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: Applicant is requested to amend the first paragraph of the specification to indicate that parent application 18/133,180 has now issued as U.S. Patent No. 11,931,521.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 2: the claim recites “receiving, from a subject, a real-time encephalogram from a subject.” One of the two instances of “from a subject” should apparently be deleted.
In claim 17, lines 4-5: “each of said subjects” should apparently read --each of said plurality of subjects--.
In claim 17, line 6: “each of said subjects” should apparently read --each of said plurality of subjects--.
In claim 20, line 8: “a target state” should apparently read --a target state--.
In claim 20, lines 8, 9, and 11: “each of said subjects” should apparently read --each of said plurality of subjects--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. While the specification broadly teaches that additional subjects may interact with the remote circuitry in the same manner using corresponding headsets and local circuitry, there is no disclosure that each of these subjects receives a different conditioning stimulus.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 12-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sriram (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0269345 A1; cited in the IDS filed 20 February 2024).
Regarding claim 1, Sriram discloses a method (Abstract) comprising receiving, from a subject, a real-time encephalogram from a subject ([0004]; [0021]) and information indicative of a target state-of-consciousness ([0019]; [0024]; [0073]; desired mental state), based on features in said encephalogram, forming a conditioning stimulus to cause a state-of-consciousness of said subject, as determined based on said real-time encephalogram, to move towards said target state-of-consciousness, and transmitting said conditioning stimulus to said subject, wherein forming said conditioning stimulus comprises providing a conditioning-audio stimulus that transitions between a first state, which provides positive reinforcement, and a second state, which provides negative reinforcement ([0022]; [0025]; [0027]; [0041]; [0046]; [0085]).
Regarding claim 2, Sriram discloses that forming said conditioning-audio stimulus based on features in said encephalogram comprises generating a reward stimulus and wherein transmitting said conditioning stimulus to said subject comprises causing said conditioning-audio stimulus to transition between including said reward stimulus and omitting said reward stimulus ([0027]; [0035]; [0040]; [0085]).
Regarding claim 10, Sriram discloses transmitting a video stimulus in addition to said conditioning-audio stimulus ([0020]; [0023]; [0026]; [0032]; claim 11).
Regarding claims 12-14, Sriram discloses that said features in said encephalogram define a measured-feature set, wherein said target state-of-consciousness is defined by a target-feature set, and wherein transmitting said conditioning stimulus comprises incorporating a reward stimulus into said conditioning stimulus when said measured-feature set and said target-feature set have attained a pre-determined degree of similarity or when said measured-feature set moves toward said target-feature set, or omitting a reward stimulus from said conditioning stimulus when said measured-feature set moves away from said target-feature set ([0022]; [0025]; [0027]; [0035]; [0040]-[0041]; [0046]; [0085]).
Regarding claim 17, Sriram discloses that said subject is one of a plurality of subjects, all of whom are providing real-time encephalograms indicative and information indicative of respective target states-of-consciousness and wherein said method comprises transmitting a corresponding conditioning stimulus to each of said subjects based on a corresponding real-time encephalogram from said subject ([0028]-[0029]; [0047]), whereby each of said subjects receives a different conditioning stimulus ([0034]; e.g., a subject at an easy level will receive different conditioning than a subject at a medium level, who will receive different conditioning than a subject at a high level).
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Telfer et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0353957 A1; hereinafter known as “Telfer”).
Regarding claim 1, Telfer discloses a method (Abstract) comprising receiving, from a subject, a real-time encephalogram from a subject ([0007]; [0017]) and information indicative of a target state-of-consciousness ([0031]; [0034]), based on features in said encephalogram, forming a conditioning stimulus to cause a state-of-consciousness of said subject, as determined based on said real-time encephalogram, to move towards said target state-of-consciousness, and transmitting said conditioning stimulus to said subject, wherein forming said conditioning stimulus comprises providing a conditioning-audio stimulus that transitions between a first state, which provides positive reinforcement, and a second state, which provides negative reinforcement ([0028]-[0029]; [0034]; [0053]).
Regarding claim 7, Telfer discloses transitioning between a base-audio stimulus and a combination of said base-audio stimulus and audio that causes perception of binaural beats ([0045]).
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.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriram as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Frank et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0259557 A1; cited in the IDS filed 20 February 2024; hereinafter known as “Frank”). Sriram discloses the invention as claimed, but fails to disclose transitioning between a base-audio stimulus having a first tempo and said base-audio stimulus after having been modified to replace said first tempo with a second tempo. Frank discloses a similar neurofeedback method (Abstract) comprising providing an audio stimulus that transitions between a base-audio stimulus having a first tempo and said base-audio stimulus after having been modified to replace said first tempo with a second tempo in order to indicate whether the subject is advancing towards or regressing from the target or the extent of their progress ([0832]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sriram with the tempo transitioning taught by Frank in order to indicate whether the subject is advancing towards or regressing from the target or the extent of their progress.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriram as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chase et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0297108 A1; cited in the IDS filed 20 February 2024; hereinafter known as “Chase”). Sriram discloses the invention as claimed, and further discloses obtaining said real-time encephalogram from said subject using an electroencephalograph on a headset worn by said subject (Fig. 1). Sriram fails to disclose using a wireless transmitter on said headset to transmit a signal representative of said encephalogram, as well as transmitting the signal to a smart phone that is in wireless communication with said headset, and causing said smart phone to execute an application that establishes communication with feature-extraction circuitry via a network. Chase discloses a similar neurofeedback method (Abstract) comprising obtaining a real-time encephalogram from a subject using an EEG on a headset 117 worn by the subject (Fig. 1; [0016]), using a wireless transmitter on said headset to transmit a signal representative of said encephalogram to a smart phone 105 that is in wireless communication with said headset ([0014]; [0018], and causing said smart phone to execute an application that establishes communication with feature-extraction circuitry via a network in order to allow the subject to select a target state using an application on the smart phone ([0027]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sriram by wirelessly transmitting the EEG signal to a smart phone and executing an application on the smart phone via a network, as taught by Chase, in order to allow the subject to select a target state using an application on the smart phone.
Claims 5, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriram as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Keane (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0077941 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Sriram discloses the invention as claimed, but fails to disclose transitioning between a first musical composition and a second musical composition, wherein said first musical composition comprises a first plurality of tracks and said second musical composition comprises said first plurality of tracks and an additional track. Keane discloses a similar neurofeedback method (Abstract) comprising transitioning between a first musical composition and a second musical composition, wherein said first musical composition comprises a first plurality of tracks and said second musical composition comprises said first plurality of tracks and an additional track in order to provide separate feedback for different wavelengths or performances ([0042]; [0051]-[0055]; [0087]; e.g., first composition includes rain and wind, second composition includes rain, wind, and thunder; or first composition includes low and medium soundtracks, second composition includes low, medium, and high soundtracks). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sriram with such transitioning, as taught by Keane, in order to provide separate feedback for different wavelengths or performances.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Sriram discloses the invention as claimed, but fails to expressly disclose causing a transition into said first state by adding a reward stimulus to a base-audio stimulus or modifying a base-audio stimulus to incorporate a reward stimulus. Keane discloses a similar neurofeedback method (Abstract) comprising adding or incorporating a reward stimulus to a base-audio stimulus in order to provide separate feedback for different wavelengths or performances ([0042]; [0051]-[0055]; [0087]; e.g., adding wind or thunder to rain; or adding medium/high to low). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sriram with such transitioning, as taught by Keane, in order to provide separate feedback for different wavelengths or performances.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriram, in view of Keane. Sriram discloses an apparatus comprising distributed feedback-circuitry that uses operant conditioning to train each of a plurality of subjects to achieve a corresponding target state of consciousness (Abstract; Figs. 1, 5, 12), said distributed feedback-circuitry comprising remote circuitry and comprises a feature-extraction circuit and a controller, wherein said feature-extraction circuit receives real-time encephalograms ([0004]; [0021]; [0024]) and information indicative of a target state ([0019]; [0024]; [0073]; desired mental state) from each of said subjects ([0028]-[0029]; [0034]; [0047]) and for each of said subjects, generates a measured feature-set and a target feature-set therefrom, wherein, for each of said subjects, said controller causes transmission of a conditioning stimulus to be listened to by said subject, said conditioning stimulus being one that causes said measured feature-set for that subject to be driven towards said target feature-set for that subject, wherein said controller causes said conditioning stimulus to comprise a conditioning-audio stimulus that transitions, and wherein said controller causes said transition based on progress made in causing said measured feature-set to conform to said target feature-set ([0022]; [0025]; [0027]; [0041]; [0046]; [0085]). Sriram fails to expressly disclose that the transition is between being a base-audio stimulus with no reward stimulus and a base-audio stimulus that has been operated on to incorporate a reward stimulus. Keane discloses a similar neurofeedback apparatus (Abstract) that transitions between a base-audio stimulus with no reward stimulus and a base-audio stimulus operated on to incorporate a reward stimulus to in order to provide separate feedback for different wavelengths or performances ([0042]; [0051]-[0055]; [0087]; e.g., adding wind or thunder to rain; or adding medium/high to low). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sriram with such transitioning, as taught by Keane, in order to provide separate feedback for different wavelengths or performances.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 6, 8, and 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: use of harmonics/overtones, timbres, iso-chronic tones, and superposition of components is known in the art in conjunction with brainwave entrainment via auditory stimulation. However, none of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests transitionally including such features within a base-audio stimulus as a conditioning stimulus that can provide both positive and negative reinforcement in different states.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Barthelemy et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0082991 A1) teaches a similar method and apparatus that provides positive and negative reinforcement through auditory means; rewards can be a positive stimulus or removal of a negative stimulus; punishment can be a negative stimulus or removal of a positive stimulus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS B COX whose telephone number is (571)270-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Jason M. Sims can be reached on (571)272-7540. 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.
/THADDEUS B COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791