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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
-The abstract contains reference characters. Examiner recommends removal of these characters.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
-Pg. 4, line 22 recites “that is provided television has been”. Examiner recommends amending.
-Pg. 5, line 31 recites “may influence of changes in a person’s”. Examiner recommends amending to –may influence changes in a person’s—
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10 recites “a heat source” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to generate heat. Based on the specification, there is no disclosure provided to disclose the corresponding structure.
-Claim 12 recites “a processing unit” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to receive device usage data relating to the user of the personal care device. According to the specification the processing unit includes a smart phone, smart watch, tablet computer, laptop computer, interactive mirror, cloud-computing environments [Pg. 12, lines 14-18] and equivalents thereof.
-Claim 13 recites “a heat generation unit” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to receive device usage data relating to the user of the personal care device. Based on the specification, there is no disclosure provided to disclose the corresponding structure.
-Claim 14 recites “an imaging unit” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to capture at least one image of at least part of the subject. According to the specification the imaging unit includes a camera in a smartphone, or tablet computer or a camera in an interactive mirror [Pg. 13, lines 11-12] and equivalents thereof.
-Claim 15 recites “a user interface” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to receive an input from the subject. According to the specification the user interface includes a one or more switches, one or more buttons, a keypad, a keyboard, a mouse, a mouse wheel, a touch screen or an application [Pg. 13, lines 22-25] 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.
Claims 1-15 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 1 recites “the use of” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 1 recites “a light source” in line 11. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from a light source originally referenced in claim 1, line 9.
-Claim 2 recites “the nature of the personal care device” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 2 recites “the device usage event” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 2 recites “the data usage event” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 4 recites “device usage data” in line 3. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from device usage data originally referenced in claim 1, line 3.
-Claim 5 recites “a second look-up table” in line 3. It is unclear what second look-up table refers to since a first look up table was not described in claims to which this claim depends.
-Claim 6 recites “a third look-up table” in lines 2-3. It is unclear what third look-up table refers to since first and second look up table(s) were not described in claims to which this claim depends.
-Claim 7 recites “the emotional state of the subject” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 8 recites “a lighting parameter” in line 6. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from lighting parameter originally referenced in claim 1, lines 8-9.
-Claim 9 recites “an emotional state of the subject” in line 5. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from an emotional state of the subject originally referenced in claim 9, line 3.
-Claim 10 recites “a heat source” in line 6. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from a heat source originally referenced in claim 10, line 4.
-Claim 11 recites “suitable computer or processor” in line 4. It is unclear what a suitable computer or processor encompasses. Further clarification should be provided to identify what requirements fulfill the limitation of a suitable computer or processor.
-Claim 12 recites “the use of” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 14 recites “a current emotional state of the subject” in line 5. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from a current emotional state of the subject originally referenced in claim 12, lines 9-10.
-Claim 15 recites “an indication of a target emotional state of the subject” in line 5. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from a target emotional state of the subject originally referenced in claim 12, line 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recites(s) a series of mental processes used to determine a lighting parameter emitted from a light source. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the processing system is recited as performing the generic computer function of receiving data, estimating a state of a user, determining lighting parameters and operating a light source according to determined parameters. The computer program product executing computer-readable code and a process of receiving data, estimating data, determining parameters and operating a light source is a generic function of computer-readable media. Further, mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic processor and computer program product does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements recited in claims 1-15 do not apply or use the judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition.
An analysis of the claims is shown below:
Step 1: Claims 1-11, are directed towards a method which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 12-15 are directed towards a system, which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 1 recites limitations that are directed to an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites “determine based on the target emotional state of the subject, a lighting parameter to be applied to a light source to assist the subject in reaching the target emotional state.” Claim 12 recites “determine based on the target emotional state of the subject, a lighting parameter to be applied to a light source to assist the subject in reaching the target emotional state.” These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. It would be practically performable in a human’s mind, or with pen and paper, to determine a modification of one or more settings of a lighting system. Analyzing information and making a determination based on information is akin to an observation, evaluation or judgement that defines the mental process grouping. Independent claims 1 and 12 don’t require configuration, use or modification of the system. While the limitations of these claims do specify operating the light source to emit light according to the determined lighting parameter, this could equate to making a decision that the lighting parameter should be changed based on received data. Thus claims 1 and 12 are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claims 1-15 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 1-15 recite the following additional elements:
-light source (claims 1, 12)
-personal care device (claims 1 and 12)
-sensor (claim 2)
-heat source (claim 10)
-processing unit (claim 12)
-heat generation unit (Claim 13)
-imaging unit (claim 14)
-user interface (claim 15)
The light source, sensor, heat source, personal care device, processing unit, heat generation unit, imaging unit, and user interface are generically recited at a high level of generality. Further, mere instructions or programs to apply judicial exception using a generic processing system independently does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Most notably, none of the additional elements recited in these claims apply or use the judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. While the bodies of these claims discuss aspects related to emotional state, there is no claim limitation that recites a particular treatment method.
Thus claims 1-15 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: When considered individually and in combination, the claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements in claims 2-3, 8-9 further limit the data received by the system and method, claims 4-7 define the references used by the system to calculate and estimate data, claims 10, 13, 14 and 15 introduce a heat source/heat generation unit/imaging unit/user interface but the receipt of data, estimating data and operation of certain elements as recited could equate to making decisions on system parameters and are also generically recited at a high level of generality. Mere determination or execution or control of a control system of a system for adjusting lighting conditions to apply a judicial exception using a generic setting of lighting systems does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Furthermore, the processes and steps can be considered nonfunctional descriptive material because there are no elements that show how the modification of settings occurs or how these processes interact with the processing system of the system for adjusting lighting conditions.
In reconsidering the additional elements of the system and methods for adjusting lighting conditions, the additional elements were determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional based on the following evidence:
-Tammabattula (U.S. 20200154874) discloses a light source [0199; “light source”], personal care device [Abstract; “electronic skincare devices”], sensor [0014; “at least one sensor”], heat source [0014; “at least one heater”], processing unit [0014; “ at least one processor/controller/microcontroller/CPU”], heat generation unit [0192; “heaters”], imaging unit [0288; “cameras”], and user interface [0288; “buttons, switches, slides…touchscreen”] in reference to a skincare device and method that includes a light guide ring. Therefore, these elements are demonstrated to be generic, well understood components that are commonly recited in the art.
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) 1-5, 8-12, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burghardt (U.S. 20190306259).
Regarding Claim 1, Burghardt teaches a computer-implemented method for adjusting lighting conditions [0146], [0018] and [0105], the method comprising: receiving device usage data relating to the use of a personal care device by a subject during a usage event [Abstract; “a method of operating and/or controlling a personal care device, in particular a hair removal device such as an electric shaver, wherein at least one user's behavior parameter characterizing the user's behavior when handling the personal care device is detected by at least one detector during the personal care treatment.”];
estimating, based on the device usage data, a current emotional state of the subject [Fig. 2, element S1 (real-time…angle)];
receiving an indication of a target emotional state of the subject [Fig. 2, element 81 and (NATURAL)];
determining, based on the target emotional state of the subject, a lighting parameter to be applied to a light source to assist the subject in reaching the target emotional state [Fig. 2, element S7 (gives feedback)] and [0105];
and operating a light source to emit light according to the determined lighting parameter [0105; “Such feedback information may be presented in different ways, wherein e.g. optical and/or acoustic signals may be displayed. For example, colored symbols may be indicated, wherein e.g. green light may indicate natural behavior and red light may indicate non-natural behavior such as too much pressure. The feedback may be e.g. provided verbally (e.g. written, spoken) or visually (e.g, lights/LED's that change color, intensity, frequency, etc., e.g. graph on a smart phone display).”]
Regarding Claim 2, Burghardt teaches wherein the device usage data comprises one or more of:
i) an indication of the nature of the personal care device being used by the subject [0182]—describing determination of behavior being natural vs. non-natural;
ii) an indication of at least one of: a day of the device usage event, a date of the device usage event, a time of day of the device usage event, a geographic location of the device usage event, a room in a house in which the device usage event occurs, and a device within a defined vicinity of the personal care device during the device usage event [0177; “data indicative of behavioral parameters from first shaves, e.g. the first ten shaves after the shaver was bought initially used or first time used, and/or typical values from past shaves.”];
iii) an operating parameter of the personal care device during the device usage event [0183]—reference to working parameters; and
iv) sensor data acquired using a sensor associated with the personal care device during the device usage event [Fig. 2, element S2A, S4, and S1].
Regarding Claim 3, Burghardt teaches wherein the sensor data comprises data indicative of one or more of:
i) a physiological parameter associated with skin or hair of the subject; a physical parameter associated with skin or hair of the subject [0041]—reference to skin contact pressure detection; a chemical parameter associated with skin or hair of the subject (not interpreted to be required by the claim); and an optical parameter associated with skin or hair of the subject [0092-0093];
ii) an operating parameter of the personal care device during the device usage event [0085-0086]; and
iii) an interaction parameter indicative of an interaction between the personal care device and the subject during the device usage event [0088].
Regarding Claim 4, Burghardt teaches wherein estimating the current emotional state of the subject comprises consulting a first look-up table relating device usage data to emotional states [0103]—reference to a database reference containing comparison of behavioral patterns and detection and/or analysis of situational data.
Regarding Claim 5, Burghardt teaches wherein receiving an indication of the target emotional state of the subject comprises consulting a second look-up table relating target emotional states to current emotional states [0125]—reference to large scale consumer database indicating natural (target behavior/emotional state) and non-natural (current behavioral/emotional state).
Regarding Claim 8, Burghardt teaches further comprising: receiving subject-specific data indicative of one or more of: lighting preferences of the subject; and personal data of the subject [0178]—behavioral data from a particular user;
wherein at least one of estimating the current emotional state of the subject and determining a lighting parameter to be applied is based on the received subject-specific data [0104; “For example, information may be presented to the user which behavioral parameter has been considered to be indicative of non-natural behavior. For example, feedback information may be given that a user applied too much pressure and/or moved the working head along the body with a velocity too high or too low. In addition or in the alternative, information can be presented what would have been the natural behavior.”]
Regarding Claim 9, Burghardt teaches further comprising: receiving a user input indicating an emotional state of the subject [0113; “the determination of natural or non-natural behavior may further be supported by data collected from the user himself/herself.”];
wherein estimating the current emotional state of the subject is further based on the received user input indicating an emotional state of the subject [0113; “For example, the device or an external device as e.g. a smart phone or other input device may include input means such as a touchscreen to input a user's preferences.”]
Regarding Claim 10, Burghardt teaches further comprising: determining, based on the target emotional state of the subject, a heating parameter to be applied to a heat source in order to assist the subject in reaching the target emotional state; and operating a heat source to generate heat according to the determined heating parameter [0163] and [0107; “and/or the temperature of a cooling/heating element for cooling/heating the skin.”]
Regarding Claim 11, Burghardt teaches a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium the computer-readable medium having computer-readable code embodied therein, the computer-readable code being configured such that, on execution by a suitable computer or processor, the computer or processor is caused to perform the method of claim 1 [0146; “More particularly, said control unit 80 may include a behavior determination algorithm 81 which may be implemented, e.g., in terms of a software component executed by a microcontroller of the control unit 80.”]
Regarding Claim 12, Burghardt teaches A system for adjusting lighting conditions [0018] and [0105], the system comprising:
a personal care device [Abstract]—reference to a personal care device;
a light source [0105]—reference to lights/LED’s; and
a processing unit in communication with the personal care device and the light source and configured to: receive device usage data relating to the use of the personal care device by a subject during a usage event [0018]—reference to a microprocessor and Abstract; “a method of operating and/or controlling a personal care device, in particular a hair removal device such as an electric shaver, wherein at least one user's behavior parameter characterizing the user's behavior when handling the personal care device is detected by at least one detector during the personal care treatment.”];
estimate, based on the device usage data, a current emotional state of the subject [Fig. 2, element S1 (real-time…angle)];
receive an indication of a target emotional state of the subject [Fig. 2, element 81 and (NATURAL)];
determine, based on the target emotional state of the subject, a lighting parameter to be applied to the light source to assist the subject in reaching the target emotional state [Fig. 2, element S7 (gives feedback)] and [0105];
and operate the light source to emit light according to the determined lighting parameter [0105; “Such feedback information may be presented in different ways, wherein e.g. optical and/or acoustic signals may be displayed. For example, colored symbols may be indicated, wherein e.g. green light may indicate natural behavior and red light may indicate non-natural behavior such as too much pressure. The feedback may be e.g. provided verbally (e.g. written, spoken) or visually (e.g, lights/LED's that change color, intensity, frequency, etc., e.g. graph on a smart phone display).”]
Regarding Claim 14, Burghardt teaches further comprising: an imaging unit configured to capture at least one image of at least part of the subject [0100]—reference to use of cameras; wherein the processing unit is configured to: estimate a current emotional state of the subject based on the at least one image [0100; “may be used to identify people's emotional responses via analysis of facial cues such as mini-changes to the angles of the corners of the mouth and/or comers of the eyes.”] and [0111; “a visual or optical sensor such as a camera (which may be provided in the personal care device or external to that, e.g. by a smartphone ).”]
Regarding Claim 15, Burghardt teaches further comprising: a user interface configured to receive an input from the subject [0113; “the determination of natural or non-natural behavior may further be supported by data collected from the user himself/herself.”]; wherein the processing unit is configured to: receive an indication of a target emotional state of the subject via a user input provided using the user interface [0113; “For example, the device or an external device as e.g. a smart phone or other input device may include input means such as a touchscreen to input a user's preferences.”]
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.
Claim(s) 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burghardt (U.S. 20190306259) in view of Yamada (U.S. 20160220163).
Regarding Claim 6, Burghardt is silent on wherein determining the lighting parameter comprises consulting a third look-up table relating lighting parameters to target emotional states. Yamada teaches wherein determining the lighting parameter comprises consulting a third look-up table relating lighting parameters to target emotional states [0090]—reference to a user model database that includes stimulus with higher effect for changing the mental state of the user to the target mental state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention include a look-up table relating information correlating lighting with user emotional states as taught by Yamada to cause an behavior changing effect as suggested by Burghardt, as Burghardt discusses providing feedback in the form of LED/lights based on behavioral parameters that indicated non-natural behavior [0104-0105] with Yamada because Yamada teaches the use of this data to efficiently lead the subject to a target mental state [0090].
Regarding Claim 7, Burghardt is silent on further comprising: receiving a user input indicative of an effect of one or more lighting parameters on the emotional state of the subject; and updating the third look-up table based on the user input indicative of an effect of one or more lighting parameters on the emotional state of the subject. Yamada teaches further comprising: receiving a user input indicative of an effect of one or more lighting parameters on the emotional state of the subject; and updating the third look-up table based on the user input indicative of an effect of one or more lighting parameters on the emotional state of the subject [0096]—discuses updating the database, specifically the stimulus content in the database.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention allow for updating the third look-up table as taught by Yamada to cause an behavior changing effect as suggested by Burghardt, as Burghardt discusses databases and consumer research being updated over the lifetime of the product [0112] with Yamada because Yamada teaches further use of optimizing elements for the database including a concentrator judger which judges whether the user actually concentrates on the stimulus [0230].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burghardt (U.S. 20190306259) in view of Sharon (U.S. 20200138356)
Regarding Claim 13, Burghardt is silent on further comprising: a heat generation unit configured to direct heat towards the subject; wherein the processing unit is configured to: operate the heat generation unit to generate heat to be directed towards the subject based on the target emotional state. Sharon teaches further comprising: a heat generation unit configured to direct heat towards the subject [0090; “temperature control device for heating or cooling subject 14”]; wherein the processing unit is configured to: operate the heat generation unit to generate heat to be directed towards the subject based on the target emotional state [0091; “For example, processing module 38 may determine that one or more thermal stimuli are to be generated to change an emotional state of subject 14.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention incorporate a heat generating device as taught by Sharon to change an emotional state of the subject as suggested by Burghardt, as Burghardt discusses the use of a heating/cooling element for the skin [0107] with Sharon because Sharon teaches incorporating these elements into device used by the individual including furniture, pieces of furniture, parts of helmets, vests or other articles of clothing [0090].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Vidal (U.S. 20160374173)—includes reference to control of a LED light system
-Fushimi (U.S. 20130141011)—identifies an illumination system with varying psychological effect on the user
-Inagaki (U.S. 20160220133)—references a light emitting device that uses information related to mental concentration of the user
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights