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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “a light-emitting diode, speaker and a galvanic skin electrode”; this is grammatically incorrect and should refer to a speaker.
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.
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 8 and 13 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 8 now calls for the control element to “output the plurality of sensory stimulation signals to obtain a feedback signal provided by the user” but also defines “an input element” which is “configured to receive a user answer” and then “uses a matching degree between the user answer and a default answer as the feedback signal”. It is entirely unclear how many signals/answers are provided by the user, which component(s) is configured to obtain these signals/answers, and, if the user answer is not the feedback signal that is obtained by the control element, how are both obtained and used? If the matching degree between user answer and a default answer is “used as” the feedback signal, how is this feedback signal “provided by the user”? Clarification is required.
Claim 8 defines that the control element “performs the stimulation feedback procedure again when the feedback signal indicates the negative feedback state”; as the claim is directed to a device, not a method, the device itself needs to be defined as what it is, not what it is actively performing.
Claim 8 calls for the plurality of sensory stimulation signals to be “capable of arriving at a target area of the user substantially simultaneously”; it is unclear how this system could operate using only one target area for each of these sensory stimulation signals unless the target area corresponds to the user’s body as a whole – a light signal delivered to the same non-visual target as an audio signal would not inherently result in both being detectable, and it does not appear that a galvanic skin electrode could be safely operable on an eye. Clarification is required.
Claim 8 defines that “the plurality of sensory stimulation signals correspond to a same frequency”; it is entirely unclear what aspect of each signal “corresponds” to this frequency. Light signals and audio signals exist at particular wavelengths (frequencies) that define their color or tone, but could also be delivered in a particular pattern (frequency). Clarification is required.
Claim 13 recites that “each one of the plurality of sensory stimulation signals is at least one of a light signal, a sound signal and an electrical signal”; as claim 8 defines that these signals are delivered by a plurality of stimulation elements, it is not readily apparent how a “light-emitting diode” could be configured to deliver anything other than a light signal, and particularly not a single signal that is both a light signal and also a sound signal. Similarly it is not readily apparent how a speaker could a single signal that is both a sound signal and a light signal, or that a skin electrode could deliver more than an electrical signal. It is entirely unclear how any of these signals generated by these particular elements could be two or more types of signals; further, it appears the claim should specify what type of signal is being delivered by each specific element rather than generally indicating that all can somehow be present in some combination. Clarification is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 112, Applicant argues that the feedback signal is provided by the user and thus definite; however, as the claims now also indicate that the feedback signal is merely a degree of matching between other data, thus not provided by the user, Applicant’s assertion that the claims have resolved all issues is entirely unpersuasive.
Applicant’s remarks regarding Miller have been noted but, as no art is currently applied to the claims in their indefinite state, the remarks will not be further addressed at this time but will be revisited if applicable upon resolution of the numerous other issues identified above.
Conclusion
No art has been applied against the claims at this time; however, as all claims are rejected under 112 above they are not presently allowable and the question of prior art will be revisited upon resolution of the other issues.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2017/0098385 to Martucci, US 2015/0216414 to Wood, and US 2007/0299319 to Chan, which use the accuracy of a response to stimuli to adjust future stimulation
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN E TOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-6824. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9a-6p.
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.
/KAREN E TOTH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights