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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1002” has been used to designate both the processor circuitry and the network connection. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “90012” has been used to designate both the average perceived sound error unit and the cognitive decline risk calculation unit. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The disclosure recites “car”, “cars” and “car canals” in multiple paragraphs of the published application. “car”, “cars”, and “car canals” should recite “ear”, “ears”, and “ear canals”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-5, 13-14, and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 3-5 “the function” should recite “the function specific to the user characterizing”.
In claim 13 “the calculated difference” should recite “the difference”.
In claim 14 “an historical value” should recite “a historical value”
Claim 23 should recite “A computer program product”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-23 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 (claims 2-21 by virtue of dependency) is an apparatus claim, however claim 1 recites steps of a method performed by circuitry. It is unclear what the structure of the apparatus/circuitry is that performs the steps/method and clarification is requested.
Claim 1 (claims 2-21 by virtue of dependency) recites the limitation “a user” in line 4. It is unclear if this is referring to the same user or a different user than recited in line 2. The limitation is suggested to recite “the user”.
Claim 2 recites “generate an audio sound”. It is unclear if this is referring to the same or a different audio sound than the audio sound generated in a claim 1. The limitation is suggested to recite “the audio sound” or “generate a second audio sound”. For examination purposes it will be interpreted as referring to the audio sound generated in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “a three dimensional environment”. It is unclear if this is referring to the same or a different three dimensional environment than recited in claim 1. The limitation is suggested to recite “the three dimensional environment”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-23 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 and 22, the claims recite a series of structural elements and a series of steps or acts, including an apparatus. Thus, claims 1-22 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;
measure 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 a user, and generating an audio sound 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 and generating an audio sound 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:
circuitry;
acquire a function specific to a user, the function characterizing the user's perception of sound;
generate an audio sound 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 and generating steps are well-understood, routine and conventional activities for those in the field of medical diagnostics. Further, the acquiring and generating steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant pre-solution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step 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 and comparing 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 and generating 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 circuitry recited in the claim is a generic apparatus comprising generic components configured to perform the abstract idea. The recited circuitry is configured to perform pre-solutional data gathering activity, and the 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 2-16, 19, and 21 merely recite steps for insignificant extra-solution activity (additional data-gathering and data-outputting), claims 17-20 merely further defines the measuring 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 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a "computer program product” is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. A "computer program product" is not tangible, as it is not tied to a structural element and could be transitory in nature. To overcome this 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Examiner suggests rewording the claim to recite that the computer program product is embodied on a “non-transitory computer readable medium”.
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 1-2, 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 circuitry (“control unit 13 … programmable microcontroller”, para. [0051, 0065-0066]) configured to: generate an audio sound (“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); 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 measure 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 measuring a level of cognitive function in a user and the circuitry configured to measure 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 measuring a level of cognitive function in a user (Abstract, para. [0153], fig. 6C) and circuitry (“processor”; “main module”; para. [0088-0089, 0143], fig. 6C) configured to measure 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 measuring a level of cognitive function in a user and such that the circuitry is configured to measure 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 the circuitry configured to acquire a function specific to a user, the function characterizing the user's perception of sound; and generate an audio sound 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 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 a user (“patient model”, para. [0111, 0135-0136]), the function characterizing the user's perception of sound (“patient model represents everything that is known about the patient's hearing”, para. [0135-0136]); and generate an audio sound based on the function specific to the user (“frequency and level of the stimulus are selected based on model parameters from the patient model”; “selected audio stimulus parameters and the selected source location to produce audio stimulus signals … maximise an expected gain in information that will be realised by the patient's response”, para. [0137, 0140-0143]).
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 hereinabove, such that the circuitry is configured to acquire a function specific to a user, the function characterizing the user's perception of sound and generate an audio sound based on the function specific to the user, in view of the teachings of Horne, as this would aid in selecting the frequency and level of stimulus for maximizing an expected gain information that will be realized by the patient’s response.
Regarding claim 2, 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 circuitry is further configured to adjust a predetermined waveform using the function specific to the user; and generate an audio sound corresponding to the adjusted waveform.
However, Horne discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to 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”; “stereo stimulus waveform”, para. [0031, 0140, 0291]); and generate an audio sound corresponding to the adjusted waveform (“produce audio stimulus signals … audio output”, para. [0031, 0140, 0143]).
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 circuitry is further configured to adjust a predetermined waveform using the function specific to the user; and generate an audio sound corresponding to the adjusted waveform, 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.
Regarding claim 6, Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the predetermined test 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 circuitry (“control unit 13 … programmable microcontroller”, 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 circuitry 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 circuitry is further configured to measure a change in the level of cognitive function in the user in accordance with a comparison of the calculated 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 circuitry is further configured to measure 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.
However, Tinjust discloses wherein the circuitry (“processor”; “main module”; para. [0088-0089, 0143], fig. 6C) is further configured to measure 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 (“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 circuitry is further configured to measure 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 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 circuitry is further configured to measure 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 circuitry (“processor”; “main module”; para. [0088-0089, 0143], fig. 6C) is further configured to measure 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 circuitry is further configured to measure 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 circuitry is configured to measure 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 circuitry (“processor”; “main module”; para. [0088-0089, 0143], fig. 6C) is configured to measure 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 circuitry is configured to measure 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 circuitry is further configured to measure an increase or a decline in cognitive function as a change in the level of cognitive function.
However, Tinjust discloses wherein the circuitry (“processor”; “main module”; para. [0088-0089, 0143], fig. 6C) is further configured to measure 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 circuitry is further configured to measure 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 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 (“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 measuring 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 measuring a level of cognitive function in a user, measuring 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 measuring a level of cognitive function in a user (Abstract, para. [0153], fig. 6C) and measuring 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 measuring a level of cognitive function in a user and measuring 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 a user, the function characterizing the user's perception of sound; generating an audio sound 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 a user (“patient model”, para. [0111, 0135-0136]), the function characterizing the user's perception of sound (“patient model represents everything that is known about the patient's hearing”, para. [0135-0136]); and generating an audio sound based on the function specific to the user (“frequency and level of the stimulus are selected based on model parameters from the patient model”; “selected audio stimulus parameters and the selected source location to produce audio stimulus signals … maximise an expected gain in information that will be realised by the patient's response”, para. [0137, 0140-0143]).
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 such that the circuitry is configured to acquire a function specific to a user, the function characterizing the user's perception of sound and generate an audio sound based on the function specific to the user, in view of the teachings of Horne, as this would aid in selecting the frequency and level of stimulus for maximizing an expected gain information that will be realized by the patient’s response.
Regarding claim 23, Salemme, as modified by Tinjust and Horne hereinabove, discloses a computer program product comprising instructions (“data storage unit … Flash memory module … instructions”, para. [0065-0066]) which, when implemented by a computer (“computer”, para. [0065-0066]), cause the computer to perform a 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 characterizing the user's perception of sound describes how the user receives a sound from a particular point in a 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 characterizing the user's perception of sound describes how the user receives a sound from a particular point in a 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 characterizing the user's perception of sound describes how the user receives a sound from a particular point in a 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 the user's ear canal generated by movement of the user's eyes; determine an eye angle of each of the user's eyes based on the recorded eye movement related eardrum oscillation sounds; and determine the gaze direction of the user based on the determined eye angle of each of the user's eyes.
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 the user's ear canal generated by movement of the user's eyes (“obtain EMREO-related measurements”; “eye movement-related eardrum oscillation (EMREO) sensors”, Abstract, para. [0030, 0064, 0094]); determine an eye angle of each of the user's eyes based on the recorded eye movement related 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 determined eye angle of each of the user's eyes (“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 the user's ear canal generated by movement of the user's eyes; determine an eye angle of each of the user's eyes based on the recorded eye movement related eardrum oscillation sounds; and determine the gaze direction of the user based on the determined eye angle of each of the user's eyes, 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 the user's ear canals generated in accordance with a 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 the user's ear canals generated in accordance with a 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 the user's ear canals generated in accordance with a 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 the user's eyes.
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 the user's eyes (“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 the user's eyes, 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 circuitry (“control unit 13 … programmable microcontroller”, 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 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 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 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 circuitry is further configured to provide feedback to the user in accordance with the change in the measured 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 circuitry (“circuitry … processing module”, para. [0546]) is further configured to provide feedback to the user in accordance with the change in the measured 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 circuitry is further configured to provide feedback to the user in accordance with the change in the measured 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: Tan (US 20220192541 A1) directed to hearing instruments and determining whether a user of the hearing instrument perceived a sound; Kaneko (US 20180204341 A1) directed to a technology for analyzing an ear shape that is used in calculating head-related transfer functions; Dillon (US 20170049368 A1) directed to methods for determining the hearing status of a person and adaptively adjusting SNR of the target sound based on a user response (para. [0035]).
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