DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Amendment Entered
This Office action is responsive to the Amendment filed on June 17th, 2026. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 as well as the cancellation of claim 2. Claims 1 and 3-23 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 17th, 2026, with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered. The drawing objections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed June 17th, 2026, with respect to the objections to the specification have been fully considered. The objections to the specification are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed June 17th, 2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered. The claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed June 17th, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed June 17th, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
At page 14, Applicant argues that Horne does not teach the acquisition of a function of how the user perceived sounds as recited in independent claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has not pointed out how the function specific to the user is distinct from the patient model of Horne. Further, the patient model of Horne represents everything that is known about the patient's hearing which would represent how a user perceives sound. Furthermore, Horne discloses a transformation function, the transformation performed with a pre-determined mathematical function and that the parameters of the transformation are selected based on patient model parameters (para. [0122, 0128, 0185-0186, 0242]). Therefore, Horne does disclose the acquisition of a function of specific to the user (“patient model”; “pre-determined mathematical function”; “transformation function ... parameters selected based on patient model parameters”, para. [0111, 0122, 0135-0137, 0161-0162, 0179-0185]), the function characterizing the user's perception of sound (“patient model represents everything that is known about the patient's hearing”; “transformation function ... depends upon and/or reacts-to changes in the head direction of the test subject in real-time”, para. [0135-0136, 0161-0192, 0179-0186]).
At page 14, Applicant argues that neither Salemme, Tinjust, or Horne describe adjusting a predetermined waveform based on a function specific to the user and then generating audio that has been transformed by the user-specific function. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Horne discloses that a transformation function and that the transformation parameters are varied and/or selected to vary the sensitivity of the transform (i.e., its gradient at zero) to the response of the test subject and applying the transformation to the initial/untransformed source location so that the audio signal generator generates an audio signal that has a different apparent source location to induce head oscillations (para. [0164, 0179-0186, 0213, 0286]). Therefore, Horne does disclose the acquisition of a function of specific to the user (“patient model”; “pre-determined mathematical function”; “transformation function ... parameters selected based on patient model parameters”, para. [0111, 0122, 0135-0137, 0161-0162, 0179-0185]), the function characterizing the user's perception of sound (“patient model represents everything that is known about the patient's hearing”; “transformation function ... depends upon and/or reacts-to changes in the head direction of the test subject in real-time”, para. [0135-0136, 0161-0192, 0179-0186]); adjusting a predetermined waveform using the function specific to the user (“modify … properties of the audio stimulus”; “frequency and level … pre-determined test pattern … selected based on model parameters”; “pre-defined transformation function g(θ) and pass parameters determined using the transformation function g(θ)””; “stereo stimulus waveform”, para. [0031, 0122, 0128, 0137-0140, 0183-0186, 0291]); and controlling generation of an audio sound corresponding to the predetermined waveform and based on the function specific to the user (“produce audio stimulus signals … audio output”; “passes the transformed parameter θ.sub.out to the audio signal generator to generate audio stimuli”, para. [0031, 0122, 0140, 0143, 0163-0164]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Salemme, as modified by hereinabove, such that the processing circuitry is configured to acquire a function specific to the user, the function characterizing the user's perception of sound; adjust a predetermined waveform using the function specific to the user; control generation of an audio sound corresponding to the predetermined waveform and based on the function specific to the user, in view of the teachings of Horne, as this would aid in modifying the frequency and level of stimulus for maximizing an expected gain information that will be realized by the patient’s response and would aid in setting the sensitivity of the transformed/generated audio stimuli to induce, increase and/or decrease movement of the head of the test subject in response to the stimulus.
Applicant's arguments filed June 17th, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
At pages 15-16, Applicant argues that the claims recite an improvement to technology that integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application of determining a level of cognitive function in a user by providing a more accurate and reliable technique. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The improvement cannot be found in the abstract idea itself. “[I]t is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself ... is not an improvement in technology.” MPEP 2106.05(a) Il. The claims recite steps for an analysis of data. The claims do not integrate the analysis into a practical application. Rather, the alleged improvement lies solely within the processing steps performed by the processor. “Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology." Id. Furthermore, the steps of acquiring, adjusting, and controlling generation of an audio sound merely add insignificant pre-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), e.g., mere data gathering steps necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. The processing circuitry recited in the claim is a generic apparatus comprising well-known, conventional, and routine components configured to perform the insignificant pre-solution activity and the abstract idea – as evidenced by the non-patent literature of record; Wen Zhang, Thushara D. Abhayapala, Rodney A. Kennedy, Ramani Duraiswami; Insights into head-related transfer function: Spatial dimensionality and continuous representation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1 April 2010; 127 (4): 2347–2357. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3336399; Li S, Peissig J. Measurement of Head-Related Transfer Functions: A Review. Applied Sciences. 2020; 10(14):5014. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10145014; Zhijian Yang and Romit Roy Choudhury. 2021. Personalizing head related transfer functions for earables. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGCOMM 2021 Conference (SIGCOMM '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1145/3452296.3472907. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “determine gaze direction of the user using an eye-tracking system” in claims 8 and 9 and “plurality of sound recording devices configured to record sounds in the user’s ear canals” in claim 12.
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.
They eye tracking system is defined, in para. [0089, 0092-0093, 0096, 0099-0100] of the published application, as eye-facing cameras, microphones or audio recording devices within the user’s ear canals.
The plurality of sound recording devices are defined, in para. [0096, 0099-0100] of the published application, as microphones or audio recording devices within the user’s ear canals.
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.
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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites “a difference” in line 3. It is unclear if this difference is referring to the same difference, a different difference, or a difference in addition to the difference recited in claim 1. For examination purposes it will be interpreted as referring to the same difference recited in claim 1 and the limitation is suggested to recite “the difference”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1 and 3-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claims 1 and 22 follows.
STEP 1
Regarding claims 1, 22, and 23, the claims recite a series of structural elements and a series of steps or acts, including an apparatus. Thus, claims 1-23 are directed to a machine and/or method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The steps of:
determine a second location within the three-dimensional environment from where the user considers the audio sound to have originated based on a response of the user to the generation of the audio sound;
determine the level of cognitive function in the user in accordance with a difference between the source location and the second location.
set forth a judicial exception. These steps describe a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claims 1 and 22 recite circuitry for acquiring a function specific to the user, adjusting a predetermined waveform using the function specific to the user, and control generation of an audio sound corresponding to the predetermined waveform and based on the function specific to the user, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The acquisition of the function specific to the user, adjusting the predetermined waveform using the function specific to the user, and control generation of an audio sound corresponding to the predetermined waveform and based on the function specific to the user, and control generation of an audio sound corresponding to the predetermined waveform and based on the function specific to the user does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the method does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the generated audio sound, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
STEP 2B
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional steps of:
processing circuitry;
acquire a function specific to the user, the function characterizing the user's perception of sound;
adjusting a predetermined waveform using the function specific to the user
control generation of an audio sound corresponding to the predetermined waveform and based on the function specific to the user, wherein the audio sound is generated, for the user, to originate from a source location within a three-dimensional environment
The acquiring, adjusting, and controlling steps are well-understood, routine and conventional activities for those in the field of medical diagnostics. Further, the acquiring, adjusting, and controlling steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant pre-solution activity, e.g., mere data gathering steps necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the acquiring, adjusting, and controlling steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, the apparatus comprising processing circuitry recited in the claim is a generic apparatus comprising generic components configured to perform the abstract idea – as evidenced by the non-patent literature of record; Wen Zhang, Thushara D. Abhayapala, Rodney A. Kennedy, Ramani Duraiswami; Insights into head-related transfer function: Spatial dimensionality and continuous representation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1 April 2010; 127 (4): 2347–2357. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3336399; Li S, Peissig J. Measurement of Head-Related Transfer Functions: A Review. Applied Sciences. 2020; 10(14):5014. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10145014; Zhijian Yang and Romit Roy Choudhury. 2021. Personalizing head related transfer functions for earables. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGCOMM 2021 Conference (SIGCOMM '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1145/3452296.3472907. The recited processing circuitry is configured to perform pre-solutional data gathering activity, and the processing circuitry is configured to perform the Abstract Idea. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims. Claims 3-16, 19, and 21 merely recite steps for insignificant extra-solution activity (additional data-gathering and data-outputting), claims 17-20 merely recites steps for further defining the determining the level of cognitive function, which does not add anything significantly more. The steps recited in the independent claims maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1, 6-8, 13-14, 17-18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salemme (US 20200320768 A1) in view of Tinjust (US 20210393190 A1), and further in view of Horne (US 20220183593 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Salemme discloses an information processing apparatus (apparatus 1, fig. 1, para. [0052]) for testing abilities of a user (“specific abilities of subject 2 may be tested”; “auditory perception capabilities of subject 2 are measured”, para. [0061, 0131]), the information processing apparatus (fig. 1) comprising processing circuitry (“control unit 13 … programmable microcontroller ... data processing unit”, para. [0051, 0065-0066]) configured to: control generation of an audio sound corresponding to a predefined sound (“play a predefined sound”, para. [0063, 0124]), wherein the audio sound is generated, for the user, to originate from a source location within a three-dimensional environment (“spatial coordinates … axes X, Y, and Z”; “selects spatial coordinates of a target location for sound source 11 … emission of a predefined sound from sound source 11”; “three-dimensional map”, para. [0075, 0095, 121-0124, 0144], fig. 5); determine a second location within the three-dimensional environment from where the user considers the audio sound to have originated based on a response of the user to the generation of the audio sound (“spatial coordinates … axes X, Y, and Z”; “measure spatial coordinates estimated location of sound source 11 as perceived by subject 2 during each test sequence”; “ estimated location of sound source 11 is acquired”; “three-dimensional map”, para. [0071, 0125-0127, 0144]); and determine the auditory perception capabilities/an abnormal condition of the auditory system in the user in accordance with a difference between the source location and the second location (“auditory perception capabilities of subject 2 are measured”; “control unit 13 computes, for each test sequence, the difference between the respective spatial coordinates of each estimated target location and the corresponding target location chosen for this test sequence … difference … exceed threshold … abnormal condition”, para. [0131, 0140-0141], figs. 7-8). Salemme further discloses that a comparison can be drawn between the estimated and actual positions (para. [0004]).
Salemme does not disclose the information processing apparatus for determining a level of cognitive function in a user and the processing circuitry configured to determine the level of cognitive function in the user in accordance with a difference between the source location and the second location.
However, Tinjust directed to an apparatus for evaluating cognitive function of a patient with a sound generator/ head mounted display with speakers (fig. 6C, para. [0153]) and retrieving result data generated as a function of sound produced (para. [0153]) discloses the information processing apparatus for determining a level of cognitive function in a user (Abstract, para. [0153], fig. 6C) and processing circuitry (“processor”; “main module”; para. [0088-0089, 0143], fig. 6C) configured to determine the level of cognitive function in the user (“generate a cognitive evaluation of the patient … profile of the patient”, para. [0150]) in accordance with a difference (“spatial shift”, para. [0149, 0156, 0159]) between the source location (“expected responsiveness”, “expected eye movement data ... spatial shift”, para. [0140, 0156, 0159]) and the second location (“observed responsiveness”; “eye tracking data … spatial shift”, para. [0140, 0156, 0159]) (“cognitive performance level … assessed as a function of the patient's ability to carry out the cognitive exercise”; “comparison data … spatial shift … integrative analyzer analyses the comparison data … processed by the intelligence module to generate a cognitive evaluation of the patient”; “cognitive performance data”, para. [0116, 0140, 0149-0150, 0156]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Salemme to comprise the information processing apparatus for determining a level of cognitive function in a user and such that the circuitry is configured to determine the level of cognitive function in the user in accordance with a difference between the source location and the second location, in view of the teachings of Tinjust, as this would aid in evaluating cognitive performance of the patient based on a result/tailored correlation data generated as a function of the sound produced (Tinjust, para. [0153, 0156]).
Salemme further discloses the that the source emits a predefined sound (para. [0124]).
Salemme, as modified by Tinjust hereinabove, does not disclose the processing circuitry configured to acquire a function specific to the user, the function characterizing the user's perception of sound; adjust a predetermined waveform using the function specific to the user; control generation of an audio sound corresponding to the predetermined waveform and based on the function specific to the user.
However, Horne directed to directed to a device for performing a hearing test on a test subject discloses processing circuitry (testing device 12 comprising processor 20 and memory 22; patient model store 36; stimulus selection circuitry 28, fig. 1, para. [0139-0140]) configured to acquire a function specific to the user (“patient model”; “pre-determined mathematical function”; “transformation function ... parameters selected based on patient model parameters”, para. [0111, 0122, 0135-0137, 0161-0162, 0179-0185]), the function characterizing the user's perception of sound (“patient model represents everything that is known about the patient's hearing”; “transformation function ... depends upon and/or reacts-to changes in the head direction of the test subject in real-time”, para. [0135-0136, 0161-0192, 0179-0186]); adjust a predetermined waveform using the function specific to the user (“modify … properties of the audio stimulus”; “frequency and level … pre-determined test pattern … selected based on model parameters”; “pre-defined transformation function g(θ) and pass parameters determined using the transformation function g(θ)””; “stereo stimulus waveform”, para. [0031, 0122, 0128, 0137-0140, 0183-0186, 0291]); control generation of an audio sound corresponding to the predetermined waveform and based on the function specific to the user (“produce audio stimulus signals … audio output”; “passes the transformed parameter θ.sub.out to the audio signal generator to generate audio stimuli”, para. [0031, 0122, 0140, 0143, 0163-0164]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Salemme, as modified by hereinabove, such that the processing circuitry is configured to acquire a function specific to the user, the function characterizing the user's perception of sound; adjust a predetermined waveform using the function specific to the user; control generation of an audio sound corresponding to the predetermined waveform and based on the function specific to the user, in view of the teachings of Horne, as this would aid in modifying the frequency and level of stimulus for maximizing an expected gain information that will be realized by the patient’s response and would aid in setting the sensitivity of the transformed/generated audio stimuli to induce, increase and/or decrease movement of the head of the test subject in response to the stimulus.
Regarding claim 6, Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined waveform has a predetermined duration (“predefined sound … shorter than 5 seconds … sound duration”, para. [0124]).
Regarding claim 7, Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry (“control unit 13 … programmable microcontroller ... data processing unit”, para. [0051, 0065-0066]) is further configured to determine the second location within the three-dimensional environment from where the user considers the audio sound to have originated in accordance with a gaze direction of the user in response to the generation of the audio sound (“measuring an orientation of the gaze”; “data relative to the head orientation and gaze orientation … indicates that the subject turned his/her head and eyes towards the perceived locations when the estimated locations”, para. [0062, 0076, 0128, 0159]).
Regarding claim 8, Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the processing circuitry (“control unit 13 … programmable microcontroller ... data processing unit”, para. [0051, 0065-0066]) is further configured to determine gaze direction of the user using an eye-tracking system (“eye tracking device … measuring an orientation of the gaze of the subject 2”, para. [0062, 0076]).
Regarding claim 13, Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, discloses information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry (“control unit 13 … programmable microcontroller ... data processing unit”, para. [0051, 0065-0066]) is further configured to determine a change in the level of cognitive function in the user in accordance with a comparison a difference with at least one of an expected value or a threshold value (Salemme “said difference is found to exceed a predefined threshold value for a predefined number of test sequences for at least one target location”, para. [0141] & Tinjust “comparing the observed responsiveness with expected responsiveness”; “comparison data”, para. [0116, 0140, 0149-0150, 0156]).
Regarding claim 14, Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, does not disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine a change in the level of cognitive function in the user in accordance with a degree of change of the difference when compared to a historical value of the difference for the user.
However, Tinjust discloses wherein the processing circuitry (“processor”; “main module”; para. [0088-0089, 0143], fig. 6C) is further configured to determine a change in the level of cognitive function in the user in accordance with a degree of change of the difference when compared to a historical value of the difference for the user (“cognitive function evaluation module 205 compares the correlation of the performance … a previous correlation from the same patient … evaluating an improvement or deterioration of the patient's condition … degree of the improvement/deterioration”; “comparing the retrieved values of the previous cognitive function evaluations with the current values”; “spatial shift … yields tailored correlation data”, para. [0111-0112, 0130, 0156]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, such that the processing circuitry is further configured to determine a change in the level of cognitive function in the user in accordance with a degree of change of the difference when compared to a historical value of the difference for the user, in view of the teachings of Tinjust, as this would aid in evaluating the degree of improvement/deterioration in cognitive function of the user.
Regarding claim 17, Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, does not disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine a change in the level of cognitive function in the user by comparing the difference between the source location and the second location with previous data of the user.
However, Tinjust discloses wherein the processing circuitry (“processor”; “main module”; para. [0088-0089, 0143], fig. 6C) is further configured to determine a change in the level of cognitive function in the user by comparing the difference between the source location and the second location with previous data of the user (“cognitive function evaluation module 205 compares the correlation of the performance … a previous correlation from the same patient … evaluating an improvement or deterioration of the patient's condition … degree of the improvement/deterioration”; “comparing the retrieved values of the previous cognitive function evaluations with the current values”; “spatial shift … yields tailored correlation data”, para. [0111-0112, 0130, 0156]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, such that the processing circuitry is further configured to determine a change in the level of cognitive function in the user in accordance with a degree of change of the difference when compared to an historical value of the difference for the user, in view of the teachings of Tinjust, as this would aid in evaluating the degree of improvement/deterioration in cognitive function of the user.
Regarding claim 18, Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, discloses analyzing the user's response to the generation of the audio sound at predetermined intervals of time (“test sequence … time intervals … acquisition … time is recorded alongside each measurement”; “computes ... the difference … exceed predefined threshold … abnormal condition”, para. [0131, 0135, 0140]).
Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, does not disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine a change in the level of cognitive function in the user by analyzing the user's response to the generation of the audio sound at predetermined intervals of time.
However, Tinjust discloses wherein the processing circuitry (“processor”; “main module”; para. [0088-0089, 0143], fig. 6C) is configured to determine a change in the level of cognitive function in the user by analyzing the user's response to the generation of the audio sound (“cognitive testing module 202 may assess cognitive performance level as a function of time by assessing changes in the cognitive exercise results … result indicative of the improvement/deterioration, and of the degree of the improvement/deterioration”; “comparing the retrieved values of the previous cognitive function evaluations with the current values”; “result data is generated as a function of the sound produced”; “spatial shift … yields tailored correlation data”, para. [0104, 0111-0112, 0130, 0153, 0156]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, such that the processing circuitry is configured to determine a change in the level of cognitive function in the user by analyzing the user's response to the generation of the audio sound at predetermined intervals of time, in view of the teachings of Tinjust, as this would aid in evaluating the degree of improvement/deterioration in cognitive function of the user.
Regarding claim 20, Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 17. Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, does not disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine an increase or a decline in cognitive function as a change in the level of cognitive function.
However, Tinjust discloses wherein the processing circuitry (“processor”; “main module”; para. [0088-0089, 0143], fig. 6C) is further configured to determine an increase or a decline in cognitive function as a change in the level of cognitive function (“cognitive function evaluation module 205 compares the correlation of the performance … a previous correlation from the same patient … evaluating an improvement or deterioration of the patient's condition … degree of the improvement/deterioration”; “comparing the retrieved values of the previous cognitive function evaluations with the current values”; “spatial shift … yields tailored correlation data”, para. [0111-0112, 0130, 0156])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, such that the processing circuitry is further configured to determine an increase or a decline in cognitive function as a change in the level of cognitive function, in view of the teachings of Tinjust, as this would aid in evaluating the degree of improvement/deterioration in cognitive function of the user.
Regarding claim 21, Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, discloses information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the information processing apparatus is a wearable electronic device (“head-mounted visual display system worn by the subject”, Abstract, para. [0054]), the wearable electronic device being one of at least an ear bud, an earphone, a set of headphones or a head mounted display (head-mounted display 10, fig. 1, para. [0054]).
Regarding claim 22, Salemme discloses Salemme discloses an information processing method (fig. 6, Abstract, para. [0097]) for testing abilities of a user (“specific abilities of subject 2 may be tested”; “auditory perception capabilities of subject 2 are measured”, para. [0061, 0131]), the method (fig. 6) comprising: generating an audio sound corresponding to a predetermined waveform (“play a predefined sound”, para. [0124]), wherein the audio sound is generated, for the user, to originate from a source location within a three-dimensional environment (“spatial coordinates … axes X, Y, and Z”; “selects spatial coordinates of a target location for sound source 11 … emission of a predefined sound from sound source 11”; “three-dimensional map”, para. [0075, 0095, 121-0124, 0144], fig. 5); determining a second location within the three-dimensional environment from where the user considers the audio sound to have originated based on a response of the user to the generation of the audio sound (“spatial coordinates … axes X, Y, and Z”; “measure spatial coordinates estimated location of sound source 11 as perceived by subject 2 during each test sequence”; “ estimated location of sound source 11 is acquired”; “three-dimensional map”, para. [0071, 0125-0127, 0144]); and determining auditory perception capabilities/an abnormal condition of the auditory system in the user in accordance with a difference between the source location and the second location (“auditory perception capabilities of subject 2 are measured”; “control unit 13 computes, for each test sequence, the difference between the respective spatial coordinates of each estimated target location and the corresponding target location chosen for this test sequence … difference … exceed threshold … abnormal condition”, para. [0131, 0140-0141], figs. 7-8). Salemme further discloses that a comparison can be drawn between the estimated and actual positions (para. [0004]).
Salemme does not disclose the information processing method for determining a level of cognitive function in a user, determining the level of cognitive function in the user in accordance with a difference between the source location and the second location.
However, Tinjust directed to an apparatus for evaluating cognitive function of a patient with a sound generator/ head mounted display with speakers (fig. 6C, para. [0153]) and retrieving result data generated as a function of sound produced (para. [0153]) discloses the information processing method for determining a level of cognitive function in a user (Abstract, para. [0153], fig. 6C) and determining the level of cognitive function in the user (“generate a cognitive evaluation of the patient … profile of the patient”, para. [0150]) in accordance with a difference (“spatial shift”, para. [0149, 0156, 0159]) between the source location (“expected responsiveness”, “expected eye movement data ... spatial shift”, para. [0140, 0156, 0159]) and the second location (“observed responsiveness”; “eye tracking data … spatial shift”, para. [0140, 0156, 0159]) (“cognitive performance level … assessed as a function of the patient's ability to carry out the cognitive exercise”; “comparison data … spatial shift … integrative analyzer analyses the comparison data … processed by the intelligence module to generate a cognitive evaluation of the patient”; “cognitive performance data”, para. [0116, 0140, 0149-0150, 0156]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Salemme to comprise the information processing method for determining a level of cognitive function in a user and determining the level of cognitive function in the user in accordance with a difference between the source location and the second location, in view of the teachings of Tinjust, as this would aid in evaluating cognitive performance of the patient based on a result/tailored correlation data generated as a function of the sound produced (Tinjust, para. [0153, 0156]).
Salemme further discloses the that the source emits a predefined sound (para. [0124]). Salemme, as modified by Tinjust, does not disclose acquiring a function specific to the user, the function characterizing the user's perception of sound; adjusting a predetermined waveform using the function specific to the user; generating an audio sound corresponding to the predetermined waveform and based on the function specific to the user.
However, Horne directed to directed to a device for performing a hearing test on a test subject discloses acquiring a function specific to the user (“patient model”; “pre-determined mathematical function”; “transformation function ... parameters selected based on patient model parameters”, para. [0111, 0122, 0135-0137, 0161-0162, 0179-0185]), the function characterizing the user's perception of sound (“patient model represents everything that is known about the patient's hearing”; “transformation function ... depends upon and/or reacts-to changes in the head direction of the test subject in real-time”, para. [0135-0136, 0161-0192, 0179-0186]); adjusting a predetermined waveform using the function specific to the user (“modify … properties of the audio stimulus”; “frequency and level … pre-determined test pattern … selected based on model parameters”; “pre-defined transformation function g(θ) and pass parameters determined using the transformation function g(θ)””; “stereo stimulus waveform”, para. [0031, 0122, 0128, 0137-0140, 0183-0186, 0291]); generating an audio sound corresponding to the predetermined waveform and based on the function specific to the user (“produce audio stimulus signals … audio output”; “passes the transformed parameter θ.sub.out to the audio signal generator to generate audio stimuli”, para. [0031, 0122, 0140, 0143, 0163-0164]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Salemme, as modified by hereinabove, such that method comprises acquiring a function specific to the user, the function characterizing the user's perception of sound; adjusting a predetermined waveform using the function specific to the user; and generating an audio sound corresponding to the predetermined waveform and based on the function specific to the user, in view of the teachings of Horne, as this would aid in modifying the frequency and level of stimulus for maximizing an expected gain information that will be realized by the patient’s response and would aid in setting the sensitivity of the transformed/generated audio stimuli to induce, increase and/or decrease movement of the head of the test subject in response to the stimulus.
Regarding claim 23, Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, discloses at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon (“data storage unit … Flash memory module … instructions”, para. [0065-0066]), that when implemented by at least on processor (“computer”, para. [0065-0066]), cause the at least one processor to perform the information processing method according to claim 22 (“execute … method”, para. [0066] & see claim 22 above).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salemme in view of Tinjust and Horne, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Helwani (US 9848273 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, does not disclose wherein the function specific to the user characterizing the user's perception of sound describes how the user receives a sound from a particular point in the three-dimensional environment.
However, Helwani directed to hearing devices discloses a function specific to a user (“head related transfer function”; “individualized HRTF”, col. 3 line 19 – col. 4 line 28 & col. 5 line 27- col. 6 line 15), wherein the function specific to the user characterizing the user's perception of sound describes how the user receives a sound from a particular point in the three-dimensional environment (“virtual sound in a three dimensional virtual sound space … head related transfer function (HRTF)”, col. 3 line 19 – col. 4 line 28 & col. 5 line 27-col. 6 line 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, such that the function specific to the user characterizing the user's perception of sound describes how the user receives a sound from a particular point in the three-dimensional environment, in view of the teachings of Helwani, as this would aid in allowing the user to perceive a location of the virtual source of the sound by providing a spatialized acoustic sound based on individualized head related transfer functions.
Regarding claim 4, Salemme, as modified by Tinjust, Horne, and Helwani hereinabove, discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 3. Salemme, as modified by Tinjust, Horne, and Helwani hereinabove, does not disclose wherein the function specific to the user characterizing how the user receives the sound from the particular point in the three-dimensional environment is a head-related transfer function.
However, Helwani directed to hearing devices discloses a function specific to a user (“head related transfer function”; “individualized HRTF”, col. 3 line 19 – col. 4 line 28 & col. 5 line 27- col. 6 line 15), wherein the function specific to the user characterizing how the user receives the sound from the particular point in the three-dimensional environment is a head-related transfer function (“virtual sound in a three dimensional virtual sound space … head related transfer function (HRTF)”, col. 3 line 19 – col. 4 line 28 & col. 5 lines 27-col. 6 line 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Salemme, as modified by Tinjust, Horne, and Helwani hereinabove, such that the function specific to the user characterizing how the user receives the sound from the particular point in the three-dimensional environment is a head-related transfer function, in view of the teachings of Helwani, as this would aid in allowing the user to perceive a location of the virtual source of the sound by providing a spatialized acoustic sound based on individualized head related transfer functions.
Regarding claim 5, Salemme, as modified by Tinjust, Horne, and Helwani hereinabove, discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 3. Salemme, as modified by Tinjust, Horne, and Helwani hereinabove, does not disclose wherein the function specific to the user characterizes how each ear of the user receives the sound from the particular point in the three-dimensional environment.
However, Helwani directed to hearing devices discloses a function specific to a user (“head related transfer function”; “individualized HRTF”, col. 3 line 19 – col. 4 line 28 & col. 5 line 27- col. 6 line 15), wherein the function specific to the user characterizes how each ear of the user receives the sound from the particular point in the three-dimensional environment (“virtual sound in a three dimensional virtual sound space … head related transfer function (HRTF)”; “individualizing the HRTFs for both left and right ears simultaneously or sequentially … binaural spatialization”, col. 3 line 19 – col. 4 line 28 & col. 5 lines 27-col. 6 line 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Salemme, as modified by Tinjust, Horne, and Helwani hereinabove, such that the function specific to the user characterizing how the user receives the sound from the particular point in the three-dimensional environment is a head-related transfer function, in view of the teachings of Helwani, as this would aid in allowing the user to perceive a location of the virtual source of the sound by providing a binaural spatialized acoustic sound based on individualized head related transfer functions of both left and right ears.
Claims 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salemme in view of Tinjust and Horne, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McKinney (US 20200275216 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 8, further including the eye-tracking system (“eye tracking device … measuring an orientation of the gaze of the subject 2”, para. [0062, 0076]), wherein the eye-tracking system is configured to determine the gaze direction of the user (“measuring an orientation of the gaze of the subject 2”, para. [0062, 0076]). Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, does not disclose wherein the eye-tracking system is configured to determine the gaze direction of the user by eye movement related eardrum oscillations.
However, McKinney directed to obtaining one or more processing circuits obtains eye movement-related eardrum oscillation (EMREO)-related measurements from one or more EMREO sensors of a hearing instrument discloses an eye tracking system (“detect and track eye movements”; hearing instrument 400 comprising EMREO sensors 434 & EOG electrodes 300A, 300B, para. [0019-0020, 0096], fig. 4) wherein the eye-tracking system is configured to determine the gaze direction of the user by eye movement related eardrum oscillations (“eye movement-related eardrum oscillation (EMREO) sensors”; “determine, based on EMREO-related measurements, a direction of gaze of user 104”, Abstract, para. [0064, 0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, such that the eye-tracking system is configured to determine the gaze direction of the user by eye movement related eardrum oscillations, in view of the teachings of McKinney, as such a modification would have been merely a substitution of the eye-tracking device of Salemme for the EMREO sensors & EOG electrodes of McKinney in order to more robustly detect and track eye movements and generate data related to the user's physical health, mental or emotional health, or a combination thereof (McKinney, para. [0020, 0096]).
Regarding claim 10, Salemme, as modified by Tinjust, Horne, and McKinney hereinabove, discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 9 Salemme, as modified by Tinjust, Horne, and McKinney hereinabove, does not disclose wherein the eye-tracking system is configured to: record eye movement related eardrum oscillation sounds in an ear canal of the user generated by eye movement of the user; determine an eye angle of each eye of the user based on recorded eye movements related to eardrum oscillation sounds; and determine the gaze direction of the user based on the eye angle of each the eyes of the user.
However, McKinney directed to obtaining one or more processing circuits obtains eye movement-related eardrum oscillation (EMREO)-related measurements from one or more EMREO sensors of a hearing instrument discloses wherein the eye-tracking system (“detect and track eye movements”; hearing instrument 400 comprising EMREO sensors 434 & EOG electrodes 300A, 300B, para. [0019-0020, 0096], fig. 4) is configured to: record eye movement related eardrum oscillation sounds in an ear canal of the user generated by eye movement of the user (“obtain EMREO-related measurements”; “eye movement-related eardrum oscillation (EMREO) sensors”, Abstract, para. [0030, 0064, 0094]); determine an eye angle of each eye of the user based on recorded eye movements related to eardrum oscillation sounds (“for instance, if the EMREO-related measurements indicate EMREOs corresponding to an eye movement 45-degrees to the left of the center of user 104”, para. [0018, 0064]); and determine the gaze direction of the user based on the eye angle of each the eyes of the user (“eye movement-related eardrum oscillation (EMREO) sensors”; “determine, based on EMREO-related measurements, a direction of gaze of user 104 … processors may determine that the salient object is located in a direction 45-degrees to the left of the center of user 104”, Abstract, para. [0064, 0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Salemme, as modified by Tinjust, Horne, and McKinney hereinabove, such that the eye-tracking system is configured to: record eye movement related eardrum oscillation sounds in an ear canal of the user generated by eye movement of the user; determine an eye angle of each eye of the user based on recorded eye movements related to eardrum oscillation sounds; and determine the gaze direction of the user based on the eye angle of each the eyes of the user, in view of the teachings of McKinney, as such a modification would have been merely a substitution of the eye-tracking device of Salemme for the EMREO sensors & EOG electrodes of McKinney in order to more robustly detect and track eye movements, determine gaze direction, and generate data related to the user's physical health, mental or emotional health, or a combination thereof (McKinney, para. [0020, 0064, 0096]).
Regarding claim 12, Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 8, further including the eye-tracking system (“eye-tracking device integrated with head-mounted visual display system 10”, para. [0062, 0128]). Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, does not disclose wherein the eye-tracking system comprises a plurality of sound recording devices configured to record sounds in ear canals of the user generated in accordance with the gaze direction of the user.
However, McKinney directed to obtaining one or more processing circuits obtains eye movement-related eardrum oscillation (EMREO)-related measurements from one or more EMREO sensors of a hearing instrument discloses an eye tracking system (“detect and track eye movements”; hearing instrument 400 comprising EMREO sensors 434 & EOG electrodes 300A, 300B, para. [0019-0020, 0096], fig. 4), wherein the eye-tracking system comprises a plurality of sound recording devices (EMREO sensors 106, para. [0028]) configured to record sounds in ear canals of the user generated in accordance with the gaze direction of the user (“soundwaves … ear canals”; “determine, based on EMREO-related measurements, a direction of gaze of user 104”, para. [0028, 0034, 0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, such that the eye-tracking system comprises a plurality of sound recording devices configured to record sounds in ear canals of the user generated in accordance with the gaze direction of the user, in view of the teachings of McKinney, as such a modification would have been merely a substitution of the eye-tracking device of Salemme for the EMREO sensors & EOG electrodes of McKinney in order to more robustly detect and track eye movements and generate data related to the user's physical health, mental or emotional health, or a combination thereof (McKinney, para. [0020, 0096]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salemme in view of Tinjust and Horne, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Bradski (US 20190094981 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 8 further including the eye-tracking system (“eye-tracking device integrated with head-mounted visual display system 10”, para. [0062, 0128]). Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, does not expressly disclose wherein the eye-tracking system comprises one or more image capture devices which are configured to capture an image of eyes of the user.
However, Bradski directed to configurations for presenting virtual reality and augmented reality experiences to users using a head-mounted display (HMD)/AR device (Abstract, para. [0194, 0157]) having an eye tracking module (fig. 137, para. [0157, 1002-1006, 1019]) discloses wherein the eye-tracking system (eye tracking module, fig. 137, para. [0157, 1002-1006, 1019]) comprises one or more image capture devices which are configured to capture an image of eyes of the user (“captured images … inward facing cameras … track a user’s eye”; “gaze tracking hardware”, para. [1002-1006, 1019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, such that the eye-tracking system comprises one or more image capture devices which are configured to capture an image of eyes of the user, in view of the teachings of Bradski, as such a modification would have been merely a substitution of the eye-tracking device of Salemme for the eye tracking module/cameras of Bradski as this would aid in tracking eye gaze for correlating eye coordinates with world coordinates (Bradski, para. [1006]).
Claims 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salemme in view of Tinjust and Horne, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Samec (US 20170365101 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry (“control unit 13 … programmable microcontroller ... data processing unit”, para. [0051, 0065-0066]) is further configured to provide visual stimuli to the user (“display … visual information … information about the exact or fictitious location of sound sources”, para. [0060-0061, 0126]), wherein one of the visual stimuli has a location corresponding to the source location (“visual information … information about the exact or fictitious location of sound sources”, para. [0060-0061, 0126]); and determine the second location within the three-dimensional environment from where the user considers the second audio sound originated based on a response of the user to the generation of the audio sound and provision of the visual stimuli (“possible to detect interactions between the auditory system and the visual system of subject 2 … video motion capture system 14 … orientation of the gaze of subject 2 is also measured by the eye-tracking device … records of the spatial coordinates of the estimated and actual positions of sound source 11”; “computes, for each test sequence, the difference’, para. [0060-0061, 0126-0128, 0140]).
Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, does not disclose the visual stimuli being distributed at a plurality of discrete locations within the three-dimensional environment.
However, Samec directed to an augmented reality display configured to perform a neurological analysis and configured to deliver multiple sensory cues with modal, spatial, and/or temporal mismatching (para. [0820-0821]) discloses (“circuitry … processing module”, para. [0546]) configured to provide visual stimuli (“visual stimuli”, para, [0818-0821]), the visual stimuli being distributed at a plurality of discrete locations within the three-dimensional environment (“three-dimensional imagery … virtual object”; “stimulus … projected in a three-dimensional color space”; “visual stimuli … delivered to the user … locations in space … spatial localization … virtual object accompanied by one or more sounds, some of which are selected to appear to emanate from a location coinciding with the virtual object”, para. [0418, 0667, 0818-0821]). Samec further discloses that the extent of the ventriloquism effect in the user may be determined, and/or one or more neurological conditions associated with an increased or decreased ventriloquism effect may be indicated based on the user's response (para. [0821]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, such that the visual stimuli being distributed at a plurality of discrete locations within the three-dimensional environment, in view of the teachings of Samec, as this would aid in determining the extent of the ventriloquism effect in the user and indicating one or more neurological conditions associated with an increased or decreased ventriloquism based on the user’s response.
Regarding claim 16, Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 and the difference between the source location and the second location is within a predetermined threshold (“difference … predefined threshold”, para. [0140-0141]). Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, does not disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to assign a difficulty score to each audio sound; increase a skill level of the user, when the difference between the source location and the second location is within a predetermined threshold, by an amount corresponding to the difficulty score; and adapt the audio sounds generated for the user in accordance with the skill level of the user.
However, Samec directed to an augmented reality display configured to perform a neurological analysis and configured to deliver multiple sensory cues with modal, spatial, and/or temporal mismatching (para. [0820-0821]) discloses wherein the processing circuitry (“circuitry … processing module”, para. [0546]) is further configured to assign a difficulty score to each audio sound (“harder … easier … sound locations closer”, para. [0824]); increase a skill level of the user, based on the user’s correct or incorrect perception of the locations, by an amount corresponding to the difficulty score (“harder when the user is doing well in separately locating the visual and audio stimuli and easier when they are incorrectly perceiving the respective locations of the visual and audio stimuli”, para. [0824]); and adapt the audio sounds generated for the user in accordance with the skill level of the user (“stimuli applied to the user may be altered and adjusting in real time based on feedback from the user … bringing the sound to locations closer”, para. [0824]). Samec further discloses that the extent of the ventriloquism effect in the user may be determined, and/or one or more neurological conditions associated with an increased or decreased ventriloquism effect may be indicated based on the user's response (para. [0821]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, such that the processing circuitry is further configured to assign a difficulty score to each audio sound; increase a skill level of the user, when the difference between the source location and the second location is within a predetermined threshold, by an amount corresponding to the difficulty score; and adapt the audio sounds generated for the user in accordance with the skill level of the user, in view of the teachings of Samec, as this would aid in determining the extent of the ventriloquism effect in the user and indicating one or more neurological conditions associated with an increased or decreased ventriloquism effect based on the user’s response.
Regarding claim 19, Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, does not disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to provide feedback to the user according to changes in the determined level of cognitive function, the feedback including at least one of: a determined alert level, a risk of dementia, a level of dementia and/or advice on preventing dementia.
However, Samec directed to an augmented reality display configured to perform a neurological analysis discloses wherein the processing circuitry (“circuitry … processing module”, para. [0546]) is further configured to provide feedback to the user according to changes in the determined level of cognitive function (“generate an alert to send to the user … provide notification of the identified abnormality … neurological conditions”; “assess a user's cognitive functioning … cognitive changes”, para. [0493, 0497, 0542, 0715]), the feedback including at least one of: a determined alert level, a risk of dementia, a level of dementia and/or advice on preventing dementia (“a sign of a traumatic brain injury or dementia”; “cognitive impairment associated with conditions … dementia … cognitive changes”, para. [0525, 0542, 0575, 0715]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, such that the processing circuitry is further configured to provide feedback to the user according to changes in the determined level of cognitive function, the feedback including at least one of: a determined alert level, a risk of dementia, a level of dementia and/or advice on preventing dementia, in view of the teachings of Samec, as this would aid in notifying a user of cognitive changes associated with signs of dementia (Samec, para. [0493, 0525]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Liao (US 20190116441 A1) directed to a sound reproducing method used in sound reproducing apparatus.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW ELI HOFFPAUIR whose telephone number is (571)272-4522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/A.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/AURELIE H TU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights