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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 9, 13, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, lines 6-7 should apparently be their own clause of the recited method, instead of being part of the “acquiring” clause.
In claim 9, line 2: “an optimal beat sound frequency” should apparently read --the optimal beat sound frequency--.
In claim 13, line 2: “an optimal beat sound frequency” should apparently read --the optimal beat sound frequency--.
In claim 18, line 2: “an optimal beat sound frequency” should apparently read --the optimal beat sound frequency--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 8-20 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 1 recites the limitation "an optimal beat sound frequency" in line 8. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the optimal beat sound frequency recited in lines 3-4 or to a separate frequency. If the former is intended, the limitation should read --the optimal beat sound frequency--.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation "the binaural-beat-converted sample acoustic signal" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation “generating a binaural-beat-converted ambient environmental sound signal” in the last line. It is not clear if this is intended to be the result of the mixing step or to be separate from the mixing step.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a sample noise whose frequency is made different on the basis of the optimal beat sound frequency and the ambient environment sound" in lines 6-7. It is not clear if this is intended to be the same sample noise whose frequency is made different on the basis of the optimal beat sound frequency and the ambient environment sound recited in lines 4-5 or to a separate sample noise.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “an ambient environment sound of the user” in lines 5-6. It is not clear what is meant by this limitation; e.g., is this a sound from the ambient environment of the user, or an ambient environment sound made by the user, or an ambient environment sound chosen/selected by the user, or something else?
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the binaural-beat-converted sample acoustic signal" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 also recites the limitation “generating a binaural-beat-converted ambient environmental sound signal” in the last line. It is not clear if this is intended to be the result of the mixing step or to be separate from the mixing step.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a user" in line 2. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the user recited in claim 1 or to a separate user. If the former is intended, the limitation should read --the user--.
Claim 10 also recites the limitation “to be induced” in the last line. It is not clear if this refers to the user, or to the brain wave band, or to the brain wave signal.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "a user" in line 2. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the user recited in claim 1 or to a separate user. If the former is intended, the limitation should read --the user--.
Claim 14 also recites the limitation “to be induced” in the last line. It is not clear if this refers to the user, or to the brain wave band, or to the brain wave signal.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "a sample noise whose frequency is made different on the basis of the optimal beat sound frequency and the ambient environment sound" in lines 4-6. It is not clear if this is intended to be the same sample noise whose frequency is made different on the basis of the optimal beat sound frequency and the ambient environment sound recited in lines 2-4 or to a separate sample noise.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "a user" in line 2. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the user recited in claim 1 or to a separate user. If the former is intended, the limitation should read --the user--.
Claim 19 also recites the limitation “to be induced” in the last line. It is not clear if this refers to the user, or to the brain wave band, or to the brain wave signal.
Claims 2, 3, and 8-11 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon claim 1.
Claims 12-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon claim 4.
Claims 15-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 8-10, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donnet et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0038776 A1; hereinafter known as “Donnet”), in view of Vesely et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0116597 A1; hereinafter known as “Vesely”).
Regarding claim 1, Donnet discloses a signal processing device comprising a processor 140 configured to execute operations (Abstract; [0059]-[0063]; [0100]) comprising: acquiring an ambient environment sound, converting a sample acoustic signal prepared in advance into a binaural beat, mixing the binaural-beat-converted sample acoustic signal with the ambient environment sound and generating a binaural-beat-converted ambient environmental sound signal ([0053]-[0056]; [0071]-[0076]). Donnet fails to disclose determining an optimal beat sound frequency of the user on the basis of a brain wave signal of the user and that the binaural beats are converted on the basis of the optimal beat sound frequency; though Donnet does teach that the binaural beat frequencies may be chosen based on suitability. Vesely discloses a similar device (Abstract) that determines an optimal beat sound frequency of a user on the basis of a brain wave signal of the user and creates binaural beats on the basis of the optimal beat sound frequency in order to balance the brain and compensate for unbalanced EEG frequencies ([0021]-[0025]; [0031]; [0038]-[0039]). 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 Donnet by determining an optimal beat sound frequency of a user on the basis of a brain wave signal of the user and converting the binaural beats on the basis of the optimal beat sound frequency, as taught by Vesely, in order to balance the brain and compensate for unbalanced EEG frequencies.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Donnet and Vesely discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and further discloses that the generating further comprises generating two-channel signals by mixing two types of sample noises having different frequencies based on the optimal beat sound frequency, with the ambient environment sound (e.g., Donnet: [0053], [0062]; binaural beats are made by creating two-channel signals so that there is a frequency difference between two tones played to user).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Donnet and Vesely discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and further discloses that the generating further comprises generating a signal of a first channel by mixing a sample noise whose frequency is made different on the basis of the optimal beat sound frequency and the ambient environment sound, and a signal of a second channel by mixing a sample noise whose frequency is made different on the basis of the optimal beat sound frequency and the ambient environment sound (e.g., Donnet: [0053], [0062]; binaural beats are made by creating two-channel signals so that there is a frequency difference between two tones played to user).
Regarding claim 4, Donnet discloses a signal processing device comprising a processor 140 configured to execute operations (Abstract; [0059]-[0063]; [0100]) comprising: acquiring an ambient environment sound of the user and converting the acquired ambient environment sound into a binaural beat ([0053]-[0056]; [0071]-[0076]). Donnet fails to disclose determining an optimal beat sound frequency of the user on the basis of a brain wave signal of the user and converting the binaural beat on the basis of the optimal beat sound frequency; though Donnet does teach that the binaural beat frequencies may be chosen based on suitability. Vesely discloses a similar device (Abstract) that determines an optimal beat sound frequency of a user on the basis of a brain wave signal of the user and creates binaural beats on the basis of the optimal beat sound frequency in order to balance the brain and compensate for unbalanced EEG frequencies ([0021]-[0025]; [0031]; [0038]-[0039]). 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 Donnet by determining an optimal beat sound frequency of a user on the basis of a brain wave signal of the user and converting the binaural beat on the basis of the optimal beat sound frequency, as taught by Vesely, in order to balance the brain and compensate for unbalanced EEG frequencies.
Regarding claim 5, Donnet discloses a signal processing method (Abstract) comprising: acquiring an ambient environment sound, converting a sample acoustic signal prepared in advance into a binaural beat, mixing the binaural-beat-converted sample acoustic signal with the ambient environment sound and generating a binaural-beat-converted ambient environmental sound signal ([0053]-[0056]; [0071]-[0076]). Donnet fails to disclose determining an optimal beat sound frequency of the user on the basis of a brain wave signal of the user and that the binaural beats are converted on the basis of the optimal beat sound frequency; though Donnet does teach that the binaural beat frequencies may be chosen based on suitability. Vesely discloses a similar method (Abstract) that determines an optimal beat sound frequency of a user on the basis of a brain wave signal of the user and creates binaural beats on the basis of the optimal beat sound frequency in order to balance the brain and compensate for unbalanced EEG frequencies ([0021]-[0025]; [0031]; [0038]-[0039]). 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 Donnet by determining an optimal beat sound frequency of a user on the basis of a brain wave signal of the user and converting the binaural beats on the basis of the optimal beat sound frequency, as taught by Vesely, in order to balance the brain and compensate for unbalanced EEG frequencies.
Regarding claims 8, 12, and 17, the combination of Donnet and Vesely discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Vesely further discloses that the brain wave signal represents a signal of the user in a rest state ([0030]-[0031]).
Regarding claims 9, 13, and 18, the combination of Donnet and Vesely discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Vesely further discloses that the determining an optimal beat sound frequency of the user is based on a combination of a first brain wave signal of the user in a rest state and a second brain wave of the user while listening to a binaural beat sound at a beat sound frequency ([0030]-[0031]; [0038]-[0039]).
Regarding claims 10, 14, and 19, the combination of Donnet and Vesely discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and Vesely further discloses that the determining the optimal beat sound frequency of a user further comprises changing a frequency of a binaural beat sound within a range of a brain wave band of the brain wave signal of the user to be induced ([0020]; [0029]; [0035]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Donnet and Vesely discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and further discloses that the generating further comprises generating two-channel signals by mixing two types of sample noises having different frequencies based on the optimal beat sound frequency, with the ambient environment sound (e.g., Donnet: [0053], [0062]; binaural beats are made by creating two-channel signals so that there is a frequency difference between two tones played to user).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Donnet and Vesely discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, and further discloses that the generating further comprises generating a signal of a first channel by mixing a sample noise whose frequency is made different on the basis of the optimal beat sound frequency and the ambient environment sound, and a signal of a second channel by mixing a sample noise whose frequency is made different on the basis of the optimal beat sound frequency and the ambient environment sound (e.g., Donnet: [0053], [0062]; binaural beats are made by creating two-channel signals so that there is a frequency difference between two tones played to user).
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donnet and Vesely as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of An (KR 20210137731 A). The combination of Donnet and Vesely discloses the invention as claimed, see rejection supra, but fails to disclose that the sample acoustic signal includes a white noise. An discloses a similar system and method (Abstract) that converts a white noise signal into a binaural beat in order to help meditation, concentration, rest, and sleep ([0071]; [0117]; claim 3). 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 combination of Donnet and Vesely so that the sample acoustic signal includes a white noise, as taught by An, in order to help meditation, concentration, rest, and sleep.
Conclusion
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 at (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
Prosecution Insights