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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is responsive to the preliminary amendment of December 29, 2023. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-6 have been amended.
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: “identity sensor configured to identify the individual” in claim 5.
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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over "Wingren et al., WO 2019101778 A1 ("Wingren") in view of Choi et al., US 20200345969 A1 (“Choi”).
Regarding claim 1, Wingren discloses a method for estimating an actual light profile for an individual (“110”), wherein the actual light profile comprises spectrally resolved information associated with an accumulated amount of light that the individual has been exposed to during a previous time period ([abstract], Fig. 3, “300” and associated discussion from [p. 13, line 14] and [p. 12, last paragraph]), the method comprising: exposing the individual to a predetermined light stimuli using a lighting system (“102” - see e.g., [abstract], [p. 13, lines 17-20]), wherein the act of exposing the individual to a predetermined light stimuli comprises: varying over time at least one of an intensity and a spectral distribution of light emitted by the lighting system ([abstract] and [page 14, lines 13-16 and 28-30]); sensing a body response of the individual in response to the predetermined light stimuli ([abstract], [p. 13, lines 21-29]), wherein the act of sensing a body response of the individual in response to the predetermined light stimuli comprises sensing a variation over time of one or more of: a body temperature, a skin color, a heart rate, a heart rate variation, a blood pressure, a respiration rate, and a melatonin level ([p. 18. lines 15-22]); and wherein the method further comprises: estimating the actual light profile based on the sensed body response of the individual and the predetermined light stimuli ([p. 12, last paragraph]), wherein the act of estimating the actual light profile comprises inputting data pertaining to the body response of the individual and data pertaining to the predetermined light stimuli into a central control engine to correlate body responses of individuals and light stimuli to actual light profiles ([p. 12, last paragraph] and [p. 14, lines 19-27]).
Wingren thus differs with the claimed invention in regards to using a machine learning model trained to perform the correlation. However, examiner notes that the use of a machine learning model trained to perform correlation of data for improving processing of data by general purpose computers was known and part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention. For instance, Choi discloses an AI device 200 (Fig. 35, [0467]) comprising an AI processor 220 to learn a neural network ([0469]) comprising a learning unit (221) for learning a neural network for data classification/recognition in order to improve a result of analysis or save resources or time ([0472], [0477-0478]), using a general purpose processor ([0471]). In view of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Choi and modified the processor of the central processing engine of Wingren to include an AI processor that correlate body responses of individuals and light stimuli to actual light profiles using a machine learning model because the technique for improving general purpose computer to include machine learning model, so as to improve a result of analysis or save resources or time in for correlation of a given health condition, a specific light exposure to a specific genomic data as exemplified by Choi.
Regarding claim 2, Wingren discloses the method involves identifying the individual ([abstract], Fig. 3 @302, [p. 13, lines 14-16] and [p. 14, lines 19-25]) and as modified by Choi, estimating the actual light profile comprise the identity of the individual, which will be input into the machine learning model as modified by Choi.
Regarding claim 3, Wingren has been modified by the teachings of Choi to include a machine learning model, Choi further teaches in [0469] that the machine learning model is based on a convolution neural network.
Regarding claim 4, Wingren discloses a lighting system (“200” - Fig. 1 - [p. 8, lines 4-5]) comprising: a central control server (“108” - [p. 8. lines 21-22]); one or more light sources (“102” - [p. 8, lines 6-7]); and a body response sensor (“106” - [p. 8, lines 12-14]) configured to sense a body response, wherein the body response sensor is configured to sense a variation over time of one or more of: a body temperature, a skin color, a heart rate, a heart rate variation, a blood pressure, a respiration rate, and a melatonin level ([page 14, lines 13-16 and 28-30] and [p. 18. lines 15-22]); and wherein the central control server is configured to: control the one or more light sources to expose an individual (“110”) to a predetermined light stimuli wherein the central control server is configured to control the one or more light sources to expose the individual to the predetermined light stimuli by being configured to: vary, over time, at least one of an intensity and a spectral distribution of light emitted by the one or more light sources ([abstract] and [page 14, lines 13-16 and 28-30]), receive, from the body response sensor, a body response of the individual in response to the predetermined light stimuli ([abstract], [p. 13, lines 21-29]), and estimate an actual light profile based on the sensed body response of the individual and the predetermined light stimuli ([p. 12, last paragraph]), wherein the actual light profile comprises spectrally resolved information associated with an accumulated amount of light that the individual has been exposed to during a previous time period ([p. 12, last paragraph]), and wherein the central control server is configured to estimate the actual light profile by being configured to: input data pertaining to the body response of the individual and data pertaining to the predetermined light stimuli into the central control engine to correlate body responses of individuals and light stimuli to actual light profiles ([p. 12, last paragraph]).
Wingren thus differs with the claimed invention in regards to using a machine learning model trained to perform the correlation. However, this limitation would have been obvious in view of Choi for substantially similar rationale as discussed in claim 1 above. The discussion and citations of the obviousness rationale applies equally to claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Wingren discloses identifying the individual and correlation of data e body responses of individuals, light stimuli, and identities of individuals to actual light profiles ([abstract], Fig. 3 @302, [p. 13, lines 14-16] and [p. 14, lines 19-27]) wherein the individual is identified via an identity sensor (“104” - [p. 8, lines 31-21] is taken to be an equivalent thereof identity sensor “140” disclosed in p. 12, lines 26-31 of instant specification as filed), and as modified by Choi, estimating the actual light profile comprise the identity of the individual, which will be input into the machine learning model as modified by Choi.
Regarding claim 6, Wingren has been modified by the teachings of Choi to include a machine learning model, Choi further teaches in [0469] that the machine learning model is based on a convolution neural network.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONIFACE N NGANGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 5:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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.
/BONIFACE N NGANGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797