DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1. This action is responsive to communications: Application filed on Feb 1, 2024, and Drawings filed on Feb 1, 2024.
2. Claims 1–20 are pending in this case. Claim 1, 7, 8 are independent claims.
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 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 17, 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regard to claims 4, 12 and 17 the prior arts do not disclose the aspect wherein the second type of sound satisfies a criterion based on an ambient environmental sound having temporal variation in timbre within a predetermined threshold. This limitation is very specific, it requires the sound is based on an ambient environmental sound and is to have a predetermine threshold of temporal variation in timbre and is not specifically taught in the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “acquiring a classification label of an intellectual task to be performed by a user;” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Yes, the limitation “emitting a first type of sound satisfying a predetermined criterion when the acquired classification label indicates a creativity task;” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Wherein a person can make a sound with his mouth or a musical instrument or his body.
Yes, the limitation “and emitting a second type of sound satisfying a criterion different from that of the first type of sound when the acquired classification label indicates a storage task.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Wherein a person can make a different sound with his mouth or a musical instrument or his body.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
No there is no additional element.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
No there is no additional element.
As to claim 2:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the first type of sound is a sound satisfying a criterion based on an ambient sound normally generated in a room;” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A person can simulate a ambient sound such as a vacuum cleaner noise or a car or a train.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 3:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the first type of sound is at least one of an ambient sound in a car of a train, an ambient sound in a restaurant, an ambient sound in an office, or a vacuum cleaner noise.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A person can simulate a ambient sound such as a vacuum cleaner noise or a car or a train.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 11:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the first type of sound is at least one of an ambient sound in a car of a train, an ambient sound in a restaurant, an ambient sound in an office, or a vacuum cleaner noise.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A person can simulate a ambient sound such as a vacuum cleaner noise or a car or a train.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
As to claim 16:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
Yes, the limitation “wherein the first type of sound is at least one of an ambient sound in a car of a train, an ambient sound in a restaurant, an ambient sound in an office, or a vacuum cleaner noise.” is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). A person can simulate a ambient sound such as a vacuum cleaner noise or a car or a train.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated.
Claims 7, 10 are the method claims and are rejected for the same reason as claim 1, 2.
Claims 8, 15 are the method claims and are rejected for the same reason as claim 1, 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson, Pub. No.: 20090210225 A1, in view of Eccleston Pub. No.: 20160259508 A1.
With regard to claim 1:
Simpson discloses A sensory stimulus presentation device comprising a processor configured to execute operations comprising: acquiring a classification label of an intellectual task to be performed by a user (See paragraph 58 the notification type may be determined. The notification type may be an predetermined setting associated with the user, for all of the user's tasks.); emitting a first type of sound satisfying a predetermined criterion when the acquired classification label indicates a first task (see paragraph 60 the system plays an audio stream to the user. The audio stream may include canned voice recordings, the audio recorded from the user when the audio task was created, a text-to-speech rendering of any of the structured data fields associated with the task object, and any combination thereof. ); and emitting a second type of sound satisfying a criterion different from that of the first type of sound when the acquired classification label indicates a second task (See paragraph 58 the notification type may be determined. The notification type may be an predetermined setting associated with the user, for all of the user's tasks.).
Simpson does not disclose the aspect wherein the first task is a creative task and the second task is a storage task.
However Eccleston discloses the aspect wherein emitting a first type of output satisfying a predetermined criterion when the acquired classification label indicates a creativity task (see paragraph 97 wherein Collaboration status elements 632, 633 are example user interface elements to notify users that collaboration is occurring. On the primary device, collaboration status element 632 allows Beth to stop collaboration or offer control of the input devices of her device to Carl.); and emitting a second type of output satisfying a criterion different from that of the first type of sound when the acquired classification label indicates a storage task (paragraph 141 wherein the action may notify the user of the new version and prompt the user to save the user's changes to another document (to avoid a versioning conflict with the existing content item) or to discard the user's changes.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Eccleston to Simpon so the system can emit sound based on creative tasks and storage task to let the user know when to start or continue working creatively and when to stop and save the task in order to prevent loss of user’s progress.
Claim 7 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claims 2, 10, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson, Pub. No.: 20090210225 A1, in view of Eccleston, and further in view of Ivey, Patent No.: 10042353 B1.
With regard to claims 2 and 10 and 15:
Simpson and Eccleston do not disclose and the sensory stimulus presentation device according to claim 1, wherein the first type of sound is a sound satisfying a criterion based on an ambient sound normally generated in a room.
However Ivey discloses the aspect wherein the first type of sound is a sound satisfying a criterion based on an ambient sound normally generated in a room. (See paragraph 30 column 7 line 5 to line 20 wherein In an exemplary embodiment, an audible alert should sound at a range that is 10-25 dB above the ambient room noise level. ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Ivey to Simpon and Eccleston so the system can generate a first sound based on ambient noise so the sound would not be too low that is indistinguishable from ambient noise to keep the user notified.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson, Pub. No.: 20090210225 A1, in view of Eccleston and Ivey, and further in view of Dennis Pub. No.: 20210096812.
With regard to claim 3:
Simpson and Eccleston and Ivey disclose the sensory stimulus presentation device according to claim 2, wherein the first type of sound is at least one of an ambient sound in a car of a train, an ambient sound in a restaurant, an ambient sound in an office, or a vacuum cleaner noise.
However Dennis discloses the aspect wherein the first type of sound is at least one of an ambient sound in a car of a train, an ambient sound in a restaurant, an ambient sound in an office, or a vacuum cleaner noise (See paragraph 42 The microphone 412 may capture different types of ambient sounds such as voices, horns, doorbells, sirens, car traffic, background noises; The conditioner 414 may condition the ambient sound based on different settings and output a conditioned audio signal to the hardware audio mixer 420 for output by one or more speakers.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Dennis to Simpson and Eccleston and Ivey so the system can generate a first sound based on ambient noise so it is not overly loud to disturb the user.
Claim 6 and 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson, Pub. No.: 20090210225 A1, in view of Eccleston, and further in view of Richter, Patent No.: 12249253 B1.
With regard to claims 6 and 14 and 19:
Simpson and Eccleston do not disclose the sensory stimulus presentation device according to claim 1, the processor further configured to execute operations comprising: modulating either the first type of sound for a corresponding user or the second type of sound for a corresponding user on the basis of an individuality pattern of the user; and emitting the modulated sound.
However Richter discloses the aspect wherein modulating either the first type of sound for a corresponding user or the second type of sound for a corresponding user on the basis of an individuality pattern of the user; and emitting the modulated sound. (Se paragraph 78 column 16 line 49 to 56 For example, the response generator 410 may develop a user profile corresponding to the user over time, e.g., based on usage history, and modulate aspects of the audio content item based on the user's preferences or based on historical data relating to the user's level of engagement with the conversational agent.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Richter to Simpon and Eccleston so the system can produce sound through modulation that fits the need and pattern of the user to keep the user notified and act accordingly.
Claims 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson, Pub. No.: 20090210225 A1, in view of Eccleston and Ivey, and further in view of Richter, Patent No.: 12249253 B1.
With regard to claims 9 and 20:
Simpson and Eccleston and Ivey do not disclose modulating either the first type of sound for a corresponding user or the second type of sound for a corresponding user on the basis of an individuality pattern of the user; and emitting the modulated sound.
However Richter discloses the aspect of modulating either a first type of sound for a corresponding user or a second type of sound for a corresponding user on the basis of an individuality pattern of the user; and emitting the modulated sound (Se paragraph 78 column 16 line 49 to 56 For example, the response generator 410 may develop a user profile corresponding to the user over time, e.g., based on usage history, and modulate aspects of the audio content item based on the user's preferences or based on historical data relating to the user's level of engagement with the conversational agent.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Richter to Simpon and Eccleston and Ivey so the system can produce sound through modulation that fits the need and pattern of the user to keep the user notified and act accordingly.
Claims 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson, Pub. No.: 20090210225 A1, in view of Eccleston, and further in view of Dennis Pub. No.: 20210096812.
With regard to claim 11 and 16:
Simpson and Eccleston do not disclose the aspect wherein the first type of sound is at least one of an ambient sound in a car of a train, an ambient sound in a restaurant, an ambient sound in an office, or a vacuum cleaner noise.
However Dennis discloses the aspect wherein the first type of sound is at least one of an ambient sound in a car of a train, an ambient sound in a restaurant, an ambient sound in an office, or a vacuum cleaner noise (See paragraph 42 The microphone 412 may capture different types of ambient sounds such as voices, horns, doorbells, sirens, car traffic, background noises; The conditioner 414 may condition the ambient sound based on different settings and output a conditioned audio signal to the hardware audio mixer 420 for output by one or more speakers.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the filing was made to apply Dennis to Simpon and Eccleston so the system can generate a first sound based on ambient noise so it is not overly loud to disturb the user.
Pertinent Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prakash, Pub. No: 20190294587 A1, discloses the aspect When an email attachment is automatically saved to a designated folder the user prescribe the manner in which folder's presentation characteristics will be modified so as to alert the computer user to the fact of a document was so saved.
Arita, Pub. No.: US 20200380946: discloses a notification control task that outputs notifying information for causing a notifying device to notify for a notification period, which is an output period during which the outputting task is outputting the synthesized sound signal to the sound emitting device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DI XIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-1758. The examiner can normally be reached 9Am-5Pm est M-F.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571) 272-4124. 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.
/DI XIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights