DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 13, 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 13 and 15 read “based in part on at least one of the content and input” but should be corrected to “based in part on at least one of the content and an input” or “and a user input”. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as such.
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:
Claims 1: user effector configured to provide content to the at least one user
Claim 104: user effector configured to provide time-coded content to the at least one user
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. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure:
Claim 1: “user effector configured to provide content to the at least one user” As identified by the specification paragraph [0028], the at least one user effector may include at least one of earphones, speakers, a display, a scent diffuser, heater, climate controller, drug infuser or administrator, electric stimulator, medical device, a system to effect physical or chemical
changes in the body, restraints, mechanical device, a vibrotactile device, and a light.
Claim 104: “user effector configured to provide time-coded content to the at least one user” As identified by the specification paragraph [0447] – [0448], the at least one user effector may include at least one of earphones, speakers, a display, a scent diffuser, heater, climate controller, drug infuser or administrator, electric stimulator, medical device, a system to effect physical or chemical changes in the body, restraints, mechanical device, a vibrotactile device, and a light.
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
Claim 1 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation claims a “low moment” however the specification and claim does not define what is considered a low moment and how low the characteristic of the content element must be. For example, if the claim was defining a low moment by volume, specifically what volume threshold does the content have to approach to define a low moment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 10, 13, 15, 18-20, 24, 28, 36, 45, 48, 50, 53-55, 57, 61, and 104 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-2, 10, 13, 15, 18-20, 24, 28, 36, 45, 48, 50, 53-55, 57, 61, and 104 do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception into a practical application of the exception or sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons provided below which are in line with the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, p 74618, December 16, 2014), the July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 146, p. 45429, July 30, 2015), the May 2016 Subject Matter Eligibility Update (Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 88, p. 27381, May 6, 2016), and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, page 50, January 7, 2019), and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 89, No. 137 p. 58128, July 17, 2024).
Analysis for claims 1, 36, and 104 for subject matter eligibility is as follows:
Step 1: Claims 1 and 104 are drawn to a system and claim 36 is drawn to a method which are statutory categories.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Claims 1, 36, and 104 are drawn to an abstract idea in the form of a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
In particular, claim 1 recites the following limitations:
[A1]: “provide the content to the at least one user via the at least one user effector”
[B1]: “identify a natural pause or a natural low moment in the content at a time code”
[C1]: “compute a difference between the user state of the at least one user at the time code before an interval and the target user state using the bio-signals of the at least one user”
[D1]: “modify one or more of the content elements provided to the at least one user during the interval based on the difference between the user state of the at least one user before the interval and the target user state”
[E1]: “compute a difference between the user state of the at least one user after the interval and the target user state using the bio-signals of the at least one user”
[F1]: “modify one or more of the content elements provided to the at least one user after the interval based on the difference between the user state of the at least one user after the interval and the target user state.”
In particular, claim 36 recites the following limitations:
[G1]: “receiving bio-signals of at least one user”
[H1]: “providing content to the at least one user”
[I1]: “identifying a natural pause or a natural low moment in the content at a first time code”
[J1]: “computing a difference between the user state of the at least one user at the time code before an interval and the target user state using the bio-signals of the at least one user”
[K1]: “modifying one or more of the content elements provided to the at least one user during the interval based on the difference between the user state of the at least one user before the interval and the target user state”
[L1]: “computing a difference between the user state of the at least one user after the interval and the target user state using the bio-signals of the at least one user”
[M1]: “modifying one or more of the content elements provided to the at least one user after the interval based on the difference between the user state of the at least one user after the interval and the target user state.”
In particular, claim 104 recites the following limitations:
[N1]: “provide the time-coded content to the at least one user via the at least one user effector;”
[O1]: “determine an initial user state of the at least one user at a time code, wherein the time code corresponds to a natural pause or a natural low moment in the content;”
[P1]: “modify one or more of the content elements provided to the at least one user;”
[Q1]: “determine a final user state of the at least one user after a test interval”
[R1]: “update the time-coded content to provide a content modification process comprising, a target user state, an interval, a modification, and at least one of a time code and a trigger user state, wherein the trigger user state is based on the initial user state, the target user state is based on the final user state, the interval is based on the test interval, and the modification and the time code are based on the modify one or more of the content elements step.”
These elements [A1] – [R1] of claims 1, 36, and 104 are drawn to an abstract idea because they are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, can be done mentally by a human mind or a human using a pen and paper. A skilled artisan, such as a medical doctor or research assistant can readily play music or display a show (provide content), keep track of time and check sensor readings of a user, compare the readings of the sensor to a previous time point, and modify the content.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Claims 1, 36, and 104 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 1, 36, and 104 recite the following additional elements:
[A2]: “at least one computing device in communication with at least one bio-signal sensor and at least one user effector;”
[B2]: “the at least one bio-signal sensor configured to measure bio-signals of at least one user”
In particular, claim 12 recites the following limitation:
[C2]: “the at least one user effector configured to provide time-coded content to the at least one user,”
Claim 36 recites no additional elements, and is not patent eligible for similar reasons as it is a method that is similar to the limitations in claim 1.
The elements [A2] –[C2] do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, each of the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Please see MPEP 2106.05 (f), Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Step 2B: Claims 1, 36, and 104 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Claims 1, 36, and 104 recite the following additional elements:
In particular, claims 1 and 104 recite the following limitations:
[A2]: “at least one computing device in communication with at least one bio-signal sensor and at least one user effector;”
[B2]: “the at least one bio-signal sensor configured to measure bio-signals of at least one user”
In particular, claim 12 recites the following limitation:
[C2]: “the at least one user effector configured to provide time-coded content to the at least one user,”
Claim 36 recites no additional elements, and is not patent eligible for similar reasons as it is a method that is similar to the limitations in claim 1.
The elements [A2]-[C2] do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. because these elements are adding well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry, recited at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium both of which are well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)). Additionally, the system described in the specification describes a processor that may belong to a “standard computer”.
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any specific disease or state of mind. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Dependent claims 2, 10, 13, 15, 18-20, 24, 28, 45, 48, 50, 53-55, 57, and 61 are also rejected under 35 USC 101 as these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the mental process or mathematical algorithm) and/or append abstract ideas (that is, the claims only recite limitations that add further mental processes or mathematical algorithms) and/or add additional elements that are not practical application or significantly more. Although specific steps are claimed such as “compute a difference between the user state of the at least one user at the time code before an interval and the target user state using the bio-signals of the at least one user” this step could be performed by someone skilled in the arts such as a doctor and physicist who can mentally calculate the difference between bio-signals such as an EEG or an ECG. Further, the specific steps claimed as “modify one or more of the content elements” amounts to insignificant data gathering and outputting. This would be an insignificant extra-solution activity and is not a practical application or significantly more. Please see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and MPEP 2106.05 (g).
In view of the above, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves inducing sleep states or other desired mental states. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the Aimoneer 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10, 13, 15, 20, 24, 28, 36-37, 45, 48, 50, 55, 57, 61, and 104 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garten (2015/0297109) (as cited in the applicant’s IDS) in view of Aimone (US 10009644).
Regarding claim 1, Garten discloses a computer system for achieving a target user state by modifying content elements provided to at least one user, the system comprising:
at least one computing device (paragraph [0058] “the computer system”) in communication with at least one bio-signal sensor (paragraph [0058] “computers is configured to receive signals from sensors worn by a user. In an implementation, the sensors include one more bio-signal sensors, such as electroencephalogram (EEG) sensors, galvanometer sensors, electrocardiograph sensors, heart rate sensors, eye-tracking sensors, blood pressure sensors, pedometers, gyroscopes, and any other type of sensor.”) and at least one user effector (paragraph [0058] “The headset may further be in communication with another computing device, such as a laptop, tablet, or mobile phone” The examiner notes these devices contain a speaker and a display.);
the at least one bio-signal sensor configured to measure bio-signals of at least one user (paragraph [0006] “at least one bio-signal sensor configured to capture bio-signal sensor data from at least one user”);
the at least one user effector configured to provide content to the at least one user, wherein the content comprises one or more content elements (paragraph [0013] “the system may have a music effect controller to influence user state by playback or recording of music based the at least one music recommendation.” Paragraph [0888] – [0896] “The following is a list of Music Effects that the Music Processor can apply: change of tempo, filtering—changing the amplification level of different frequency bands in the music, changes in left/right balance, reverberation spatialization, room models, pitch shifting, chirp effects”.)
the at least one computing device configured to: provide the content to the at least one user via the at least one user effector (paragraph [0068] “the at least one computing device configured to: present at least one digital content item”);
compute a difference between the user state of the at least one user at the time code before an interval and the target user state using the bio-signals of the at least one user (paragraph [0563] “The EEG-sensing device tracks Billy's brainwave activity while he listens to music in bed” paragraph [0568] “As the music plays while Billy is in bed, the EEG device is monitoring his brain state and delivering that information to the app on his mobile device” paragraph [0569] “When the EEG device detects that Billy is approaching a sleep state, the app automatically fades the music volume down” The examiner notes that the EEG is monitoring the brain waves and can detect when there is difference between the awake state (user state) and the sleep/tired state (target user state).);
modify one or more of the content elements provided to the at least one user during the interval based on the difference between the user state of the at least one user before the interval and the target user state (paragraph [0570] “When the EEG device detects that Billy has fallen asleep, the app on his device fades out the music entirely”);
compute a difference between the user state of the at least one user after the interval and the target user state using the bio-signals of the at least one user (paragraph [0572] “This process will repeat in a loop as many times as is necessary for Billy to sleep peacefully throughout the night” The examiner notes that if the process repeats in a loop, then the system will compute a difference in user state after an interval and the target user state using bio-signals.)
modify one or more of the content elements provided to the at least one user after the interval based on the difference between the user state of the at least one user after the interval and the target user state. (paragraph [0571] “If Billy wakes up at any point during the night, the EEG device will detect this change and music that supports sleep will begin to play again”)
However, Garten fails to teach that the system can identify a natural pause or a natural low moment in the content at a time code.
Aimone teaches a system that modulates content based on brain waves that labels EEG data with time stamps according to pauses or low moments in the content. (Column 40, line 45: The application may also assign information including: User ID; Activity Type “watching video”; and application Data including Signal Type (e.g. EEG), timestamps per EEG sample, timestamps associated with start and stop of watching the video, and raw EEG data per channel. The application may label the timestamp “start of video” into the EEG data.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system taught by Garten in view of Aimone. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that recording the brain waves during a moment when content or stimulation is not being provided would provide an accurate brain wave reading to determine if the content should continue or be changed.
Regarding claim 36, Garten teaches A method for achieving a target user state by modifying content elements provided to at least one user, the method comprising:
receiving bio-signals of at least one user; (paragraph [0006] “at least one bio-signal sensor configured to capture bio-signal sensor data from at least one user”);
providing content to the at least one user, the content comprising one or more content elements; (paragraph [0068] “the at least one computing device configured to: present at least one digital content item”);
computing a difference between a user state of the at least one user at the first time code before an interval and the target user state using the bio-signals of the at least one user (paragraph [0563] “The EEG-sensing device tracks Billy's brainwave activity while he listens to music in bed” paragraph [0568] “As the music plays while Billy is in bed, the EEG device is monitoring his brain state and delivering that information to the app on his mobile device” paragraph [0569] “When the EEG device detects that Billy is approaching a sleep state, the app automatically fades the music volume down” The examiner notes that the EEG is monitoring the brain waves and can detect when there is difference between the awake state (user state) and the sleep/tired state (target user state).);
modifying one or more of the content elements provided to the at least one user during the interval based on the difference between the user state of the at least one user before the interval and the target user state (paragraph [0570] “When the EEG device detects that Billy has fallen asleep, the app on his device fades out the music entirely”);
computing a difference between the user state of the at least one user after an interval and the target user state using the bio-signals of the at least one user (paragraph [0572] “This process will repeat in a loop as many times as is necessary for Billy to sleep peacefully throughout the night” The examiner notes that if the process repeats in a loop, then the system will compute a difference in user state after an interval and the target user state using bio-signals.)
modifying one or more of the content elements provided to the at least one user after the interval based on the difference between the user state of the at least one user after the interval and the target user state. (paragraph [0571] “If Billy wakes up at any point during the night, the EEG device will detect this change and music that supports sleep will begin to play again”)
However, Garten fails to teach that the system can identifying a natural pause or a natural low moment in the content at a first time code.
Aimone teaches a system that modulates content based on brain waves that labels EEG data with time stamps according to pauses or low moments in the content. (Column 40, line 45: The application may also assign information including: User ID; Activity Type “watching video”; and application Data including Signal Type (e.g. EEG), timestamps per EEG sample, timestamps associated with start and stop of watching the video, and raw EEG data per channel. The application may label the timestamp “start of video” into the EEG data.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system taught by Garten in view of Aimone. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that recording the brain waves during a moment when content or stimulation is not being provided would provide an accurate brain wave reading to determine if the content should continue or be changed.
Regarding claim 2 and 37, Garten in view of Aimone teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the compute a difference between the user state of the at least one user before an interval and the target user state comprises determining that a trigger user state has been achieved using the bio-signals of the at least one user. (paragraph [0569] “When the EEG device detects that Billy is approaching a sleep state, the app automatically fades the music volume down“ The examiner notes that the trigger state is that the user has approached a tired or pre-sleep state.)
Regarding claims 10 and 45, Garten in view of Aimone teaches the system of claim 1 and method of claim 36, Garten further teaches wherein the interval is based in part on at least one of a current user state of the at least one user, the content, and user input. (paragraph [0571] “If Billy wakes up at any point during the night, the EEG device will detect this change and music that supports sleep will begin to play again”. The examiner notes that the system will detect the change in brain state after an interval that is dependent on the user state of being awake or asleep.)
Regarding claims 13 and 48, Garten in view of Aimone teaches the system of claim 1 and method of claim 36, Garten further teaches wherein the target user state is based in part on at least one of the content and input. (paragraph [0859] “The user can select a target state that they want to achieve”)
Regarding claims 15 and 50, Garten in view of Aimone teaches the system of claim 2 and method of claim 37, Garten further teaches the system of claim 2 wherein the trigger user state is based in part on at least one of the content and input. (paragraph [0576] “The user can listen to Music that contains 13-15 hz binaural beats to entrain the brain. The user can listen to music and be wearing an EEG with sensors at, for example c3 and c4 (in 10-20 system), and when the user produces a 13-15 hz frequency the music will adjust as a reward for the listener,” The examiner notes that the trigger state of sleep/relaxation is dependent on the brain waves adjusting the content (binaural beats).)
Regarding claim 20, Garten in view of Aimone teaches the system of claim 1, Garten further teaches wherein the computing device is further configured to:
compute a difference between the user state of the at least one user during the interval and an exit user state using the bio-signals of the at least one user (paragraph [0747] “Jackson wears his wearable computing device of the present invention on a regular basis, most of the day almost every day. It monitors his brainwaves and every sound he hears (although it does not record them)” and paragraph [0751] “The system checks the last few minutes of his brainwave recording for any significant emotional events.” The examiner notes that since the device Is constantly monitoring the EEG signals of the user, that the device computes a difference between the user state and the exit or final user state to determine any significant emotional events.);
modify one or more of the content elements provided to the at least one user based on the difference between the user state of the at least one user and the exit user state (paragraph [0753] – [0755] “The system then combs through the audio recordings of Jackson's life, and looks for sounds that are correlated with similar levels of frustration. The system assembles a sound collage of frustrating sounds. When Jackson's friends click on the status update in their newsfeed, they hear the sound collage”).
Regarding claim 24, Garten in view of Aimone teaches the system of claim 1, Garten further teaches wherein the modify one or more of the content elements comprises at least one of transitioning between one or more content samples and pausing one or more of the content elements. (paragraph [0249] “When a negative mood is detected (INPUT) the algorithm immediately changes the radio station or the music selection that Nancy is listening to“)
Regarding claim 28, Garten in view of Aimone teaches the system of claim 1, Garten further teaches wherein:
the content comprises at least a first and a second time-coded content sample (paragraph [0006] “a music processor to segment the music data into a plurality of time epochs of music, each epoch of music linked to a time stamp” paragraph [0818] “An epoch is a length of time in how a piece of music is divided.” The segments of music data are the first and second time-coded content sample.);
the modify one or more of the content elements comprises transitioning between a first defined time code of the first time-coded content sample to a second defined time code of the second time-coded content sample. (paragraph [0881] “These stream of songs Sa, Sd, Sb, . . . and their associated features including the user's biological response 806 may fed into the system or music processing hardware as input and may be used for unsupervised learning of temporal models.”)
Regarding claim 55, Garten in view of Aimone teaches the system of claim 36, and Garten further teaches wherein the computing device is further configured to:
computing a difference between the user state of the at least one user during the interval and an exit user state using the bio-signals of the at least one user (paragraph [0747] “Jackson wears his wearable computing device of the present invention on a regular basis, most of the day almost every day. It monitors his brainwaves and every sound he hears (although it does not record them)” and paragraph [0751] “The system checks the last few minutes of his brainwave recording for any significant emotional events.” The examiner notes that since the device Is constantly monitoring the EEG signals of the user, that the device computes a difference between the user state and the exit or final user state to determine any significant emotional events.);
modifying one or more of the content elements provided to the at least one user based on the difference between the user state of the at least one user and the exit user state (paragraph [0753] – [0755] “The system then combs through the audio recordings of Jackson's life, and looks for sounds that are correlated with similar levels of frustration. The system assembles a sound collage of frustrating sounds. When Jackson's friends click on the status update in their newsfeed, they hear the sound collage”).
Regarding claim 57, Garten in view of Aimone teaches the system of claim 36, Garten further teaches wherein the modifying one or more of the content elements comprises at least one of transitioning between one or more content samples and pausing one or more of the content elements. (paragraph [0249] “When a negative mood is detected (INPUT) the algorithm immediately changes the radio station or the music selection that Nancy is listening to“)
Regarding claim 61, Garten in view of Aimone teaches the system of claim 36, Garten further teaches wherein:
the content comprises at least a first and a second time-coded content sample (paragraph [0006] “a music processor to segment the music data into a plurality of time epochs of music, each epoch of music linked to a time stamp” paragraph [0818] “An epoch is a length of time in how a piece of music is divided.” The segments of music data are the first and second time-coded content sample.);
the modifying one or more of the content elements comprises transitioning between a first defined time code of the first time-coded content sample to a second defined time code of the second time-coded content sample. (paragraph [0881] “These stream of songs Sa, Sd, Sb, . . . and their associated features including the user's biological response 806 may fed into the system or music processing hardware as input and may be used for unsupervised learning of temporal models.”)
Regarding claim 104, Garten teaches a computer system to develop time-coded content for achieving an ultimate user state by modifying content elements provided to at least one user, the system comprising:
at least one computing device (paragraph [0058] “the computer system”) in communication with at least one bio-signal sensor (paragraph [0058] “computers is configured to receive signals from sensors worn by a user. In an implementation, the sensors include one more bio-signal sensors, such as electroencephalogram (EEG) sensors, galvanometer sensors, electrocardiograph sensors, heart rate sensors, eye-tracking sensors, blood pressure sensors, pedometers, gyroscopes, and any other type of sensor.”) and at least one user effector (paragraph [0058] “The headset may further be in communication with another computing device, such as a laptop, tablet, or mobile phone” The examiner notes these devices contain a speaker and a display.);
the at least one bio-signal sensor configured to measure bio-signals of at least one user (paragraph [0006] “at least one bio-signal sensor configured to capture bio-signal sensor data from at least one user”);
the at least one user effector configured to provide time-coded content to the at least one user, wherein the time-coded content comprises one or more content elements (paragraph [0006] “a music processor to segment the music data into a plurality of time epochs of music, each epoch of music linked to a time stamp” paragraph [0818] “An epoch is a length of time in how a piece of music is divided.” The segments of music data are the first and second time-coded content sample.);
the at least one computing device configured to: provide the time-coded content to the at least one user via the at least one user effector (paragraph [0013] “the system may have a music effect controller to influence user state by playback or recording of music based the at least one music recommendation.”)
determine an initial user state of the at least one user at a time code (paragraph [0831] “associated with Sa(t,i,j) is a set of features that describe the sonic properties of the song, meta data of the song, and the user's reaction to that song based on measuring their physiological response on an epoch by epoch basis.” The examiner notes the user’s reaction is the initial user state at the time code of when the song is played.),
modify one or more of the content elements provided to the at least one user (paragraph [0858] “The smart playlist controller may automate selection of music for the user that will help them meet their goal emotion”);
determine a final user state of the at least one user after a test interval (paragraph [0813] “A user is played sound/music during a session...dynamically adjusting depending on the state of mind of the user” The examiner notes that the system determines the statement of mind (final user state) after a period of time during a session (test interval).)
update the time-coded content to provide a content modification process comprising, a target user state, an interval, a modification, and at least one of a time code and a trigger user state (paragraph [0862] “If there is a large difference in happiness from a user's current state and target state then songs with greater scores for happiness may be offered to the user.” Paragraph [0827] “Embodiments described herein provide music processing hardware devices, systems, and methods that add temporal history to the selection of songs selected by the user.” The examiner notes that the target user state is happiness, the modification is playing happier songs, the music has temporal history (time codes), and the interval is the time period where the EEG measurements are occurring.)
wherein the trigger user state is based on the initial user state (paragraph [0021] “the computing device may be configured to determine a correspondence between the received brainwave data and historical data available to the system associated with at least one second user; and trigger a user correspondence action based at least partly on the determined correspondence.”)
the target user state is based on the final user state (paragraph [0477] “After a while the mobile device will automatically play “positive songs” [0478] The EEG reader (and/or other sensors) will continually check the validity of the algorithm's predictions in case Helo's response to the songs change” The examiner notes that the EEG reader is checking the latest brain wave state to compare if it is aligned with the user’s intended state.) ,
the interval is based on the test interval (the examiner notes the interval and the test interval is the period of time when the EEG is measuring brainwave changes prior to modifying the content.),
and the modification and the time code are based on the modify one or more of the content elements step (paragraph [0858] “The smart playlist controller may automate selection of music for the user that will help them meet their goal emotion.)
However, Garten fails to teach wherein the time code corresponds to a natural pause or natural low moment in the content.
Aimone teaches a system that modulates content based on brain waves that labels EEG data with time stamps according to pauses or low moments in the content. (Column 40, line 45: The application may also assign information including: User ID; Activity Type “watching video”; and application Data including Signal Type (e.g. EEG), timestamps per EEG sample, timestamps associated with start and stop of watching the video, and raw EEG data per channel. The application may label the timestamp “start of video” into the EEG data.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system taught by Garten in view of Aimone. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to recognize that recording the brain waves during a moment when content or stimulation is not being provided would provide an accurate brain wave reading to determine if the content should continue or be changed.
Claim(s) 18-19, 53 - 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garten in view of Aimone further in view of Coleman (US 2015/0351655)
Regarding claims 18 and 53, Garten in view of Aimone teaches the system of claim 2, Garten further teaches wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to:
Determine a first user state of the at least one user using the bio-signals of the at least one user (paragraph [0141] “An algorithm pipeline ID is chosen to pre-process the EEG 12, extract features. The features are sent to a Brain State Classification model that outputs a brain state classification 16 for a brief interval of time”);
apply a probe modification to one or more of the content elements provided to the at least one user (paragraph [0211] – [0212] “The system includes a pre-programmed sonic probe that is triggered by an algorithm to be played at the conclusion of each track. The “probe” consists of an odd or unusual sound”);
compute a difference between the first user state of the at least one user and the user state of the at least one user after a probe interval using the bio-signals of the at least one user (paragraph [0215] – [0216] “The EEG device references Bill's brain state to determine his reaction to the probe sound. If Bill records a positive response to the probe, that reaction indicates what kind of music is going to play next” The examiner notes that “positive response” would show a difference between the first user state before the probe and after the probe was sent.;
However, Garten fails to teach that the system can update at least one of the target user state and the trigger user state based on the difference between the first user state and the user state after the probe interval in this.
Coleman teaches an apparatus that updates the target user state based on a previous target state. (paragraph [0008] “update the presented at least one brain state guidance indication based at least partly on the measured performance.” The examiner notes that the brain state guidance indication is a target user state. The examiner is modifying the system taught by Garten to update the user state after the probe interval.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system taught by Garten in view of updating a target state after the probe in view of Coleman. One of ordinary skill would be able to recognize that in stimulation therapies, the system may read the state of the brain, often measure it against some norm, and then apply a stimulation modality—electric, magnetic, or ultrasound, to move it towards an optimum. With stimulation therapies, the system does not strictly have to read the state of the brain before stimulating, but effectively applied therapies likely would want to. See paragraph [0356] of Coleman.
Regarding claim 19 and 54, Garten in view of Aimone teaches the system of claim 2, Garten further teaches wherein the at least one computing device is further configured to:
determine a first user state of the at least one user using the bio-signals of the at least one user before a probe interval (paragraph [0210] – [0211] “Bill is wearing an EEG-detection device while he listens to the music. The system includes a pre-programmed sonic probe that is triggered by an algorithm to be played at the conclusion of each track”);
compute a difference between the first user state of the at least one user before the probe interval and a user state of the at least one user after the probe interval using the bio-signals of the at least one user; (paragraph [0215] – [0216] “The EEG device references Bill's brain state to determine his reaction to the probe sound. If Bill records a positive response to the probe, that reaction indicates what kind of music is going to play next” The examiner notes that “positive response” would show a difference between the first user state before the probe and after the probe was sent.;
However, Garten fails to teach that the system can update at least one of the target user state and the trigger user state based on the difference between the first user state and the user state after the probe interval in this.
Coleman teaches an apparatus that updates the target user state based on a previous target state. (paragraph [0008] “update the presented at least one brain state guidance indication based at least partly on the measured performance.” Paragraphs [0152] – [153] “The system may adapt while in a brain state guidance exercise session to the changing characteristics of the user and their environment.
FIG. 3 shows an example flow of ABCN which may be implemented by an embodiment of the present invention. Conventional systems provide fixed thresholds that are set prior to the start of a session based on the user's previous sessions or a database of normative data.” The examiner notes that the brain state guidance indication is a target user state that is based on partly measured performance such as previous sessions or normative data (difference between a previous state and current state). The examiner is modifying the system taught by Garten to update the user state after the probe interval.)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system taught by Garten in view of updating a target state after the probe in view of Coleman. One of ordinary skill would be able to recognize that in stimulation therapies, the system may read the state of the brain, often measure it against some norm, and then apply a stimulation modality—electric, magnetic, or ultrasound, to move it towards an optimum. With stimulation therapies, the system does not strictly have to read the state of the brain before stimulating, but effectively applied therapies likely would want to. See paragraph [0356] of Coleman.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Guan (US 9557957) discloses a system for determining a user’s emotional state using EEG signals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIANA JOY LACAY DECASTRO whose telephone number is (571)272-8316. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:30.
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at 571-272-5596. 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.L.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights