream of sensory data is a stream of audio data (Sumant et al., paras. 0074 and 0077), and the determined action comprises one of:
processing the stream of audio data to play predetermined music (Sumant et al., para. 0034, “music may be modified to be less sinister”; paras. 0091-0092, wherein one or more state variables and/or game settings for the video are modified based in part on the predicted emotional state of the user) or
processing the stream of audio data to correlate a tempo of music with a speed of a vehicle.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumant et al. in view of Stoneman et al., further in view of Van Gent et al. (WO 2010/104382).
Regarding claim 18, Sumant et al. in view of Stoneman et al. teaches the method according to claim 16 as stated above. Sumant et al. further teaches wherein the input stream of sensory data is a stream of visual data (para. 0050, “the amount of lighting or the color of the shaders or textures can be modified to adjust the mood or atmosphere of the video game 112”). Sumant et al. in view of Stoneman et al. fails to teach wherein the state information further comprises information indicating a speed or flow of a vehicle, and the determined action comprises correlating the stream of visual data with the speed or flow of the vehicle.
Van Gent et al. teaches an analogous method wherein the state information further comprises information indicating a speed or flow of a vehicle (page 10, lines 10-11), and the determined action comprises correlating the stream of visual data with the speed or flow of the vehicle (page 10, lines 19-21; Fig. 1; page 5, lines 24-29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Sumant et al. in view of Stoneman et al. with the speed calculation and vehicle projection of Van Gent et al. Generating and displaying images to a passenger that represent the vehicle’s present and estimated further motion may alleviate the passenger’s motion sickness (Van Gent et al., page 2, lines 18-29; page 3, lines 14-19).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumant et al. in view of Stoneman et al., further in view of McCoy (How to Prevent Motion Sickness + 13 Natural Treatments), hereinafter, “McCoy”.
Regarding claim 19, Sumant et al. in view of Stoneman et al. teaches the method according to claim 16 as stated above. Sumant et al. in view of Stoneman et al. fails to teach lowering a window; changing a position of a seat; reducing an experience of content from three-dimension to two-dimension; adjusting an air conditioner; or adjusting an air recycler.
In the same field of endeavor, McCoy teaches adjusting an air conditioner (under the heading 10 Tips to Prevent Motion Sickness Symptoms, “In a car or airplane, direct air vents towards your face, preferably with cool air”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Sumant et al. in view of Stoneman et al. with air adjustment of McCoy. Directing cold air towards a passenger prone to motion sickness may prevent or lessen the materialization of uncomfortable symptoms (McCoy, information under the heading 10 Tips to Prevent Motion Sickness Symptoms).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Garten et al. (US 2015/0297109) teaches a system provided with a database that is built of a user’s EEG response to specific musical pieces. The method is implemented into a computer response and the system makes recommendations based on the current emotional state of the user and the desired state of the user. Sherpa et al. (US 9,566,411) teaches a computer-implemented method for achieving a preferred state of mind of a user wherein physiological readings are detected and analyzed and an antidote (stimulus) is provided if the state of mind is not the desired state. Bathina et al. (US 2020/0398020) teaches a combination of visual stimulation and either auditory, olfactory, gustatory, neurological, environmental, or tactile stimulation. The stimulation may be applied to a user in order to module their responses to a medical intervention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROGAN R LANDEEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 6:00pm.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/B.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights