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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/22/25; 9/9/24; 7/22/24 has/have been acknowledged and is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the first paragraph of the specification should be updated to indicate the present status of the priority application.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 18-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1- Claim 18
Claim 18 and dependent claims 19-31 are drawn to a method and thus meet the requirements for step 1.
Step 2a (prong 1) - Claim 18
Claims 18 recites the step of “generating and output”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this step covers a concept capable of being performed in the human mind, and thus falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Other than reciting the method is “computer-implemented” in the preamble, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Accordingly, claim 18 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2a (prong 2) – Claim 18
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 18 recites the additional elements of:
Obtaining, by one or more processing circuits, signals generated by one or more sensors is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering),
Generating, by the one or more processing circuits, classification data that includes data that identify when a user… is intentionally listening… is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering), and
Generating, by the one or more processing circuits, based on the classification data, an output that includes verbal feedback is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic devices, a “computer-implemented” method, performing generic computer functions like sending, receiving, and visually displaying data) is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data output).
These steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are insignificant extra solution activity.
Step 2b- Claim 18
The additional elements when considered individually and in combination are not enough to qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, providing a (an output that includes verbal feedback) is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic devices, a “computer-implemented” method, performing generic computer functions like sending, receiving, and visually displaying data). Further, Obtaining, by one or more processing circuits, signals generated by one or more sensors is considered data gathering. It is noted that an ear-wearable device are recited at a high level of generality.
The additional elements that were considered insignificant extra solution activity have been re-analyzed and do not amount to anything more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional when considered individually and in combination with evidence provided. Specifically:
Obtaining, by one or more processing circuits, signals generated by one or more sensors is well understood, routine, and conventional (i.e., receiving data MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
An ear-wearable device is well-understood routine and conventional an is used to receive the data (i.e., gathering data/statistics MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Generating, by the one or more processing circuits, based on the classification data, an output that includes verbal feedback is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (i.e., presenting data MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Claim 18 is thus consider to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 19-31 depend from claim 18. Claim 19 is directed to the extra solution activity of presenting the data. The devices utilized to collect the data as stated in claims 20-26 and 28 are stated at a high level of generality in applicant’s specification (“a smart watch; a touchpad device; a steering wheel; a smart handheld device; a waveform analysis kiosk; and a connected device”) and are merely used as a tool to carry out the data gathering. The type of data analyzed as stated in claims 27 and 29-31 is considered extra solution activity. Thus, the dependent claim do not change the overall analysis that claims 19-31 are also directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 32-37
Independent claim 32 is directed to a system containing limitations similar to that for claim 18 and further includes a processor with memory. Analyzing the processor and memory of claim 32 under step 2a, prong 1, the processor and memory are recited at a high level of generality and merely use the computer elements (the processor and memory) as a tool. When analyzed under step 2a, prong 2, the processor and memory perform generic computer functions like storing and processing data. Further, when the analysis is extended to step 2b, the processor and memory are considered to use the computer elements as tools, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Thus, claim 32 is also considered to be patent ineligible subject matter. Dependent claims 33-37 are similar to dependent claims 3-9 and are rejected on similar grounds.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 18-20 and 29-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Di Censo et al. (U.S. Pub. 2015/0195641 hereinafter “Di Censo”).
Regarding claim 18, Di Censo discloses a method comprising: obtaining, by one or more processing circuits (e.g. 310), signals generated by one or more sensors (e.g. 312; 330, 332, 334, 336) of an ear-wearable device (e.g. 130); generating, by the one or more processing circuits, based on the signals generated by the one or more sensors (e.g. 440, 442, 444), classification data that includes data that identify whether a user of the ear- wearable device is engaged in intentional listening in which the user is actively listening with an intention to engage in conversation or absorb information provided in human-directed communication (e.g. 440, 442, 444); and generating, by the one or more processing circuits, based on the classification data, an output that includes verbal feedback presented to the user by a receiver of the ear-wearable device (e.g. 444, 450, 460; ¶78, 87; [replace sound with different sound; real-time translation]).
Regarding claim 19, Di Censo further discloses wherein the verbal feedback includes a social engagement tip that includes advice regarding how to improve a quality of a social engagement with a particular individual (e.g. 444; ¶78, 87; [replace sound with different sound; real-time translation]).
Regarding claim 20, Di Censo further discloses determining, by the one or more processing circuits, based at least in part on the classification data, an achieved level of a wellness measure of the user; and using, by the one or more processing circuits, a machine learning technique to associate the social engagement tip with the achieved level of the wellness measure to optimize outputs generate based on later classification data (e.g. ¶¶49-50; [sound level optimized based on the processing of the sound data]).
Regarding claim 29, Di Censo further discloses determining, by the one or more processing circuits, an activity of the user, wherein the classification data further includes data that identify the activity of the user (e.g. ¶¶6, 78, 87).
Regarding claim 30, Di Censo further discloses classifying, by the one or more processing circuits, an acoustic environment to which the user is exposed, wherein the classification data further includes data that identify the acoustic environment (e.g. ¶38; [senses ambient sounds to determine and correct the audio environment]).
Regarding claim 31, Di Censo further discloses classifying, by the one or more processing circuits, companions of the user, wherein the classification data further includes data that identify the companions of the user (e.g. ¶¶78, 87; [real-time translation based on the other person and their language]).
Regarding claim 32, Di Censo discloses an ear-wearable device comprising: one or more sensors (e.g. 312; 330, 332, 334, 336) configured to generate signals; a receiver (e.g. see Fig. 3; [receives from the internet and other wearable device]); and one or more processing circuits (e.g. 310) configured to: generate, based on the signals generated by the one or more sensors, classification data that includes data that identify whether a user of the ear-wearable device is engaged in intentional listening in which the user is actively listening with an intention to engage in conversation or absorb information provided in human-directed communication (e.g. 440, 442, 444); and generate, based on the classification data, an output that includes verbal feedback presented to the user by a receiver of the ear-wearable device (e.g. 444, 450, 460; ¶78, 87; [replace sound with different sound; real-time translation]).
Regarding claim 33, Di Censo further discloses wherein the verbal feedback includes a social engagement tip that includes advice regarding how to improve a quality of a social engagement with a particular individual (e.g. 444; ¶78, 87; [replace sound with different sound; real-time translation]).
Regarding claim 34, Di Censo further discloses wherein the one or more processing circuits are further configured to: determine, based at least in part on the classification data, an achieved level of a wellness measure of the user; and use a machine learning technique to associate the social engagement tip with the achieved level of the wellness measure to optimize outputs generate based on later classification data (e.g. ¶¶49-50; [sound level optimized based on the processing of the sound data to help improve hearing]).
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.
Claim(s) 21-22, 26, 28 and 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Censo as applied to claims 18-20 and 29-34 above, and further in view of Flickinger (U.S. Pub. 2017/0143246).
Regarding claims 21, 26 and 35, Di Censo discloses the claimed invention except for the system initiating third party social interaction. However, Flickinger teaches a similar system that teaches that it is known to generate a prompt to a third party as set forth in Paragraph 23 and 33 to provide an alert to a third party or an AI companion to initiate social interaction to help the user appropriately cope with their emotions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Di Censo, with a third party prompt as taught by Flickinger, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of analyzing the user and then prompting a third party to initiate social interaction to help the user to cope with their emotions.
Regarding claims 22, 28 and 36, Di Censo discloses the claimed invention except for the system activating and/or deactivating sensors and or data based on the classification data. However, Flickinger teaches a similar system that teaches that it is known to operate the sensors and data as set forth in Paragraph 29 to provide a means for saving battery power based on the need for sensors and data streaming. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Di Censo, with activation/deactivation of sensors and data as taught by Flickinger, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of turning on and off systems for saving battery power based on the need for sensors and data streaming.
Claim(s) 23-26 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Censo as applied to claims 18-20 and 29-34 above, and further in view of Everman et al (U.S. Pub. 2018/0310893 hereinafter “Everman”).
Regarding claims 23-26 and 37, Di Censo discloses the claimed invention except for the context sensors being extra microphones, EEG, IMU or EMG. However, Everman teaches a similar ear-wearable device that shows that it is known to use extra sensors including microphones, EEG, IMU and EMG as set forth in Paragraphs 24, 27, 29 to provide enhanced measurements for determining user interaction and response. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Di Censo, with extra microphones, EEG, IMU or EMG as taught by Everman, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing provide enhanced measurements for determining user interaction and response.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REX R HOLMES whose telephone number is (571)272-8827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:30PM.
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 McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/REX R HOLMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796