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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“…For example, after presented with the electrical stimulation, the recognizer is made to send a response regarding the presence or absence of perception using the button 300, so that feedback is obtained… in para.[0028] needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is --For example, after being presented with the electrical stimulation, the recognizer is made to send a response regarding the presence or absence of perception using the button 300, so that feedback is obtained--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 line 4 “emotion recognition” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is – the emotion recognition – in light of its antecedent in claim 1 line 9 “emotion recognition”.
Claim 3 line 5 “emotion recognition” needs to be corrected. A suggested correction is – the emotion recognition – in light of its antecedent in claim 1 line 9 “emotion recognition”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Each of the claims 1-4 and 6 recite the term “emotion recognition” which renders this claim unclear. In the context used, it is unclear what is meant by the term “emotion i.e. whether applicant is attempting to recite “perception of pain” or a perception of subjective emotion such as happiness, sadness. Additionally, the nexus between electrical stimulation presentation to the recognizer and inducing emotion recognition in the recognizer is not clear. Further, the term “inducing emotion recognition” is unclear as there is no algorithm or structure recited that details how emotion is induced or how emotion recognition is detected via imaging, or physiological response, something else
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: absence of any electrical stimulator/structure such as an electrode that is configured to electrically stimulate a body of a recognizer or any user input structure that acquires feedback from the recognizer. Additionally, in the context used, it is unclear as to how a processor in the absence of any electrical stimulator such as an electrode is able to electrical stimulate a body of a recognizer. Also, it is unclear as to how a processor in the absence of any user input such as a button is able to electrical stimulate a body of a recognizer. Furthermore, in the context used, it is unclear as to what is meant by “present” i.e. is the processor displaying/presenting an image of electrical stimulation to a body of a recognizer on a monitor or something else.
Claim 4 recites “computer…presenting electrical stimulation to a body of a recognizer” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, in the absence of any electrical stimulator, it is unclear as to how or via what structure the computer presents electrical stimulation to a body of a recognizer. In the context used, it is unclear as to what is meant by “presenting” i.e. is the computer displaying/presenting an image of electrical stimulation to a body of a recognizer on a monitor or something else.
Claim 6 recites “computer...method…presenting electrical stimulation to a body of a recognizer” which renders this claim unclear. More specifically, in the absence of any electrical stimulator, it is unclear as to how or via what structure the computer and/or computer executed method presents electrical stimulation to a body of a recognizer. In the context used, it is unclear as to what is meant by “presenting” i.e. is the computer displaying/presenting an image of electrical stimulation to a body of a recognizer on a monitor or something else.
Dependent claims 2-3 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the additional recited limitations fail to cure the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue in their respective base claims. Consequently, dependent claims 2-3 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on their direct/indirect dependency on their respective base claims.
Claim Interpretation
Claims terms where relevant are being interpreted in light of definitions enumerated in instant application specification as-filed at least [0011], [0013], [0022].
Please note that USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted "in view of the specification" without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily). In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.... The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.... An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.").
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 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6 dated 12/20/2023 are so replete with 35 U.S.C 112 issues which are enumerated above that make the claims not sufficiently comprehensible enough and consequently, preclude a reasonable search of the prior art by the Examiner at this time. For example, the claimed terms and limitations enumerated under sections titled “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112” above are not understood. Applicant is required to submit an amendment which clarifies the claims so that the Examiner may make a more proper, complete and thorough comparison of the invention with the prior art.
Nonetheless, a bona fide good faith effort was made in searching relevant prior art. The following combination of prior art appear to render the claims 1-4, 6 dated 12/20/2023 obvious under 35 U.S.C 103:
US 20200139160 A1 to Feferberg (Feferberg in at least fig. 1, fig. 7, [0100- 0101] for example discloses relevant subject-matter) ; English Translation of JP2005334106 (A), Arai Fujio, 2005-12-0 ( Arai Fujio at least abstract, fig. 1-2, [0001], [0005], [0007], [0015], [0053], [0059] for example discloses relevant subject-matter).
Claims 1-4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai (Pub. No.: English Translation of JP2005334106 (A), hereinafter referred to as "Arai") in view of Feferberg (Pub. No.: US 20200139160 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Feferberg”).
As per independent Claim 1 Arai discloses an emotion recognition inducing device (Arai Fujio at least abstract, fig. 1-2, [0001], [0005], [0007], [0015], [0053], [0059] for example discloses relevant subject-matter. See at least Arai fig. 1, [0001]) comprising:
a memory; and a processor (Arai, [0007], [0059]) configured to:
present electrical stimulation to a body of a recognizer (Arai, [0007]);
Arai does not explicitly disclose acquire feedback from the recognizer in response to the electrical stimulation; and determine an intensity of electrical stimulation for inducing emotion recognition in the recognizer, on a basis of the feedback.
However, in an analogous user feedback based stimulation field of endeavor, Feferberg discloses a device (Feferberg in at least fig. 1, fig. 7, [0100- 0101] for example discloses relevant subject-matter. More specifically, Feferberg in at least fig. 1, fig. 7, [0062]) comprising acquire feedback from the recognizer in response to the electrical stimulation; and determine an intensity of electrical stimulation for inducing emotion recognition in the recognizer, on a basis of the feedback (Feferberg [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify emotion recognition inducing device as taught by Arai, by further including user feedback, as taught by Feferberg. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the advantage of using user feedback for adapting the operating intensity of treatment delivered to the user as necessary (Feferberg, [0101]).
As per dependent Claim 2, the combination of Arai and Feferberg as a whole discloses emotion recognition inducing device wherein the processor determines the intensity of the electrical stimulation for inducing emotion recognition in the recognizer, by increasing stepwise the intensity of the electrical stimulation to be presented while the recognizer does not perceive the electrical stimulation (Feferberg in at least [0101]).
As per dependent Claim 3, the combination of Arai and Feferberg as a whole discloses emotion recognition inducing device wherein the processor determines that a highest intensity among intensities of electrical stimulation that cannot be perceived by the recognizer is the intensity of the electrical stimulation for inducing emotion recognition in the recognizer (Feferberg in at least [0101]).
As per independent Claim 4 Arai discloses an electrical stimulation intensity determining method executed by a computer, the electrical stimulation intensity determining method (Arai Fujio at least abstract, fig. 1-2, [0001], [0005], [0007], [0015], [0053], [0059] for example discloses relevant subject-matter. See at least Arai fig. 1, [0001], [0007, [0059]) comprising:
presenting electrical stimulation to a body of a recognizer (Arai, [0007]);
Arai does not explicitly disclose acquiring feedback from the recognizer in response to the electrical stimulation; and determining an intensity of electrical stimulation for inducing emotion recognition in the recognizer, on a basis of the feedback.
However, in an analogous user feedback based stimulation field of endeavor, Feferberg discloses a method (Feferberg in at least fig. 1, fig. 7, [0100- 0101] for example discloses relevant subject-matter. More specifically, Feferberg in at least [0100-0101]) comprising acquiring feedback from the recognizer in response to the electrical stimulation; and determining an intensity of electrical stimulation for inducing emotion recognition in the recognizer, on a basis of the feedback (Feferberg [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify electrical stimulation intensity determining method as taught by Arai, by further including user feedback, as taught by Feferberg. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the advantage of using user feedback for adapting the operating intensity of treatment delivered to the user as necessary (Feferberg, [0101]).
As per independent Claim 6, Arai discloses A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having computer-readable instructions stored thereon, which, when executed, cause a computer to execute a method, the method (Arai Fujio at least abstract, fig. 1-2, [0001], [0005], [0007], [0015], [0053], [0059] for example discloses relevant subject-matter. See at least Arai fig. 1, [0001], [0007, [0059]) comprising:
presenting electrical stimulation to a body of a recognizer (Arai, [0007]);
Arai does not explicitly disclose acquiring feedback from the recognizer in response to the electrical stimulation; and determining an intensity of electrical stimulation for inducing emotion recognition in the recognizer, on a basis of the feedback.
However, in an analogous user feedback based stimulation field of endeavor, Feferberg discloses a method (Feferberg in at least fig. 1, fig. 7, [0100- 0101] for example discloses relevant subject-matter. More specifically, Feferberg in at least [0100-0101]) comprising acquiring feedback from the recognizer in response to the electrical stimulation; and determining an intensity of electrical stimulation for inducing emotion recognition in the recognizer, on a basis of the feedback (Feferberg [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify electrical stimulation intensity determining method as taught by Arai, by further including user feedback, as taught by Feferberg. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the advantage of using user feedback for adapting the operating intensity of treatment delivered to the user as necessary (Feferberg, [0101]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and/or the claims.
US 20110082384 A1 (see at least abstract, [0007], fig. 4, fig. 4A, fig. 8)
US 20160022996 A1 (see at least abstract, fig. 1, [0006-0008] )
US 20120271190 A1 (see at least abstract, [0014], [0017], [0028], [0036], [0087])
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNITA REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-5151. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Thu 10-4 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CHARLES A MARMOR II can be reached on (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
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) Form at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/SUNITA REDDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights