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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains embedded hyperlinks and/or other forms of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 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:
“physical stimulator adapted to selectively apply an aversive physical stimulus” in claims 1, 14, and 26.
“wherein the physical stimulator is one of: (a) an audio stimulator; (b) a device that can emit an unpleasant odor; or (c) a device that can apply an unpleasant haptic sensation” in claims 11 and 23.
“wherein the aversive physical stimulus is selected from the group consisting of aversive aural stimulus, aversive haptic stimulus and aversive olfactory stimulus” in claim 33.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-34 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 limitation “physical stimulator adapted to selectively apply an aversive physical stimulus” in claims 1, 14, and 26 “wherein the physical stimulator is one of: (a) an audio stimulator; (b) a device that can emit an unpleasant odor; or (c) a device that can apply an unpleasant haptic sensation” in claims 11 and 23 and “wherein the aversive physical stimulus is selected from the group consisting of aversive aural stimulus, aversive haptic stimulus and aversive olfactory stimulus” in claim 33 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification provides for the physical stimulator to be an audio stimulator in the form of a speaker, it fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for the physical stimulator to be a device that can emit an unpleasant odor/aversive olfactory stimulus or a device that that can apply an unpleasant haptic sensation/aversive haptic stimulus. See, for example at least para. 16, 17, and 23 of the specification which merely recite similar language as the claims without any meaningful description of a device that can emit an unpleasant odor or a device that can apply an unpleasant haptic sensation, let alone what constitutes an aversive olfactory stimulus or aversive haptic stimulus. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Dependent claims 2-13, 15-25, and 27-34 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 26, it is unclear what is “characterized in that:” and how it further limits the claim. In particular, the limitation “characterized in that:” is isolated from the rest of the claim at least by it being indented the same as the limitations immediately preceding and succeeding it. Thus, it is unclear what is “characterized” and how anything in the claim is further “characterized”. There, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. Dependent claims 2-13, 15-25, and 27-34 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 13 and 25, it is unclear how “the series of cues is provided by the physical stimulator” in claim 13 and how “the physical cue device and the physical stimulator comprise a single device” in claim 25, particularly since the cues and the aversive stimulus are provided simultaneously and the disclosure is silent regarding any embodiments capable of this functionality. The specification merely reciting the same language as the claim does not disclose an embodiment capable of this functionality as it is silent regarding how a single device provides both the series of cues and the aversive stimulus. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought.
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.
Claims 1-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for predicting active-escape bias in a human subject, does not reasonably provide enablement for predicting active-escape bias in a subject being any other mammal. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. For instance, Fig. 1, 4, and 4a illustrate the processes occurring in a human brain while para. 45 of the specification identifies that the image of a dog in as the mammalian subject 110 in Fig. 1 is merely a “respectful nod to Ivan Pavlov” to “illustrate that the method 200 may be applied in respect of any mammal that can be trained to use a suitable physical actuator 116 in response to a cue 122A, 122B… 122N.” However, the disclosure is silent regarding any description for any embodiment wherein the subject is not a human. Para. 45 continues that the “method 200 has particular application in respect of primates, and even more particular application in respect of humans (humans being a particular instance of primate).” Additionally, para. 46 recites that “a potential application of the method 200 shown in Figure 2 for humans is to assist in diagnosis or prediction of potential suicidal thoughts.” However, the disclosure is silent regarding any other application, let alone diagnosing or predicting suicidal thoughts in any animal that is not a human. Additionally, Applicant’s own public disclosure1, titled “A Computational Model of Hopelessness and Active-Escape Bias in Suicidality”, identifies that the only application is to assist in predicting suicidal thoughts in humans. Dependent claims 2-13, 15-25, and 27-34 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claims 1, 11, 14, 23, 26, and 33, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “physical stimulator adapted to selectively apply an aversive physical stimulus” in claims 1, 14, and 26 “wherein the physical stimulator is one of: (a) an audio stimulator; (b) a device that can emit an unpleasant odor; or (c) a device that can apply an unpleasant haptic sensation” in claims 11 and 23 and “wherein the aversive physical stimulus is selected from the group consisting of aversive aural stimulus, aversive haptic stimulus and aversive olfactory stimulus” in claim 33 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification provides for the physical stimulator to be an audio stimulator in the form of a speaker, it fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function for the physical stimulator to be a device that can emit an unpleasant odor/aversive olfactory stimulus or a device that that can apply an unpleasant haptic sensation/aversive haptic stimulus. See, for example at least para. 16, 17, and 23 of the specification which merely recite similar language as the claims without any meaningful description of a device that can emit an unpleasant odor or a device that can apply an unpleasant haptic sensation, let alone what constitutes an aversive olfactory stimulus or aversive haptic stimulus. Such a limitation lacks an adequate written description because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03(VI). Dependent claims 2-13, 15-25, and 27-34 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 13 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a physical cue device providing the series of cues and a separate physical stimulator providing the aversive physical stimulus, does not reasonably provide enablement for “wherein the series of cues is provided by the physical stimulator” as claimed in claim 13 or “wherein the physical cue device and the physical stimulator comprise a single device” as claimed in claim 25. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. To be clear, the disclosure merely recites the same language as the claims, but provides no description of the elements and functions necessary. For instance, the disclosure only provides for the singular embodiment of a physical cue device providing a visual cue with a separate physical stimulator providing an audio aversive stimulus because the disclosure is silent regarding any description of a physical stimulator providing both a cue and an aversive stimulus. Merely generically reciting a statement that a non-descript physical stimulator provides both is not a description.
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.
Claims 1-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without including additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 1
The claims are directed to a method and products which fall under the four statutory categories (STEP 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1
Independent claim 1 recites:
A method for predicting active-escape bias m a mammalian subject, the method comprising:
providing a series of cues to the mammalian subject;
in association with the cues, using a physical stimulator adapted to selectively apply an aversive physical stimulus to administer to the mammalian subject, according to a predetermined pattern, a series of response states, wherein each of the response states is associated with a particular one of the cues;
responsive to each of the cues, receiving, from the mammalian subject, via a physical actuator, a physical signal, wherein the physical signal is one of:
actuation of the physical actuator; and
non-actuation of the physical actuator within a predetermined time from initiation of the cue; and
recording each received physical signal in association with the respective response state;
wherein each response state in the series of response states is selected from the group consisting of:
an active-escape state, wherein:
the aversive physical stimulus is initially applied;
the actuation of the physical actuator will, according to a first probabilistic function, do one of:
decrease the duration of the aversive physical stimulus, relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator; and
increase the duration of the aversive physical stimulus, relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator; and
according to the first probabilistic function, the actuation of the physical actuator is more likely to decrease the duration of the aversive physical stimulus relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator than to increase the duration of the aversive physical stimulus relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator;
a passive-escape state, wherein:
the aversive physical stimulus is initially applied; and
the actuation of the physical actuator will, according to a second probabilistic function, do one of:
decrease the duration of the aversive physical stimulus, relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator; and
increase the duration of the aversive physical stimulus, relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator; and
according to the second probabilistic function, the actuation of the physical actuator is more likely to increase the duration of the aversive physical stimulus relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator than to decrease the duration of the aversive physical stimulus relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator;
an active-avoid state, wherein:
the aversive physical stimulus is initially withheld;
the actuation of the physical actuator will, according to a third probabilistic function, do one of:
maintain withholding of the aversive physical stimulus; and
initiate application of the aversive physical stimulus; and
according to the third probabilistic function, the actuation of the physical actuator is more likely to maintain withholding of the aversive physical stimulus than to initiate application of the aversive physical stimulus;
a passive-avoid state, wherein:
the aversive physical stimulus is initially withheld;
the actuation of the physical actuator will, according to a fourth probabilistic function, do one of:
maintain withholding of the aversive physical stimulus; and
initiate application of the aversive physical stimulus; and
according to the fourth probabilistic function, actuation of the physical actuator is more likely to initiate application of the aversive physical stimulus than to maintain withholding of the aversive physical stimulus; and
wherein the predetermined pattern includes:
at least one first sequence in which:
the active-escape state is more likely than the passive-escape state; and
the active-avoid state is more likely than the passive-avoid state;
at least one second sequence in which:
the passive-escape state is more likely than the active-escape state; and
the passive-avoid state is more likely than the active-avoid state; and
at least one reversal between respective ones of the at least one first sequence and the at least one second sequence;
transforming the physical signals according to a predefined model that incorporates the predetermined pattern to obtain at least one learning variable of the mammalian subject;
applying the predefined model to the at least one learning variable to classify an expected cause of an individual bias of the mammalian subject toward or away from active-escape behaviour;
characterized in that:
the at least one learning variable includes at least one of:
a belief decay rate of the mammalian subject; and
a learning rate of the mammalian subject.
Independent claim 14 recites:
An apparatus for predicting active-escape bias in a mammalian subject, the apparatus comprising:
a control device;
a physical cue device coupled to the control device;
a physical stimulator coupled to the control device and adapted to apply an aversive physical stimulus to a mammalian subject; and
a physical actuator coupled to the control device;
wherein the control device is configured to:
cause the physical cue device to provide a series of cues to the mammalian subject;
in association with the cues, cause the physical stimulator to administer to the mammalian subject, according to a predetermined pattern, a series of response states, wherein each of the response states is associated with a particular one of the cues;
responsive to each of the cues, receive, from the mammalian subject, via the physical actuator, a physical signal, wherein the physical signal is one of:
actuation of the physical actuator; and
non-actuation of the physical actuator within a predetermined time from initiation of the cue; and
record each received physical signal in association with the respective response state;
wherein each response state in the series of response states is selected from the group consisting of:
an active-escape state, wherein:
the aversive physical stimulus is initially applied;
the actuation of the physical actuator will, according to a first probabilistic function, do one of:
decrease the duration of the aversive physical stimulus, relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator; and
increase the duration of the aversive physical stimulus, relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator; and
according to the first probabilistic function, the actuation of the physical actuator is more likely to decrease the duration of the aversive physical stimulus relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator than to increase the duration of the aversive physical stimulus relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator;
a passive-escape state, wherein:
the aversive physical stimulus is initially applied; and
the actuation of the physical actuator will, according to a second probabilistic function, do one of:
decrease the duration of the aversive physical stimulus, relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator; and
increase the duration of the aversive physical stimulus, relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator; and
according to the second probabilistic function, the actuation of the physical actuator is more likely to increase the duration of the aversive physical stimulus relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator than to decrease the duration of the aversive physical stimulus relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator;
an active-avoid state, wherein:
the aversive physical stimulus is initially withheld;
the actuation of the physical actuator will, according to a third probabilistic
function, do one of:
maintain withholding of the aversive physical stimulus; and
initiate application of the aversive physical stimulus; and
according to the third probabilistic function, the actuation of the physical actuator is more likely to maintain withholding of the aversive physical stimulus than to initiate application of the aversive physical stimulus;
a passive-avoid state, wherein:
the aversive physical stimulus is initially withheld;
the actuation of the physical actuator will, according to a fourth probabilistic function, do one of:
maintain withholding of the aversive physical stimulus; and
initiate application of the aversive physical stimulus; and
according to the fourth probabilistic function, actuation of the physical actuator is more likely to initiate application of the aversive physical stimulus than to maintain withholding of the aversive physical stimulus; and
wherein the predetermined pattern includes:
at least one first sequence in which:
the active-escape state is more likely than the passive-escape state; and
the active-avoid state is more likely than the passive-avoid state;
at least one second sequence in which:
the passive-escape state is more likely than the active-escape state; and
the passive-avoid state is more likely than the active-avoid state; and
at least one reversal between respective ones of the at least one first sequence and the at least one second sequence;
wherein the control device is further configured to:
transform the physical signals according to a predefined model that incorporates the predetermined pattern to obtain at least one learning variable of the mammalian subject; and
apply the predefined model to the at least one learning variable to classify an expected cause of an individual bias of the mammalian subject toward or away from active-escape behaviour;
characterized in that:
the at least one learning variable includes at least one of:
a belief decay rate of the mammalian subject; and
a learning rate of the mammalian subject.
Independent claim 26 recites:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising computer executable instructions for predicting active-escape bias in a mammalian subject, wherein the instructions which, when executed by a control device coupled to:
a physical cue device;
a physical stimulator adapted to apply an aversive physical stimulus to a mammalian subject; and
a physical actuator;
cause the control device to:
cause the physical cue device to provide a series of cues to the mammalian subject;
in association with the cues, cause the physical stimulator to administer to the mammalian subject, according to a predetermined pattern, a series of response states, wherein each of the response states is associated with a particular one of the cues;
responsive to each of the cues, receive, from the mammalian subject, via the physical actuator, a physical signal, wherein the physical signal is one of:
actuation of the physical actuator; and
non-actuation of the physical actuator within a predetermined time from initiation of the cue; and
record each received physical signal in association with the respective response state;
wherein each response state in the series of response states is selected from the group consisting of:
an active-escape state, wherein:
the aversive physical stimulus is initially applied;
the actuation of the physical actuator will, according to a first probabilistic function, do one of:
decrease the duration of the aversive physical stimulus, relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator; and
increase the duration of the aversive physical stimulus, relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator; and
according to the first probabilistic function, the actuation of the physical actuator is more likely to decrease the duration of the aversive physical stimulus relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator than to increase the duration of the aversive physical stimulus relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator;
a passive-escape state, wherein:
the aversive physical stimulus is initially applied; and
the actuation of the physical actuator will, according to a second probabilistic function, do one of:
decrease the duration of the aversive physical stimulus, relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator; and
increase the duration of the aversive physical stimulus, relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator; and
according to the second probabilistic function, the actuation of the physical actuator is more likely to increase the duration of the aversive physical stimulus relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator than to decrease the duration of the aversive physical stimulus relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator;
an active-avoid state, wherein:
the aversive physical stimulus is initially withheld;
the actuation of the physical actuator will, according to a third probabilistic
function, do one of:
maintain withholding of the aversive physical stimulus; and
initiate application of the aversive physical stimulus; and
according to the third probabilistic function, the actuation of the physical actuator is more likely to maintain withholding of the aversive physical stimulus than to initiate application of the aversive physical stimulus;
a passive-avoid state, wherein:
the aversive physical stimulus is initially withheld;
the actuation of the physical actuator will, according to a fourth probabilistic
function, do one of:
maintain withholding of the aversive physical stimulus; and
initiate application of the aversive physical stimulus; and
according to the fourth probabilistic function, actuation of the physical actuator is more likely to initiate application of the aversive physical stimulus than to maintain withholding of the aversive physical stimulus; and
wherein the predetermined pattern includes:
at least one first sequence in which:
the active-escape state is more likely than the passive-escape state; and
the active-avoid state is more likely than the passive-avoid state;
at least one second sequence in which:
the passive-escape state is more likely than the active-escape state; and
the passive-avoid state is more likely than the active-avoid state; and
at least one reversal between respective ones of the at least one first sequence and the at least one second sequence;
wherein the instructions further cause the control device to:
transform the physical signals according to a predefined model that incorporates the predetermined pattern to obtain at least one learning variable of the mammalian subject; and
apply the predefined model to the at least one learning variable to classify an expected cause of an individual bias of the mammalian subject toward or away from active-escape behaviour;
characterized in that:
the at least one learning variable includes at least one of:
a belief decay rate of the mammalian subject; and
a learning rate of the mammalian subject.
All of the foregoing underlined elements amount to the abstract idea grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity because it is managing personal behavior or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) by collecting information, analyzing it, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis typically performed by a clinician, researcher, etc. Similarly, the receiving, recording, transforming, and applying steps amount to the abstract idea grouping of mental processes as the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind with the aid of pen and paper (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) - A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process. Lastly, the transforming and applying steps amount to the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts because they recite mathematical calculations as defined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) which recites that a “claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the ‘mathematical concepts’ grouping” because a “mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word ‘calculating’ in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of ‘determining’ a variable or number using mathematical methods or ‘performing’ a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation." This is further evidenced in the specification which recites that the “present disclosure provides for an automated analysis algorithm of a subject’s psychophysiological responses to a test protocol”. See para. 108 of the specification.
The dependent claims, except for claims 10-13 and 22-25 amount to merely further defining the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d). The elements of the claims above that are not underlined constitute additional elements.
The following additional elements merely generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use: a physical stimulator (claims 1, 14, and 26); a physical actuator (claims 1, 14, and 26); a physical cue device including at least one of: a visual cue device comprising at least one of (i) at least one indicator light and (ii) at least one display screen, an audio cue device, or a haptic cue device (claims 10 and 22); reciting the physical stimulator is one of: an audio stimulator, a device that can emit an unpleasant odor, or a device that can apply an unpleasant haptic sensation (claims 11 and 23); reciting the physical actuator is one of a button, a lever, a joystick, a switch, a foot pedal, or a touch screen (claims 12 and 24); an apparatus comprising a control device, a physical cue device coupled to the control device, a physical stimulator coupled to the control device, and a physical actuator coupled to the control device (claim 14); reciting the physical cue device and the physical stimulator comprise a single device (claim 25); one or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising computer executable instructions (claim 26); and a control device (claim 26). Although the claims recite the elements identified above, these elements are recited at a high level of generality in a conventional arrangement for performing their basic computer functions (i.e., receiving, processing, outputting data). This is evidenced by at least Fig. 1, 10, and 11 which illustrate the components as non-descript black boxes or stock images while Fig. 2-9 illustrate that the claimed invention is focused on the judicial exception itself. Further evidence is provided by the specification. See also, for example, at least para. 25 and 103-122 of the specification which identify that any suitable combination of hardware, software, or firmware may be used to implement the judicial exception. Thus, the judicial exception is not implemented with, or used in, a particular machine or manufacture. Additionally, the claims do not recite any limitations that improve the functionality of the computer system as the computer system and its elements are merely recited to be used in the performance of the steps. For instance, the claimed steps do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application because they are merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f) since the claims merely recite the use of a computer in its ordinary capacity to perform these tasks. See MPEP 2106.04(d). This also evidences that the claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system as the claimed steps are wholly focused on the judicial exception itself while the computerized elements are merely recited to be used in their performance. Additionally, the physical stimulator and physical actuator, as recited and organized, act to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere extra-solution stimulating and data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea). This further identifies that none of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond, at best, generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. The claims do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. For instance, the claims are explicitly identified as for predicting active-escape bias and is thus not limited in any way to any particular treatment or prophylaxis for any disease or medical condition. Additionally, the additional elements do not apply or use a judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, that is implementation with a computer. For instance, the claims, and disclosure as a whole, merely recite the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any assertion that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented in the technology, itself. Accordingly, based on all of the considered factors, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to the judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 2: NO).
Step 2B
The independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.05. As identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the claimed system and the process it performs does not require the use of a particular machine, nor does it result in the transformation of an article. The claims do not involve an improvement in a computer or other technology. Although the claims recite components (identified in Step 2A, Prong 2) for performing at least some of the recited functions, these elements are recited at a high level of generality in a conventional arrangement for performing their basic computer functions (i.e., receiving, processing, outputting data). This is at least evidenced by the manner in which this is disclosed that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 USC 112(a) as identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above. Thus, the judicial exception is not implemented with, or used in, a particular machine or manufacture. Furthermore, this also evidences that the components are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. Additionally, as identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, the mere inclusion of generically recited computerized elements conventionally configured to perform their conventional functions merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. This further evidences that the claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. The focus of the claimed invention is on the analysis of the collected data, which is itself at best merely an improvement within the abstract idea. See pg. 2-3 in SAP America Inc. v. lnvestpic, LLC (890 F.3d 1016, 126 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed. Cir. 2018) which proffered “[w]e may assume that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant, but that is not enough for eligibility. Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. Their subject is nothing but a series of mathematical calculations based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those calculations.” Additionally, the physical stimulator and physical actuator, as recited and organized, act to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere extra-solution stimulating and data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea). This further identifies that none of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond, at best, generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of itself (STEP 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12, 14-24, and 26-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Millner et al.2 (hereinafter referred to as Millner).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 26, Millner teaches a method (claim 1), an apparatus (claim 14), and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising computer executable instructions (claim 26) for predicting active-escape bias m a mammalian subject (Millner, Title, “Pavlovian Control of Escape and Avoidance”), the method comprising:
providing a series of cues to the mammalian subject (Millner, pg. 1381-1382, Experimental Paradigm includes presenting a series of cues to human participants.);
in association with the cues, using a physical stimulator adapted to selectively apply an aversive physical stimulus to administer to the mammalian subject, according to a predetermined pattern, a series of response states, wherein each of the response states is associated with a particular one of the cues (Millner, pg. 1381-1382, Experimental Paradigm includes “in the escape condition, the onset of the cue coincided with the onset of the aversive sound”);
responsive to each of the cues, receiving, from the mammalian subject, via a physical actuator, a physical signal, wherein the physical signal is one of:
actuation of the physical actuator (Millner, pg. 1381-1382, Experimental Paradigm, “press a button: go”); and
non-actuation of the physical actuator within a predetermined time from initiation of the cue (Millner, pg. 1381-1382, Experimental Paradigm, “withhold a button press: no-go”); and
recording each received physical signal in association with the respective response state (Millner, pg. 1381-1382, Experimental Paradigm);
wherein each response state in the series of response states is selected from the group consisting of:
an active-escape state, wherein:
the aversive physical stimulus is initially applied (Millner, Fig. 1, Go-to Escape trials encompasses the entirety of the active-escape state);
the actuation of the physical actuator will, according to a first probabilistic function, do one of:
decrease the duration of the aversive physical stimulus (Millner, Fig. 1, Go-to Escape trials encompasses the entirety of the active-escape state), relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator (Millner, Fig. 1, Go-to Escape trials encompasses the entirety of the active-escape state); and
increase the duration of the aversive physical stimulus (Millner, Fig. 1, Go-to Escape trials encompasses the entirety of the active-escape state), relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator (Millner, Fig. 1, Go-to Escape trials encompasses the entirety of the active-escape state); and
according to the first probabilistic function, the actuation of the physical actuator is more likely to decrease the duration of the aversive physical stimulus relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator than to increase the duration of the aversive physical stimulus relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator (Millner, Fig. 1, Go-to Escape trials encompasses the entirety of the active-escape state);
a passive-escape state, wherein:
the aversive physical stimulus is initially applied (Millner, Fig. 1, No-go-to Escape trials encompasses the entirety of the passive-escape state); and
the actuation of the physical actuator will, according to a second probabilistic function, do one of:
decrease the duration of the aversive physical stimulus, relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator (Millner, Fig. 1, No-go-to Escape trials encompasses the entirety of the passive-escape state); and
increase the duration of the aversive physical stimulus (Millner, Fig. 1, No-go-to Escape trials encompasses the entirety of the passive-escape state), relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator (Millner, Fig. 1, No-go-to Escape trials encompasses the entirety of the passive-escape state); and
according to the second probabilistic function, the actuation of the physical actuator is more likely to increase the duration of the aversive physical stimulus relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator than to decrease the duration of the aversive physical stimulus relative to the non-actuation of the physical actuator (Millner, Fig. 1, No-go-to Escape trials encompasses the entirety of the passive-escape state);
an active-avoid state, wherein:
the aversive physical stimulus is initially withheld (Millner, Fig. 1, Go-to Avoid trials encompasses the entirety of the active-avoid state);
the actuation of the physical actuator will, according to a third probabilistic function, do one of:
maintain withholding of the aversive physical stimulus (Millner, Fig. 1, Go-to Avoid trials encompasses the entirety of the active-avoid state); and
initiate application of the aversive physical stimulus (Millner, Fig. 1, Go-to Avoid trials encompasses the entirety of the active-avoid state); and
according to the third probabilistic function, the actuation of the physical actuator is more likely to maintain withholding of the aversive physical stimulus than to initiate application of the aversive physical stimulus (Millner, Fig. 1, Go-to Avoid trials encompasses the entirety of the active-avoid state);
a passive-avoid state, wherein:
the aversive physical stimulus is initially withheld (Millner, Fig. 1, No-go-to Avoid trials encompasses the entirety of the passive-avoid state);
the actuation of the physical actuator will, according to a fourth probabilistic function, do one of:
maintain withholding of the aversive physical stimulus (Millner, Fig. 1, No-go-to Avoid trials encompasses the entirety of the passive-avoid state); and
initiate application of the aversive physical stimulus (Millner, Fig. 1, No-go-to Avoid trials encompasses the entirety of the passive-avoid state); and
according to the fourth probabilistic function, actuation of the physical actuator is more likely to initiate application of the aversive physical stimulus than to maintain withholding of the aversive physical stimulus (Millner, Fig. 1, No-go-to Avoid trials encompasses the entirety of the passive-avoid state); and
wherein the predetermined pattern includes:
at least one first sequence in which:
the active-escape state is more likely than the passive-escape state (Millner, pg. 1382-1385, Computational Model encompasses the entirety of the sub-limitations included in the predetermined pattern); and
the active-avoid state is more likely than the passive-avoid state (Millner, pg. 1382-1385, Computational Model encompasses the entirety of the sub-limitations included in the predetermined pattern);
at least one second sequence in which:
the passive-escape state is more likely than the active-escape state (Millner, pg. 1382-1385, Computational Model encompasses the entirety of the sub-limitations included in the predetermined pattern); and
the passive-avoid state is more likely than the active-avoid state (Millner, pg. 1382-1385, Computational Model encompasses the entirety of the sub-limitations included in the predetermined pattern); and
at least one reversal between respective ones of the at least one first sequence and the at least one second sequence (Millner, pg. 1382-1385, Computational Model encompasses the entirety of the sub-limitations included in the predetermined pattern);
transforming the physical signals according to a predefined model that incorporates the predetermined pattern to obtain at least one learning variable of the mammalian subject (Millner, pg. 1382-1385, Computational Model);
applying the predefined model to the at least one learning variable to classify an expected cause of an individual bias of the mammalian subject toward or away from active-escape behaviour (Millner, pg. 1382-1385, Computational Model);
characterized in that:
the at least one learning variable includes at least one of:
a belief decay rate of the mammalian subject; and
a learning rate of the mammalian subject (Millner, pg. 1382-1385, Computational Model).
Regarding claims 2, 15, and 27, Millner teaches the method of claim 1, the apparatus of claim 14, and the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 26, wherein the predefined model is a structured Bayesian model (Millner, pg. 1385, Step 3: Quantitative Model Comparison, “random-effects Bayesian model selection”).
Regarding claims 3, 16, and 28, Millner teaches the method of claim 1, the apparatus of claim 14, and the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 26, wherein the at least one learning variable includes a stress sensitivity parameter for the mammalian subject (Millner, pg. 1381-1382, Experimental Paradigm includes this.).
Regarding claims 4, 17, and 29, Millner teaches the method of claim 1, the apparatus of claim 14, and the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 26, wherein the at least one learning variable includes a controllability threshold parameter for the mammalian subject (Millner, pg. 1382, Computational Model, “Pavlovian bias parameter” is construed as a controllability threshold parameter).
Regarding claims 5, 18, and 30, Millner teaches the method of claim 1, the apparatus of claim 14, and the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 26, (claim 5: wherein the mammalian subject is a human) wherein the apparatus (claim 18)/control device (claim 30) is adapted for use with a human as the mammalian subject (Millner, pg. 1381, Participants were humans.).
Regarding claims 6, 19, and 31, Millner teaches the method of claim 1, the apparatus of claim 14, and the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 26, wherein a classification of the expected cause of the individual bias of the mammalian subject toward or away from active-escape behaviour is presented as a standardized score (Millner, pg. 1385-1386, Results).
Regarding claims 7, 20, and 32, Millner teaches the method of claim 1, the apparatus of claim 14, and the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 26, wherein:
during the at least one first sequence:
a likelihood of the active-escape state relative to the passive-escape state varies (Millner, pg. 1382, Data Analysis; pg. 1385-1485, Step 1: Model Fitting);
a likelihood of the active-avoid state relative to the passive-avoid state varies; and
during the at least one second sequence (Millner, pg. 1382, Data Analysis; pg. 1385-1485, Step 1: Model Fitting);
a likelihood of the passive-escape state relative to the active-escape state varies (Millner, pg. 1382, Data Analysis; pg. 1385-1485, Step 1: Model Fitting); and
a likelihood of the passive-avoid state relative to the active-avoid state varies (Millner, pg. 1382, Data Analysis; pg. 1385-1485, Step 1: Model Fitting).
Regarding claims 8 and 33, Millner teaches the method of claim 1, the apparatus of claim 14, and the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 26, wherein the aversive physical stimulus is selected from the group consisting of aversive aural stimulus, aversive haptic stimulus and aversive olfactory stimulus (Millner, pg. 1382, “Aversive stimuli consisted of a fork scraping on slate altered with a high-frequency sound and presented over headphones at 80–85 dB.”).
Regarding claims 9, 21, and 34, Millner teaches the method of claim 1, the apparatus of claim 14, and the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 26, wherein the at least one reversal comprises a plurality of reversals (Millner, pg. 1381-1382, Experimental Paradigm).
Regarding claims 10 and 22, Millner teaches the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the series of cues is provided via a physical cue device including at least one of:
(a) a visual cue device comprising at least one of (i) at least one indicator light and (ii) at least one display screen (Milner, Fig. 1; pg. 1381, “four cues (fractal images)”);
(b) an audio cue device (unnecessary for prior art to teach as this is listed in the alternative.); or
(c) a haptic cue device (unnecessary for prior art to teach as this is listed in the alternative.).
Regarding claims 11 and 23, Millner teaches the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the physical stimulator is one of:
(a) an audio stimulator (Millner, pg. 1382, “headphones”);
(b) a device that can emit an unpleasant odor (unnecessary for prior art to teach as this is listed in the alternative.); or
(c) a device that can apply an unpleasant haptic sensation (unnecessary for prior art to teach as this is listed in the alternative.).
Regarding claims 12 and 24, Millner teaches the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the physical actuator is one of a button, a lever, a joystick, a switch, a foot pedal, or a touch screen (Millner, pg. 1381-1382, Experimental Paradigm, “button”).
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.
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 13 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millner as applied to claims 1 and 14, in view of Samec et al. (US 2017/0365101, hereinafter referred to as Samec).
Regarding claims 13 and 25, Millner teaches the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 14.
Regarding claim 13, Millner does not explicitly teach wherein the series of cues is provided by the physical stimulator.
However, in a related art, Samec teaches wherein the series of cues is provided by the physical stimulator (Samec, Fig. 9D illustrates the elements incorporated into single device; para. 103-108 recite different embodiments of presenting a visual stimulus in various aspects of the user’s visual field. Para. 440, “the image injection devices 360, 370, 380, 390, 400 are the output ends of a single multiplexed display which may, e.g., pipe image information via one or more optical conduits (such as fiber optic cables) to each of the image injection devices 360, 370, 380, 390, 400.” Para. 838, “The display system may be configured to provide perception aids that are configured to condition the user through classical conditioning (or Pavlovian conditioning or respondent conditioning) techniques.”).
Regarding claim 25, Millner does not explicitly teach wherein the physical cue device and the physical stimulator comprise a single device.
However, in a related art, Samec teaches wherein the physical cue device and the physical stimulator comprise a single device (Samec, Fig. 9D illustrates the elements incorporated into single device; para. 103-108 recite different embodiments of presenting a visual stimulus in various aspects of the user’s visual field. Para. 440, “the image injection devices 360, 370, 380, 390, 400 are the output ends of a single multiplexed display which may, e.g., pipe image information via one or more optical conduits (such as fiber optic cables) to each of the image injection devices 360, 370, 380, 390, 400.” Para. 838, “The display system may be configured to provide perception aids that are configured to condition the user through classical conditioning (or Pavlovian conditioning or respondent conditioning) techniques.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Millner to include the series of cues to be provided by the physical stimulator/the physical cue device and the physical stimulator to comprise a single device as taught by Samec because “the long-term wearability of the display system… provides a platform that allows long-term neurological analyses to be performed, and also allows the real-time, selective provision of corrective or learning aids as needed (e.g., due to the identification of a condition requiring such a corrective aid and/or by sensing the presence of a stimulus in the environment necessitating the aid). Moreover, these benefits may be achieved without requiring a user to visit a medical facility to conduct the various analyses. Rather, the analyses may be performed regularly, or at an arbitrary time, e.g., when triggered by particular stimulus, when selected by the user, based on prescription, etc. This flexibility and ubiquity allows the user to conduct regular diagnostics and to update corrective aids as necessary.” See Samec at para. 408.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brunner et al. (US 2003/0004652) is the D2 reference cited in the International Search Authority’s Written Opinion for parent application PCT/CA2022/051627.
Lee et al. (US 2012/0111286) discloses Pavlovian conditioning utilizing audio and visual cues with audio condition stimuli and haptic stimuli.
Samec et al. (US 2017/0323485) is closely related to the Samec reference used as the secondary reference in the rejection under 35 USC 103.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:30 MT.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/DANIEL LANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 Karvelis, P., & Diaconescu, A. O. (March 31, 2022). A computational model of hopelessness and active-escape bias in suicidality. Computational Psychiatry, 6(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.5334/cpsy.80
2 Millner et al. (2018). Pavlovian control of escape and avoidance. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 30(10), 1379–1390. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01224