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 .
Claims 1-9 are the currently pending claims hereby under examination.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites acquisition of the first cerebral blood flow information “by using a sensor” and the second cerebral blood flow information “by using the sensor.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the recited sensor is a sensing apparatus that may include multiple sensing elements or measurement channels. The Instant Application at ¶[0093] states that "the bioinstrumentation device 100 is a sensor that measures information concerning cerebral blood flow of the user U," and identifies that device as a near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) device. The Instant Application at ¶[0095] further states that the camera unit 110 of that device measures "a cerebral blood flow amount in a forehead central portion of the user U and a cerebral blood flow amount in a forehead end portion of the user U" and "includes one or more light emitting units 112 and one or more light receiving units 114," and Fig. 1B correspondingly depicts light emitting units 21-26, light receiving units 31-36, and sixteen measurement channels. The subsequent reference to “the sensor” refers back to that sensing apparatus and does not require the same individual sensing element or measurement channel to acquire both regional measurements. The same construction applies to the inherited recitations of “the sensor” in claims 2-5.
The specification illustrates in Fig. 4B an embodiment in which the processor first determines whether a cerebral-blood-flow change satisfies an initial condition before comparing the regional values and may determine a state other than divergent or convergent thinking when that condition is not satisfied. Claims 1, 2, and 4 do not expressly recite that preliminary determination or require that additional state outcome. Those unrecited features therefore are not imported into claims 1, 2, and 4 under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claims 6 and 7 depend from claims 2 and 4, respectively, and each recites a lighting-control step without expressly stating that the lighting control is performed in response to the inherited determination that divergent or convergent thinking is rising. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the claims as written, the recited lighting control therefore need not be conditionally triggered by the inherited thinking-state determination in a strict if/then sense. That construction does not, however, require the lighting-control step to be treated as wholly unrelated to the inherited determination for every purpose. The claims must be read as a whole and in light of the specification, which relates illuminance and color temperature conditions to the user's thinking state in the lighting-control embodiment (Fig. 8). Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation permits, but does not require, the lighting control to be responsive to the inherited determination. For purposes of the prior-art analysis below, the Examiner also addresses the narrower embodiment in which the lighting control is performed in response to the inherited thinking-state determination. The prior-art rejection below therefore does not depend on the broader interpretation of the claim language.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, lines 2-3: “the sensor acquires the first cerebral blood flow information and the second cerebral blood flow information in each of periods” is grammatically incorrect and should be revised to “the sensor acquires the first cerebral blood flow information and the second cerebral blood flow information in each of a plurality of periods”;
In claim 5, lines 9-13, “generating a graph showing proportions of a period where the user's level of convergent thinking is rising and a period where the user's level of divergent thinking is rising among the periods and displaying the graph” should be revised to “generating a graph showing, among the plurality of periods, a proportion of the plurality of periods in which the user's level of convergent thinking is rising and a proportion of the plurality of periods in which the user's level of divergent thinking is rising and displaying the graph”; and
In claim 9, line 31: “displays a result of the determination processing on a display” is inconsistent with the previously recited “a display device” in line 9 and should be revised to “displays a result of the determination processing on the display device” for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-5 and 9 are directed to determining whether a user's divergent or convergent thinking state is rising based on cerebral blood flow information, with claim 5 further reciting graphical presentation and claim 9 reciting a system implementation. Claims 1-5 and 9 do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons provided below. Claims 6-8 are analyzed separately below because they additionally recite physical lighting-control operations. This analysis is in line with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, p. 50, January 7, 2019), as incorporated into current MPEP § 2106. This analysis also accounts for Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (ARP Sept. 26, 2025) (precedential), including the requirement to consider whether the claim reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field.
The analysis of claim 1 is as follows:
Step 1: Claim 1 is drawn to a process.
Step 2A - Prong One: Claim 1 recites an abstract idea. In particular, claim 1 recites the following limitation:
[A1] "determining by a processor whether a user's level of divergent thinking is rising or a user's level of convergent thinking is rising on a basis of comparison between the first cerebral blood flow information and the second cerebral blood flow information".
Element [A1] of claim 1 is drawn to an abstract idea because it recites a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind, including evaluation and judgment, and with pen and paper. Once the first and second cerebral blood flow information are available, a person can compare the two sets of information and determine from that comparison whether the divergent or convergent thinking state is rising. The recitation that the determination is performed by a processor does not remove the underlying evaluation from the mental-process grouping. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A - Prong Two: Claim 1 recites the following limitations that are beyond the judicial exception:
[A2] "acquiring first cerebral blood flow information corresponding to a temporal change of cerebral blood flow in a central portion of a user's forehead in a left-right direction by using a sensor";
[B2] "acquiring second cerebral blood flow information corresponding to a temporal change of cerebral blood flow in an end portion of the user's forehead in the left-right direction by using the sensor”; and
[C2] "a processor".
Elements [A2] and [B2] do not integrate the exception into a practical application. These elements obtain the specifically located physiological inputs supplied to the recited evaluation. Although the claim specifies anatomical locations for the measurements, that specificity does not change the role of these limitations as data-gathering activity used to supply information to the abstract evaluation. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Element [C2] merely instructs that the abstract evaluation be implemented using a processor and uses the processor as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f).
Further, the Examiner has considered the claim as a whole, including the above-identified additional elements, to determine whether the claim reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.05(a); Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (ARP Sept. 26, 2025) (precedential). The Instant Application at ¶[0004]-[0006] and ¶[0031]-[0032] identifies the disclosed benefit as objectively evaluating a subject's creative thinking state from cerebral blood flow information, and ¶[0048]-[0066] describes the relationship between cerebral blood flow changes in different forehead portions and divergent or convergent thinking. Claim 1, however, does not recite a particular improvement to the sensor, the processor, or another measurement technology. Rather, claim 1 uses the sensor to acquire physiological information and the processor as a tool to compare that information and output a thinking-state determination. Therefore, when evaluated as a whole and without ignoring the individual claim limitations, claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The eligibility analysis is distinct from the novelty and obviousness inquiries under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103; the fact that a particular data-gathering limitation may require modification of the prior art does not, by itself, establish that the limitation integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or supplies an inventive concept.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. In particular, the recitations of acquiring the first and second cerebral blood flow information using a sensor do not qualify as significantly more because they are data-gathering steps performed in conjunction with the abstract evaluation using well-understood, routine, and conventional functional near-infrared spectroscopy sensing and processing. Such sensing and processing were conventional as evidenced by:
Felix Scholkmann et al., “A review on continuous wave functional near-infrared spectroscopy and imaging instrumentation and methodology,” NeuroImage, vol. 85, pp. 6-27 (2014), doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.004 (Scholkmann), which reviews the then-current state of continuous-wave fNIRS/fNIRI instrumentation and reports that there was already a wide variety of commercially available fNIRS/fNIRI devices, ranging from systems having a few sources and detectors to whole-head systems, and that all of the reviewed devices offered software for computing hemoglobin changes from raw intensity data (p. 8). Scholkmann also reviews the light sources, detectors, and sensor arrangements used in these systems (pp. 10-14), and explains that common fNIRS/fNIRI algorithms convert raw light intensity data into changes in oxyhemoglobin, deoxyhemoglobin, and total hemoglobin concentration (p. 15).
Accordingly, Scholkmann demonstrates that using optical sensing arrangements to acquire cerebral hemodynamic information and processing detected optical information to determine hemoglobin-concentration changes were well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the fNIRS/fNIRI field at the claimed level of generality.
Further, the recited processor does not qualify as significantly more because the claim requires no more than a generic processor performing the generic function of evaluating information, which is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer implementation specified at a high level of generality. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The combination uses conventional acquisition to obtain the information required for the mental evaluation and a processor to perform that evaluation. There is no indication in the claim that the combination improves the functioning of the processor, improves the operation of the sensor, or provides a particular technological mechanism for achieving a technological improvement. Rather, the collective functions merely use the sensor to gather the information and the processor as a tool to perform the process. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-5 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 and therefore recite the same abstract idea as claim 1. Claims 2-4 further limit the abstract evaluation by specifying the particular increase amounts or rates of change that are compared and therefore merely further limit the mental process itself.
Claim 5 additionally recites generating and displaying a graph showing proportions of periods associated with the determined thinking states. This limitation does not integrate the exception into a practical application because presenting the results of the abstract evaluation is insignificant post-solution activity. The limitation also does not amount to significantly more because displaying the result of an information analysis on a generic display is ordinary computer output activity specified at a high level of generality. See Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350; SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Claims 6 and 7 are not included in this rejection. Claim 6 recites "controlling a lighting device that illuminates an area around the user to raise a color temperature of illuminating light and raise illuminance of the illuminating light" in lines 2-4. Claim 7 recites "controlling a lighting device that illuminates an area around the user to lower a color temperature of illuminating light and raise illuminance of the illuminating light" in lines 2-4. As discussed in the Claim Interpretation section, these claims do not expressly require a strict conditional trigger between the inherited thinking-state determination and the lighting-control step, and the Examiner does not import such a condition from the specification. However, Step 2A - Prong Two evaluates each claim as a whole, and the broadest reasonable interpretation is informed by the specification. Here, the added limitations require actual control of a physical lighting device around the same user whose thinking state is determined, while the specification relates the recited color-temperature and illuminance conditions to the user's thinking state in the lighting-control embodiment (Fig. 8). Unlike claim 5, which adds presentation of the result of the information evaluation, claims 6 and 7 add operation of a physical lighting device that changes the illumination of the user's environment. Giving full weight to the physical lighting-control limitation in the claim as written and considering its significance in light of the specification, the Examiner finds that the claim as a whole integrates the evaluation into a practical application through operation of a physical lighting environment. This conclusion does not construe claims 6 and 7 as requiring that the lighting control be triggered by any particular thinking-state determination. Accordingly, the eligibility analysis for claims 6 and 7 concludes at Step 2A - Prong Two.
The analysis of claim 9 is as follows:
Step 1: Claim 9 is drawn to a machine.
Step 2A - Prong One: Claim 9 recites an abstract idea. In particular, claim 9 recites the following limitations:
[A1] "performs comparison processing of comparing a change amount of the hemoglobin concentration of the cerebral blood flow in the central portion and a change amount of the hemoglobin concentration of the cerebral blood flow in the end portion on a basis of the first cerebral blood flow information and the second cerebral blood flow information"; and
[B1] "performs determination processing of determining that a user's level of divergent thinking is rising in a case where it is determined on a basis of the comparison processing that the change amount of the hemoglobin concentration of the cerebral blood flow in the central portion is larger than the change amount of the hemoglobin concentration of the cerebral blood flow in the end portion, and determining that a user's level of convergent thinking is rising in a case where it is determined on a basis of the comparison processing that the change amount of the hemoglobin concentration of the cerebral blood flow in the end portion is larger than the change amount of the hemoglobin concentration of the cerebral blood flow in the central portion".
Elements [A1] and [B1] of claim 9 are drawn to an abstract idea because they recite mental processes that can be practically performed in the human mind, including comparison, evaluation, and judgment, with pen and paper if desired. Given the central-portion and end-portion hemoglobin-change information, a person can compare the two values and determine which thinking-state condition is satisfied. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A - Prong Two: Claim 9 recites the following limitations that are beyond the judicial exception:
[A2] the "light source";
[B2] the "detector";
[C2] the "processing circuit”;
[D2] the "display device" and the display of the result; and
[E2] the generation of first and second cerebral blood flow information from the detected light, including temporal hemoglobin-concentration information.
Elements [A2], [B2], and [E2] obtain and preprocess the physiological information supplied to the abstract comparison and determination and therefore constitute data gathering and preparatory activity associated with the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Element [C2] uses processing circuitry as a tool to perform the recited information processing. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Element [D2] merely presents the result of the abstract evaluation and is insignificant post-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). These elements do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea or otherwise integrate it into a practical application.
Further, the Examiner has considered claim 9 as a whole to determine whether the claim reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.05(a); Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (ARP Sept. 26, 2025) (precedential). The Instant Application at ¶[0099] describes reducing unnecessary data acquisition and processing when reflected light from portions other than the forehead end portion and central portion need not be detected or processed. Claim 9, however, does not require exclusion of light or information from other forehead portions and therefore does not require the limitation identified in the specification as producing the reduced processing load. Claim 9 instead recites conventional optical acquisition and hemoglobin-information generation as the input to the comparison and determination. Accordingly, claim 9 does not reflect the disclosed technological improvement and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The eligibility analysis is distinct from the novelty and obviousness inquiries under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103; the fact that a particular data-gathering limitation may require modification of the prior art does not, by itself, establish that the limitation integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or supplies an inventive concept.
Step 2B: Claim 9 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. In particular, the light source, detector, and generation of hemoglobin-concentration-change information are conventional fNIRS/fNIRI acquisition and processing elements as evidenced by Scholkmann. As discussed above, Scholkmann reports a wide variety of commercially available fNIRS/fNIRI devices using sources and detectors and states that all reviewed devices offered software for computing hemoglobin changes from raw intensity data (p. 8), reviews the light sources, detectors, and sensor arrangements used in such systems (pp. 10-14), and describes common algorithms for converting raw intensity data into hemoglobin-concentration changes (p. 15). These disclosures demonstrate that the claimed optical acquisition and hemoglobin-information generation, at the level of generality recited in claim 9, were well-understood, routine, and conventional in the fNIRS/fNIRI field.
The processing circuit and display device also do not provide significantly more because they perform generic information-processing and output functions specified at a high level of generality. See Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350; Alice, 573 U.S. 208; SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016. The additional elements have also been considered as an ordered combination with the judicial exception. As an ordered combination, the elements acquire optical physiological data, generate the hemoglobin information used in the abstract evaluation, perform the comparison and judgment using processing circuitry, and display the result. The combination does not improve the functioning of the processing circuit or the optical sensing technology and does not recite the particular data-reduction mechanism described at ¶[0099]. Rather, the collective functions provide conventional acquisition, processing, and output surrounding the abstract evaluation. Accordingly, claim 9 is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claim 8 is not included in this rejection. Claim 8 recites acquiring target information and cerebral blood flow information, determining a thinking state on the basis of the cerebral blood flow information, and comparing the target state with the determined thinking state. To the extent these limitations recite the abstract idea of evaluating information and making a determination based on that evaluation, claim 8 further recites "perform control of changing a property of illuminating light emitted by a lighting device that illuminates an area around the user in a case where the target state and the determined thinking state of the user do not match as a result of the comparison". Claim 8 expressly requires the result of the comparison to be used to control operation of the lighting device. When claim 8 is considered as a whole, this limitation meaningfully applies the evaluation to a physical lighting-control operation and integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the eligibility analysis for claim 8 concludes at Step 2A - Prong Two.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankai (JP 2012-161375 A), hereinafter Sankai, in view of Kreplin et al., “Activation of the rostromedial prefrontal cortex during the experience of positive emotion in the context of esthetic experience. An fNIRS study,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 7, art. 879 (2013), hereinafter Kreplin, Bendetowicz et al., “Two critical brain networks for generation and combination of remote associations,” Brain, vol. 141, pp. 217-233 (2018), hereinafter Bendetowicz, and Alıcı et al., “Prefrontal Activity Measured by Functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy During Divergent and Convergent Thinking in Bipolar Disorder,” Archives of Neuropsychiatry, vol. 56, pp. 86-91 (2019), hereinafter Alıcı.
Regarding claim 1, Sankai teaches an information processing method (Sankai, ¶[0059]: “the brain blood flow measurement process performed by the control device 40,” wherein control device 40 executes a process that acquires and processes cerebral-blood-flow data).
Sankai further teaches the acquiring of first cerebral blood flow information corresponding to a temporal change of cerebral blood flow … by using a sensor and acquiring of second cerebral blood flow information corresponding to a temporal change of cerebral blood flow … by using the sensor (Sankai, ¶[0016]: “multiple sensor units 100 … are arranged … at measurement points P1′ to Pn′”; ¶[0019]: “the sensor control unit 170 … measure[s] blood flow … at each measurement point, and transmits the measured values”; ¶[0014]: “each blood flow measurement data [is stored] in chronological order”; and ¶[0077]: “the differences ΔB1L and ΔB1R between the reference value Ba and the blood flow measurement values … taken during each time period Tb and Tc are calculated,” wherein a blood-flow value from a selected first measurement point, and its chronological reference-relative values, provide the claimed first information and temporal change, while the separately measured blood-flow value from another selected measurement point, and its chronological reference-relative values, provide the claimed second information and temporal change).
Also, regarding claim 1, Sankai does not expressly disclose the acquiring of first cerebral blood flow information corresponding to a temporal change of cerebral blood flow in a central portion of a user’s forehead in a left-right direction by using a sensor or the acquiring of second cerebral blood flow information corresponding to a temporal change of cerebral blood flow in an end portion of the user’s forehead in the left-right direction by using the sensor. Rather, Sankai obtains blood-flow values at multiple head measurement points and calculates reference-relative regional changes. However, Sankai does not teach selecting the claimed central and end forehead locations.
Kreplin teaches a known frontal fNIRS probe arrangement spanning the forehead in the left-right direction. Kreplin places a 16-channel fNIRS probe on the forehead aligned to Fp1 and Fp2 of the International 10-20 system and rotates the probe so that Fpz corresponds to the midpoint of the probe. (Kreplin, p. 4, “fNIRS data collection.”) Figure 2 depicts the 16 measurement voxels in a left-right array across the rostral prefrontal cortex, including measurement positions adjacent the probe midpoint (voxels 9/10 and 7/8) and at the lateral ends of the array (voxels 15/16 and 1/2). (Kreplin, p. 5, Fig. 2.) Thus, Kreplin provides a forehead measurement arrangement having a central position about Fpz and laterally displaced measurement positions at the ends of the probe.
Bendetowicz teaches why a skilled artisan would select medial and lateral frontal regions for a creative-thinking determination rather than select arbitrary measurement locations. Bendetowicz identifies the right rostromedial PFC as critical for generation of remote associates and reports that its remote-generation task correlated with originality and fluency on the Torrance divergent-thinking test, “suggesting this task involves a divergent thinking component.” Bendetowicz separately identifies the left rostrolateral PFC as important for combining remote associations and explains that the integration/combination operation “likely corresponds to the convergent component” of creative thinking. (Bendetowicz, pp. 222, 226, and 228.) Thus, Bendetowicz associates medial/rostromedial and lateral/rostrolateral prefrontal regions with divergent-related generation and convergent-related combination, respectively.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sankai’s optical sensor arrangement by locating a first selected measurement channel at the central forehead position about Fpz in Kreplin’s probe arrangement and a second selected measurement channel at a laterally displaced position at an end of the probe. Kreplin supplies the missing central-to-lateral forehead measurement geometry, and Bendetowicz supplies a reason to select corresponding medial/rostromedial and lateral/rostrolateral regions because those regions are associated with different creative operations. The modification uses Sankai’s separately addressed optical sensor units at known positions in Kreplin’s forehead fNIRS arrangement. Kreplin further demonstrates that the same forehead array resolves spatially differentiated hemodynamic responses, reporting significant Oxy effects at voxels 3, 5, and 9, including a midpoint-adjacent position and laterally displaced positions, with Figure 3 depicting the regional distribution across the array. (Kreplin, p. 5, Results and Figs. 2-3.) A skilled artisan therefore would have reasonably expected separately selected central and lateral-end channels to provide separately measurable regional hemodynamic information. Bendetowicz supplies the reason for using those separately measurable regions for the divergent-related and convergent-related creative operations. (Bendetowicz, pp. 226 and 228.) Using Kreplin’s known forehead fNIRS placement technique with Sankai’s similar optical cerebral-hemodynamic measurement arrangement to obtain spatially resolved prefrontal measurements is consistent with MPEP 2143(I)(C). Kreplin is analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor of using fNIRS to measure prefrontal cortical hemodynamics. See MPEP 2141.01(a).
Also, regarding claim 1, the modified Sankai does not expressly disclose the determining by a processor of whether a user’s level of divergent thinking is rising or a user’s level of convergent thinking is rising on a basis of comparison between the first cerebral blood flow information and the second cerebral blood flow information. Sankai teaches that control device 40 determines a brain activity level from measurement data received from the sensor units and, therefore, teaches the claimed processor-based determination. (Sankai, ¶[0021].) Further, as modified above, Sankai acquires regional blood-flow information from selected central and end forehead channels. However, the modified Sankai does not teach comparing changes in that information to determine whether divergent thinking or convergent thinking is rising.
Alıcı teaches quantifying regional PFC activity with fNIRS as baseline-relative changes in oxyhemoglobin and deoxyhemoglobin and averaging Δoxy-Hb values within regions of interest. Alıcı obtains those measurements while subjects perform the Alternate Uses Test for divergent thinking and the Remote Associates Test for convergent thinking. Alıcı further reports a significant Group × Condition × Area interaction [F(1,56)=5.33, p=0.025] and, in healthy controls, a significant difference in aPFC activation between the AuT and RAT conditions (MD=0.021, SE=0.009, p=0.03). (Alıcı, pp. 87-88, “Assessment of Creativity,” “Functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy,” “Statistical Analysis,” and Tables 4-5.) Thus, Alıcı demonstrates that regional fNIRS activation can be quantified and can vary with whether the task is divergent or convergent. Alıcı is relied upon for that quantitative regional measurement technique and condition dependence, not for the anterior/posterior orientation of its ROIs or as an express disclosure of the claimed central/end relationship.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the modified Sankai by configuring its processor to calculate regional hemodynamic changes for the selected central and end channels and compare those changes in determining whether divergent thinking or convergent thinking is rising. The modified Sankai already stores time-indexed regional blood-flow measurements and calculates changes from a resting reference. Alıcı teaches a known quantitative technique for treating regional fNIRS changes as cortical-activation values during divergent- and convergent-thinking tasks and demonstrates that regional PFC activation varies with task condition. Bendetowicz provides the reason to evaluate the selected medial/rostromedial and lateral/rostrolateral regions separately because they are associated with different creative operations. A skilled artisan would therefore have had reason to use the relative activity of those two process-associated regions in Sankai’s processor-based thinking-state determination, with a reasonable expectation that the regional comparison would contain information relevant to whether the task was divergent or convergent.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Sankai teaches that the sensor acquires a cerebral blood flow amount in the central portion at a first time point and a cerebral blood flow amount in the central portion at a second time point later than the first time point and acquires a cerebral blood flow amount in the end portion at the first time point and a cerebral blood flow amount in the end portion at the second time point (Sankai, ¶[0019]: “measure blood flow … at each measurement point, and transmits the measured values”; ¶[0014]: “the database 80 stores each blood flow measurement data in chronological order based on the address code for identifying each measurement point and the time data indicating the date and time of measurement”; ¶[0076], teaching blood-flow measurements during time periods Ta, Tb, Tc, Td, and Te; and ¶[0077]: “using the blood flow measurement taken during the resting period Ta as the reference value Ba, the differences ΔB1L and ΔB1R between the reference value Ba and the blood flow measurement values … taken during each time period Tb and Tc are calculated,” wherein the modified central and end channels respectively provide a measurement during Ta and later measurements during Tb or Tc).
Also, regarding claim 2, the modified Sankai does not expressly disclose that the determining includes determining that the user’s level of divergent thinking is rising in a case where it is determined that an increase amount of the cerebral blood flow amount in the central portion at the second time point from the cerebral blood flow amount in the central portion at the first time point is larger than an increase amount of the cerebral blood flow amount in the end portion at the second time point from the cerebral blood flow amount in the end portion at the first time point. Rather, Sankai calculates respective regional changes from a resting measurement to later measurements, but compares each difference with a threshold value. (Sankai, ¶[0077].) However, the modified Sankai does not use the relative magnitude of the central- and end-channel increases as the claimed divergent-thinking decision rule.
Bendetowicz supplies the regional functional associations relevant to the proposed comparison but does not disclose the claimed comparison rule. Bendetowicz reports that functional-imaging work found that generation of unusual associations “co-activated the rmPFC,” and further reports that creative-combination tasks were associated with more activation in the left rlPFC than other types of creativity tasks. (Bendetowicz, pp. 226 and 228.) Thus, Bendetowicz links medial/frontopolar activity to remote-idea generation and lateral activity to remote-idea combination, but does not teach comparing the magnitude of a central-channel increase against an end-channel increase.
Alıcı teaches treating baseline-relative oxyhemoglobin change as a quantitative measure of regional cognitive activation and averaging mean Δoxy-Hb values within separate regions of interest. Alıcı further demonstrates that regional PFC activation can vary between divergent- and convergent-thinking conditions. (Alıcı, pp. 87-88, “Statistical Analysis,” Tables 4-5.) Thus, Alıcı supplies a known quantitative fNIRS technique for treating the respective regional changes of the modified Sankai as task-related activation values. Alıcı is not relied upon for its anterior/posterior ROI axis.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the modified Sankai by configuring its processor to calculate the first-to-second-time-point increase for each selected channel and determine that divergent thinking is rising when the central-channel increase is larger than the end-channel increase. Bendetowicz supplies an art-derived reason for the claimed direction because the selected central medial/rostromedial region is associated with the divergent-related remote-generation operation, whereas the selected lateral end region is associated with the convergent-related combination operation. Alıcı supplies a reasonable expectation of success by teaching quantitative baseline-relative regional oxyhemoglobin changes as measures of PFC activation and demonstrating that regional PFC activation varies between divergent- and convergent-thinking conditions. Alıcı’s use of regional fNIRS measurements during the divergent AuT and convergent RAT conditions further shows that distinguishing PFC activation associated with those two creative conditions was a recognized objective in the art. Thus, Bendetowicz provides the teaching, suggestion, or motivation for assigning the divergent output to a larger response in the generation-associated central region, consistent with MPEP 2143(I)(G). Additionally, once a skilled artisan chooses to distinguish the two identified thinking states using which of the two selected process-associated regional changes is larger, there are two reciprocal assignments of the larger response to those states, and Bendetowicz points to the claimed assignment. This provides an additional obvious-to-try rationale under MPEP 2143(I)(E), with Alıcı supporting a reasonable expectation that regional fNIRS activation would contain condition-dependent information useful for the determination.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Sankai teaches that the sensor acquires a cerebral blood flow amount in the central portion at a first time point and a cerebral blood flow amount in the central portion at a second time point later than the first time point and acquires a cerebral blood flow amount in the end portion at the first time point and a cerebral blood flow amount in the end portion at the second time point (Sankai, ¶[0019], teaching blood-flow measurements at each measurement point; ¶[0014], teaching chronological storage by measurement point and time; ¶[0076]-[0077], teaching measurements during Ta, Tb, Tc, Td, and Te and calculating ΔB1L and ΔB1R from the Ta reference to later periods, wherein the modified central and end channels respectively provide measurements at the first and later time points).
Also, regarding claim 4, the modified Sankai does not expressly disclose the determining includes determining that the user’s level of convergent thinking is rising in a case where it is determined that an increase amount of the cerebral blood flow amount in the end portion at the second time point from the cerebral blood flow amount in the end portion at the first time point is larger than an increase amount of the cerebral blood flow amount in the central portion at the second time point from the cerebral blood flow amount in the central portion at the first time point. Rather, the modified Sankai calculates respective regional changes from a resting measurement to later measurements, but compares each difference with a threshold value. (Sankai, ¶[0077].) However, it does not use the relative magnitude of the end- and central-channel increases as the claimed convergent-thinking decision rule.
Bendetowicz teaches the functional basis for associating the selected lateral end channel with convergent thinking. Bendetowicz explains that impairment of the left rlPFC affects the integration or combination step and that “[t]his integration/combination step likely corresponds to the convergent component” of creative thinking. (Bendetowicz, p. 228, “Critical role of the left rostrolateral prefrontal cortex in combining remote ideas.”) Bendetowicz further reports that creative-combination tasks were associated with more activation in the left rlPFC than other types of creativity tasks. (Bendetowicz, p. 228.) Thus, Bendetowicz supplies the association between the lateral region and the combination, or convergent, operation, but does not disclose the claimed end-greater-than-central decision rule.
Alıcı teaches obtaining and processing regional baseline-relative fNIRS values during divergent- and convergent-thinking tasks, including the Remote Associates Test, and demonstrates that regional PFC activation can vary with task condition. (Alıcı, pp. 87-88, “Assessment of Creativity,” “Statistical Analysis,” and Tables 4-5.) Thus, Alıcı supplies the known quantitative fNIRS processing by which the time-separated regional values of the modified Sankai may be used as task-related activation values.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the modified Sankai by configuring its processor to calculate the first-to-second-time-point increase for each selected channel and determine that convergent thinking is rising when the end-channel increase is larger than the central-channel increase. Bendetowicz supplies an art-derived reason for the claimed direction because the selected lateral end region is associated with remote-idea combination, which Bendetowicz identifies with the convergent component, whereas the central medial/rostromedial region is associated with the divergent-related generation operation. Alıcı supplies a reasonable expectation of success by teaching quantitative baseline-relative regional oxyhemoglobin changes as measures of PFC activation and demonstrating that regional PFC activation varies between divergent- and convergent-thinking conditions. Alıcı’s use of regional fNIRS measurements during the divergent AuT and convergent RAT conditions further shows that distinguishing PFC activation associated with those two creative conditions was a recognized objective in the art. Thus, Bendetowicz provides the teaching, suggestion, or motivation for assigning the convergent output to a larger response in the combination-associated end region, consistent with MPEP 2143(I)(G). Additionally, once a skilled artisan chooses to distinguish the two identified thinking states using which of the two selected process-associated regional changes is larger, there are two reciprocal assignments of the larger response to those states, and Bendetowicz points to the claimed assignment. This provides an additional obvious-to-try rationale under MPEP 2143(I)(E), with Alıcı supporting a reasonable expectation that regional fNIRS activation would contain condition-dependent information useful for the determination.
Regarding claim 9, Sankai teaches an information processing system comprising: a head-mounted blood-flow and brain-activity measurement device having a plurality of optical sensor units, display units, and a control device that receives and processes the sensor measurement data and controls the display based on the processed blood-flow information (Sankai, ¶[0007]: teaching a head-mounted device having a plurality of sensors for detecting blood flow, display means, and control means that causes the display means to display a pattern based on the blood-flow data; ¶[0018]-[0021], teaching sensor units 100 and display units 24 connected to control device 40, wherein control device 40 receives measurement data, determines a brain-activity level, and transmits corresponding display instructions).
Sankai further teaches a light source, a detector, a processing circuit, and a display device (Sankai, ¶[0019]: each sensor unit 100 includes light-emitting unit 220 and light-receiving unit 230 and transmits measured blood-flow values to control device 40; ¶[0020]-[0021]: display units 24 receive display instructions from control device 40; ¶[0023]: each sensor unit includes a laser-diode light-emitting unit 220 that irradiates the head with emitted light A and a light-receiving unit 230 that receives incident light B and C after the light passes through the measurement area, wherein the plurality of light-emitting units collectively provides the claimed light source, the plurality of light-receiving units collectively provides the claimed detector, control device 40 provides the claimed processing circuit, and display units 24 provide the claimed display device).
Also, regarding claim 9, Sankai does not expressly disclose a light source that emits first light to a central portion of a user's forehead in a left-right direction and emits second light to an end portion of the user's forehead in the left-right direction; and a detector that detects third light originating from the first light and coming from the central portion and fourth light originating from the second light and coming from the end portion. Rather, Sankai teaches separately addressable optical source-detector measurements at a plurality of head measurement points, but does not teach selecting the claimed central and end forehead portions. (Sankai, ¶[0016], ¶[0019], ¶[0023].)
Kreplin teaches a 16-channel fNIRS probe placed on the forehead, aligned to Fp1 and Fp2, and rotated so that Fpz corresponds to the midpoint of the probe. (Kreplin, p. 4, “fNIRS data collection.”) Figure 2 depicts the 16 measurement voxels in a left-right array across the rostral prefrontal cortex, including measurement positions adjacent the probe midpoint (voxels 9/10 and 7/8) and at the lateral ends of the array (voxels 15/16 and 1/2). (Kreplin, p. 5, Fig. 2.) Thus, Kreplin supplies a known left-to-right forehead probe geometry having a central position about Fpz and measurement positions at the lateral ends of the probe.
Bendetowicz identifies the right rostromedial PFC as critical for generation of remote associates and reports that its remote-generation task involves a divergent-thinking component. Bendetowicz separately identifies the left rostrolateral PFC as important for combining remote associations and explains that the integration/combination operation corresponds to the convergent component of creative thinking. (Bendetowicz, pp. 222, 226, and 228.) Thus, Bendetowicz supplies a reason to measure medial/rostromedial and lateral/rostrolateral prefrontal regions when evaluating the two creative operations.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sankai's optical measurement arrangement by selecting one source-detector measurement channel at the central forehead position about Fpz in Kreplin's probe arrangement and another source-detector measurement channel at a laterally displaced position at an end of the probe. Sankai already uses individually addressable optical sensor units at selectable head measurement points. Kreplin supplies a known forehead fNIRS measurement geometry having a central position and measurement positions at the lateral ends, and Bendetowicz supplies a reason to select corresponding medial/rostromedial and lateral/rostrolateral regions because they are associated with different creative operations. Kreplin further demonstrates that the same forehead array resolves spatially differentiated hemodynamic responses, reporting significant Oxy effects at voxels 3, 5, and 9, including a midpoint-adjacent position and laterally displaced positions, with Figure 3 depicting the regional distribution across the array. (Kreplin, p. 5, Results and Figs. 2-3.) A skilled artisan therefore would have reasonably expected separately selected central and lateral-end channels to provide separately measurable regional hemodynamic information while retaining Sankai's existing optical measurement principle. Bendetowicz supplies the reason for using those regions for the divergent-related and convergent-related creative operations. (Bendetowicz, pp. 226 and 228.) Using Kreplin's known forehead fNIRS placement technique with Sankai's similar optical cerebral-hemodynamic measurement arrangement to obtain spatially resolved prefrontal measurements is consistent with MPEP 2143(I)(C). Kreplin is analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor of using fNIRS to measure prefrontal cortical hemodynamics. See MPEP 2141.01(a).
Also, regarding claim 9, the modified Sankai does not fully teach that the processing circuit generates first cerebral blood flow information including information on a temporal change of a hemoglobin concentration of cerebral blood flow in the central portion on a basis of the third light, and generates second cerebral blood flow information including information on a temporal change of a hemoglobin concentration of cerebral blood flow in the end portion on a basis of the fourth light. The modified Sankai sequentially obtains and stores optical measurement data corresponding to detected light from the selected measurement regions, permits the blood-flow measurement process to be repeated, and calculates regional red-blood-cell concentration from the optical measurement data. (Sankai, ¶[0059]-[0067].) However, the modified Sankai does not generate the claimed temporal changes in hemoglobin concentration from the respective detected optical signals.
Alıcı teaches the measuring of relative changes in regional oxyhemoglobin and deoxyhemoglobin concentrations with fNIRS using emitter-detector optodes and two wavelengths of infrared light according to the Beer-Lambert law. Alıcı further teaches analyzing mean oxy-Hb change during a task relative to baseline and averaging Δoxy-Hb values measured at channels within each region of interest. (Alıcı, pp. 87-88, “Functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy” and “Statistical Analysis.”) Thus, Alıcı supplies a known technique for generating temporal regional hemoglobin-concentration-change information from detected near-infrared optical signals.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the modified Sankai in view of Alıcı to process the optical signals detected from the selected central and end regions as temporal regional hemoglobin-concentration changes. Alıcı teaches a known fNIRS technique for converting corresponding near-infrared optical measurements into quantitative oxyhemoglobin and deoxyhemoglobin changes, and the modified Sankai already obtains and stores optical measurement data from the respective selected regions. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success because Alıcı's processing is applied to the same type of emitted-and-detected near-infrared optical information used for regional cerebral-hemodynamic measurement.
Also, regarding claim 9, the modified Sankai does not teach that the processing circuit performs comparison processing of comparing a change amount of the hemoglobin concentration of the cerebral blood flow in the central portion and a change amount of the hemoglobin concentration of the cerebral blood flow in the end portion on a basis of the first cerebral blood flow information and the second cerebral blood flow information. The modified Sankai measures regional cerebral-blood-flow information during successive periods, uses a resting-period measurement as reference value Ba, and calculates respective regional differences ΔB1L and ΔB1R between the reference and later measurements. (Sankai, ¶[0076]-[0077].) However, Sankai evaluates the respective regional differences against threshold values rather than comparing the magnitude of the central-region change with the magnitude of the end-region change.
Alıcı teaches treating baseline-relative Δoxy-Hb as a quantitative measure of regional cognitive activation and calculating mean Δoxy-Hb values for separate PFC regions of interest. Alıcı further reports a significant Group × Condition × Area interaction [F(1,56)=5.33, p=0.025] and, in healthy controls, a significant difference in aPFC activation between the AuT and RAT conditions (MD=0.021, SE=0.009, p=0.03). (Alıcı, p. 88, “Statistical Analysis,” Tables 4-5.) Thus, Alıcı demonstrates both quantitative regional comparison and condition-dependent regional PFC activation. Alıcı is relied upon for those propositions, not for the anterior/posterior orientation of its ROIs.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the modified Sankai to compare the central-region hemoglobin-concentration change with the end-region hemoglobin-concentration change. The modified Sankai already calculates changes in separately identified regional cerebral-blood-flow measurements from a common reference, Alıcı teaches treating regional hemoglobin changes as quantitative measures of cortical activation and demonstrates that regional PFC activation varies with divergent versus convergent task condition, and Bendetowicz identifies the selected medial/rostromedial and lateral/rostrolateral regions as having different functions in creative cognition. A skilled artisan seeking to distinguish the activity of those two process-associated regions would therefore have had reason to compare their respective regional changes to determine which region exhibited the greater task-related hemodynamic change. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success because the comparison is a processor operation applied to quantitative regional change values already generated by the modified Sankai.
Also, regarding claim 9, the modified Sankai does not teach that the processing circuit performs determination processing of determining that a user's level of divergent thinking is rising in a case where it is determined on a basis of the comparison processing that the change amount of the hemoglobin concentration of the cerebral blood flow in the central portion is larger than the change amount of the hemoglobin concentration of the cerebral blood flow in the end portion, and determining that a user's level of convergent thinking is rising in a case where it is determined on a basis of the comparison processing that the change amount of the hemoglobin concentration of the cerebral blood flow in the end portion is larger than the change amount of the hemoglobin concentration of the cerebral blood flow in the central portion.
Bendetowicz supplies the functional associations underlying the proposed determination. Bendetowicz associates the medial/rostromedial region with remote-idea generation and expressly reports that its remote-generation task involves a divergent-thinking component, while it associates the lateral/rostrolateral region with remote-idea combination and relates that integration/combination operation to the convergent component. (Bendetowicz, pp. 226 and 228.) Alıcı independently demonstrates that regional PFC fNIRS activation varies with divergent versus convergent task condition and provides quantitative baseline-relative Δoxy-Hb measurements for such regional activation. (Alıcı, pp. 87-88, Tables 4-5.) Alıcı's anterior/posterior ROI axis is not relied upon, and the absence of a significant anterior/posterior difference during the RAT does not address or discourage the medial/lateral comparison proposed here. Neither Bendetowicz nor Alıcı expressly teaches Applicant's reciprocal central-greater/divergent and end-greater/convergent rule.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the modified Sankai to use which of the two process-associated regional changes is larger as the criterion for the corresponding creative-thinking determination. Bendetowicz supplies an art-derived reason for the claimed reciprocal assignment by associating the central medial/rostromedial region with the divergent-related generation operation and the lateral/rostrolateral region with the convergent-related combination operation. Alıcı supplies a reasonable expectation of success by demonstrating that quantitative regional PFC fNIRS activation varies with divergent versus convergent task condition, and its use of regional fNIRS measurements during the divergent AuT and convergent RAT conditions shows that distinguishing PFC activation associated with those two creative conditions was a recognized objective in the art. Bendetowicz therefore provides the teaching, suggestion, or motivation for the claimed assignment, consistent with MPEP 2143(I)(G). Additionally, once a skilled artisan chooses to distinguish the two identified thinking states using which of the two selected process-associated regional changes is larger, there are two reciprocal assignments of the larger response to those states, and Bendetowicz points to the claimed assignment. This provides an additional obvious-to-try rationale under MPEP 2143(I)(E), with Alıcı supporting a reasonable expectation that regional fNIRS activation would contain condition-dependent information useful for the determination.
The modified Sankai further teaches the display of a result of the determination processing on a display. Sankai already teaches that control device 40 determines brain activity from the measurement data and transmits display instruction codes corresponding to the determination to display units 24. (Sankai, ¶[0021].) Sankai further teaches that those display units display the resulting state of brain activity due to blood flow. (Sankai, ¶[0068]-[0070].) As modified above, the determination made by control device 40 is the claimed divergent/convergent determination. Sankai's existing determination-responsive display therefore displays the result of that modified determination processing.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankai (JP 2012-161375 A), hereinafter Sankai, in view of Kreplin et al., “Activation of the rostromedial prefrontal cortex during the experience of positive emotion in the context of esthetic experience. An fNIRS study,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 7, art. 879 (2013), hereinafter Kreplin, Bendetowicz et al., “Two critical brain networks for generation and combination of remote associations,” Brain, vol. 141, pp. 217-233 (2018), hereinafter Bendetowicz, Alıcı et al., “Prefrontal Activity Measured by Functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy During Divergent and Convergent Thinking in Bipolar Disorder,” Archives of Neuropsychiatry, vol. 56, pp. 86-91 (2019), hereinafter Alıcı, and Miyazaki et al. (US 2015/0080753 A1), hereinafter Miyazaki.
The modified Sankai teaches claim 1 as shown above.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Sankai further teaches that the sensor repeatedly acquires a cerebral blood flow amount in the central portion and repeatedly acquires a cerebral blood flow amount in the end portion (Sankai, ¶[0059]-[0065]: teaching sequential blood-flow measurements using the plurality of sensor units and that, after measurement by the sensor units is completed, “the blood flow measurement process may be restarted”; ¶[0076]-[0079]: teaching blood-flow measurements for prefrontal regions during successive time periods Ta, Tb, Tc, Td, and Te, wherein, as modified in claim 1, the selected measurement locations are the central/frontopolar and lateral/end forehead portions, such that repeated operation of those selected sensor units repeatedly acquires the claimed cerebral-blood-flow amount in the central portion and repeatedly acquires the claimed cerebral-blood-flow amount in the end portion).
Also, regarding claim 3, the modified Sankai does not expressly disclose that the determining includes determining that the user's level of divergent thinking is rising in a case where it is determined that a rate of change of the cerebral blood flow amount in the central portion per time is higher than a rate of change of the cerebral blood flow amount in the end portion per time. The modified Sankai repeatedly obtains regional cerebral-blood-flow measurements and, as established in the incorporated claim 1 analysis, compares regional cerebral-hemodynamic information in determining whether divergent or convergent thinking is rising. However, the modified Sankai does not use the relative rates of change per time of the central- and end-region cerebral-blood-flow amounts as the claimed decision criterion.
Miyazaki teaches that a NIRS device measures changes in cerebral blood flow and records those measurements over time as brain-activity time-series data. Miyazaki explains that the NIRS device measures changes in the amount of cerebral blood flow and in the ratio of oxygenated and deoxygenated hemoglobin resulting from the hemodynamic response. (Miyazaki, ¶[0099].) Miyazaki further teaches that, by measuring changes in the detected near-infrared light over time, “the temporal changes in the amount of cerebral blood flow” for the measured region may be recorded as brain-activity time-series data. (Miyazaki, ¶[0100].)
Miyazaki further teaches comparing brain-activity time-series data from different brain regions using their rates of change. Miyazaki states that the temporal relationship between brain-activity data for two regions may be quantified using, among other measures, “the difference in the average rates of change regarding two sets of brain activity data.” (Miyazaki, ¶[0104].) Miyazaki further teaches calculating “the difference in the average rate of change for some arbitrary time period” for two sets of brain-activity time-series data. (Miyazaki, ¶[0120]-[0122], Fig. 12C.) Thus, Miyazaki teaches determining and comparing rates of change over time for regional brain-activity time-series data derived from cerebral-blood-flow measurements.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the modified Sankai by substituting Miyazaki's known rate-of-change comparison metric for the regional change-value comparison metric used in the modified Sankai, thereby determining and comparing the rates of change over time of the repeatedly acquired central- and end-region cerebral-blood-flow amounts. Miyazaki expressly teaches that regional cerebral-blood-flow measurements may be represented as brain-activity time-series data and that the temporal relationship between two regional data sets may be evaluated by comparing their average rates of change. The substitution uses the same regional time-series information already acquired by the modified Sankai and changes the quantitative comparison metric rather than the underlying sensing arrangement. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success because Miyazaki calculates rate-of-change differences from the same type of cerebral-blood-flow-derived time-series information already stored by the modified Sankai. This is a simple substitution of one known quantitative comparison metric for another yielding its predictable result, consistent with MPEP 2143(I)(B). Miyazaki's average rate of change over a selected time interval is a rate of change per time as recited in claim 3. Miyazaki is analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of quantitatively comparing temporal cerebral-hemodynamic signals. See MPEP 2141.01(a).
As established in the incorporated claim 1 analysis, Bendetowicz associates the selected central medial/rostromedial region with the remote-idea-generation operation related to divergent thinking, while the selected lateral/end region is associated with remote-idea combination, and Alıcı teaches using regional hemodynamic changes as measures of cortical activation during divergent- and convergent-thinking conditions. Accordingly, when Miyazaki's rate-of-change comparison is used as the quantitative comparison metric in the modified Sankai, a skilled artisan seeking to distinguish the two process-associated regional activities would have had reason to determine that divergent thinking is rising when the rate of change of the cerebral-blood-flow amount in the generation-associated central region is higher than the rate of change of the cerebral-blood-flow amount in the combination-associated end region. Miyazaki is relied upon for the rate-of-change comparison technique, not for the divergent-thinking association.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankai (JP 2012-161375 A), hereinafter Sankai, in view of Kreplin et al., “Activation of the rostromedial prefrontal cortex during the experience of positive emotion in the context of esthetic experience. An fNIRS study,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 7, art. 879 (2013), hereinafter Kreplin, Bendetowicz et al., “Two critical brain networks for generation and combination of remote associations,” Brain, vol. 141, pp. 217-233 (2018), hereinafter Bendetowicz, Alıcı et al., “Prefrontal Activity Measured by Functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy During Divergent and Convergent Thinking in Bipolar Disorder,” Archives of Neuropsychiatry, vol. 56, pp. 86-91 (2019), hereinafter Alıcı, and Coleman (US 2015/0351655 A1), hereinafter Coleman.
The modified Sankai teaches claim 1 as shown above.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Sankai further teaches that the sensor acquires the first cerebral blood flow information and the second cerebral blood flow information in each of periods (Sankai, ¶[0014]: teaching storage of blood-flow measurement data in chronological order according to measurement point and measurement time; ¶[0076]-[0077]: teaching blood-flow measurements for respective prefrontal regions during successive task periods Tb, Tc, Td, and Te and calculating regional changes from measurements obtained during the respective periods, wherein, as modified in claim 1, the selected measurement locations are the claimed central and end forehead portions and therefore provide the first and second cerebral-blood-flow information during the respective periods).
The modified Sankai further teaches that the determining includes determining, for each of the periods, whether a user's level of divergent thinking in the period is rising or a user's level of convergent thinking in the period is rising on a basis of the first cerebral blood flow information and the second cerebral blood flow information acquired in the period (Sankai, ¶[0076]-[0079]: teaching acquisition and evaluation of regional cerebral-blood-flow measurements for successive task periods Tb through Te, wherein, as modified in the incorporated claim 1 analysis, the processor uses the cerebral-blood-flow information from the selected central and end portions to determine whether divergent or convergent thinking is rising; applying that determination to the first and second information acquired for each respective period provides a divergent- or convergent-thinking determination for that period).
Also, regarding claim 5, the modified Sankai does not expressly disclose that the information processing method further comprises generating a graph showing proportions of a period where the user's level of convergent thinking is rising and a period where the user's level of divergent thinking is rising among the periods and displaying the graph. Rather, the modified Sankai obtains cerebral-blood-flow information and performs the thinking-state determination for the respective periods, and Sankai displays brain-activity information, but does not aggregate the period-by-period determinations into the claimed graphical proportions.
Coleman teaches graphically summarizing brain-state information accumulated during a session. Coleman teaches that, directly after a session, the system may show the user progress through the session using multiple graph modes, including a “percentage of time in target/other states pie chart” and a “bar graph comparing chunks of time (beg, mid, end) across one session.” Coleman further explains that the different data views allow users to understand their performance and relate the displayed data to their experience during the session. (Coleman, ¶[0274]-[0276].) Thus, Coleman teaches both graphical display of the relative amount of a session associated with different determined brain states and graphical treatment of discrete time portions within the session.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the modified Sankai to aggregate the thinking-state determinations made for the respective periods and generate and display a graph showing the proportions of the periods assigned to the divergent- and convergent-thinking states. The modified Sankai already produces a state determination associated with each of a plurality of periods. Coleman teaches summarizing repeated brain-state information graphically according to the relative amount associated with different states and separately teaches organizing session information according to discrete time portions. A skilled artisan applying Coleman's graphical session-feedback technique to the period-by-period determinations of the modified Sankai would therefore have had reason to use the already defined periods as the units of the summary and display the proportion of those periods assigned to each determined state. Coleman supplies the reason for presenting the information in that form by teaching that multiple graphical views of session data help users understand and relate the displayed results to their performance. (Coleman, ¶[0274]-[0276].) A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success because Coleman's graphical summaries operate on repeated brain-state information of the type already produced for the successive periods by the modified Sankai. Applying Coleman's known graphical-summary technique to the modified Sankai's known period-by-period state-determination method, which already produces the information to be summarized, is consistent with MPEP 2143(I)(D) and would predictably produce the graphical feedback taught by Coleman.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankai (JP 2012-161375 A), hereinafter Sankai, in view of Kreplin et al., “Activation of the rostromedial prefrontal cortex during the experience of positive emotion in the context of esthetic experience. An fNIRS study,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 7, art. 879 (2013), hereinafter Kreplin, Bendetowicz et al., “Two critical brain networks for generation and combination of remote associations,” Brain, vol. 141, pp. 217-233 (2018), hereinafter Bendetowicz, Alıcı et al., “Prefrontal Activity Measured by Functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy During Divergent and Convergent Thinking in Bipolar Disorder,” Archives of Neuropsychiatry, vol. 56, pp. 86-91 (2019), hereinafter Alıcı, Coleman (US 2015/0351655 A1), hereinafter Coleman, and Fumoto et al., “Office lighting system to encourage creativity of workers - Study on optimal lighting conditions for creative work in the office,” Japan Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Kansai Branch Conference Proceedings, pp. 171-174 (2009), hereinafter Fumoto.
The modified Sankai teaches claim 2 as shown above.
The modified Sankai teaches claim 4 as shown above.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Sankai does not expressly disclose the controlling of a lighting device that illuminates an area around the user to raise a color temperature of illuminating light and raise illuminance of the illuminating light. The modified Sankai determines that divergent thinking is rising as set forth in claim 2, but does not control ambient lighting by increasing its color temperature and illuminance.
Coleman teaches controlling a lighting device that illuminates an area around a user based on the user's detected brain state. Coleman teaches that brain-state estimates may be converted into feedback to help a user achieve a goal, that users may define parameters for a desirable state, and that the computer system may interface with “a light that changes the ambient brightness and colour of light based on a user's brain state.” (Coleman, ¶[0146]-[0151], ¶[0272]-[0273].) Thus, Coleman teaches the using of a detected brain state to control both the brightness and color characteristics of ambient lighting as goal-directed feedback.
Fumoto teaches the particular lighting adjustment recited in claim 6. Fumoto teaches an adjustable office-lighting system in which both color temperature and illuminance are varied and identifies high-color-temperature, high-illuminance lighting as suitable for work requiring convergent thinking and high concentration, whereas high-illuminance, lower-color-temperature lighting is associated with brainstorming, idea development, and divergent thinking. (Fumoto, pp. 171-174, including Table 6.) Fumoto further teaches adjustable lower and higher values of color temperature and illuminance. Thus, Fumoto teaches the recited high-color-temperature, high-illuminance condition associated with convergent/high-concentration work; using the adjustable system to move toward that condition is part of the obviousness reasoning below.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the modified Sankai in view of Coleman and Fumoto to control ambient lighting around the user by raising color temperature and illuminance when convergent thinking is the selected desirable state and the inherited determination indicates that divergent thinking is rising. Coleman supplies the premise for the selected desirable state by teaching that a user may define parameters for a desirable state and that brain-state-dependent feedback may be provided to help the user achieve that state. (Coleman, ¶[0146]-[0151], ¶[0272]-[0273].) Fumoto supplies the known high-color-temperature, high-illuminance condition associated with convergent and high-concentration work. (Fumoto, pp. 171-174, including Table 6.) Fumoto's association of that lighting condition with convergent and high-concentration work also provides a reason why a user seeking that work mode would select convergent thinking as the desirable state in Coleman's goal-directed framework. A skilled artisan implementing Coleman's goal-directed feedback therefore would have had reason to use the modified Sankai's detected state to adjust the lighting toward Fumoto's identified convergent-work condition by increasing both color temperature and illuminance. Under the broader interpretation discussed above, the lighting-control step need not be causally responsive to the inherited determination; even under that construction, Coleman provides reason to include adjustable ambient-light feedback in a brain-state method and Fumoto supplies the particular high-color-temperature, high-illuminance setting recited by claim 6. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success because Coleman contemplates control of ambient brightness and color and Fumoto uses adjustable lighting capable of the recited color-temperature and illuminance condition. This prior-art-supplied motivation is consistent with MPEP 2143(I)(G). Fumoto is analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of selecting ambient lighting conditions for divergent and convergent creative work. See MPEP 2141.01(a).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Sankai does not expressly disclose controlling a lighting device that illuminates an area around the user to lower a color temperature of illuminating light and raise illuminance of the illuminating light.
Coleman teaches controlling ambient lighting based on a user's detected brain state. Coleman teaches that brain-state estimates may be converted into feedback to help a user achieve a goal, that a user may define parameters for a desirable state, and that the system may interface with “a light that changes the ambient brightness and colour of light based on a user's brain state.” (Coleman, ¶[0146]-[0151], ¶[0272]-[0273].) Thus, Coleman teaches the claimed control of a lighting device illuminating an area around the user based on the user's detected brain state, including control of brightness and color characteristics.
Fumoto teaches the lowering of color temperature while using high illuminance as a lighting condition associated with divergent creative work. Fumoto teaches an adjustable office-lighting system having different color-temperature and illuminance conditions and identifies a lower-color-temperature, high-illuminance condition with brainstorming, idea development, and divergent thinking, while a higher-color-temperature, high-illuminance condition is associated with convergent thinking and high-concentration work. (Fumoto, pp. 171-174, including Table 6.) Thus, Fumoto teaches the particular lower-color-temperature and higher-illuminance lighting condition recited in claim 7.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the modified Sankai in view of Coleman and Fumoto to control ambient lighting around the user by lowering color temperature and raising illuminance when divergent thinking is the selected desirable state and the inherited determination indicates that convergent thinking is rising. Coleman supplies the premise for the selected desirable state by teaching that a user may define parameters for a desirable state and that brain-state-dependent feedback may be provided to help the user achieve that state. (Coleman, ¶[0146]-[0151], ¶[0272]-[0273].) Fumoto supplies the known lower-color-temperature, high-illuminance condition associated with brainstorming, idea development, and divergent thinking. (Fumoto, pp. 171-174, including Table 6.) Fumoto's association of that lighting condition with brainstorming, idea development, and divergent thinking also provides a reason why a user seeking that work mode would select divergent thinking as the desirable state in Coleman's goal-directed framework. A skilled artisan implementing Coleman's goal-directed feedback toward a selected divergent-thinking state therefore would have had reason to use the modified Sankai's detected convergent-thinking state to adjust the lighting toward Fumoto's identified divergent-work condition by lowering color temperature and raising illuminance. Under the broader interpretation discussed above, the lighting-control step need not be causally responsive to the inherited determination; even under that construction, Coleman provides reason to include adjustable ambient-light feedback in a brain-state method and Fumoto supplies the particular lower-color-temperature, high-illuminance setting recited by claim 7. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success because Coleman contemplates control of ambient brightness and color and Fumoto uses adjustable lighting capable of the recited color-temperature and illuminance condition. This prior-art-supplied motivation is consistent with MPEP 2143(I)(G). Fumoto is analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of selecting ambient lighting conditions for divergent and convergent creative work. See MPEP 2141.01(a).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankai (JP 2012-161375 A), hereinafter Sankai, in view of Porges (US 2019/0269328 A1), hereinafter Porges.
Regarding claim 8, Sankai teaches an information processing method comprising: causing a processor to: (Sankai, ¶[0059]: “the brain blood flow measurement process performed by the control device 40,” wherein control device 40 performs the cerebral-blood-flow measurement and processing method; ¶[0013]: teaching that control device 40 measures and stores regional brain blood-flow data and determines activity levels from the measurement data).
Sankai further teaches the acquiring of cerebral blood flow information indicative of a temporal change of cerebral blood flow of the user (Sankai, ¶[0060]-[0065]: teaching acquisition and storage of blood-flow measurement data by the sensor units and permitting the measurement process to be restarted; ¶[0076]-[0077]: teaching regional blood-flow measurements during successive periods Ta, Tb, Tc, Td, and Te and calculating differences between a resting reference value Ba and measurements obtained during later periods, wherein the successive regional measurements and calculated changes provide cerebral-blood-flow information indicative of temporal change).
Sankai further teaches the determination of a thinking state of the user on a basis of the cerebral blood flow information (Sankai, ¶[0007]: teaching that, based on blood-flow data measured by the sensors, the control means displays “a display pattern corresponding to the subject's thinking state”; claim 5: likewise reciting display of a pattern corresponding to the subject's thinking state based on measured blood-flow data; claim 11: teaching measurement of brain activity based on the measured cerebral blood flow, wherein control device 40 uses the cerebral-blood-flow information to determine the brain activity represented as the subject's thinking state). Sankai expressly links the measured blood-flow information to the displayed thinking state.
Also, regarding claim 8, Sankai does not expressly disclose the acquiring of target information indicative of a target state which a user aims for; compare the target state indicated by the target information and the determined thinking state of the user; and perform control of changing a property of illuminating light emitted by a lighting device that illuminates an area around the user in a case where the target state and the determined thinking state of the user do not match as a result of the comparison.
Porges teaches receiving a desired state for a subject, determining a current state from measured neural information, and comparing the current state with the desired state. Figure 3 shows that the integrator/regulator receives the desired state at step 301, determines the subject's current state at step 325, and determines at step 330 whether the current state equals the desired state. Porges further explains that the comparison determines whether the neural information falls within an acceptable range associated with the desired state. (Porges, Fig. 3; ¶[0093]-[0094].) The received desired state corresponds to the claimed target state because it is the state toward which Porges seeks to modify the subject's current state.
Porges further teaches that, when the current state does not equal the desired state, the process proceeds to determine feedback comprising modifications to environmental stimuli and provide that feedback to the subject. (Porges, ¶[0094]-[0097].) Porges expressly teaches that the environmental modifications may “increase/decrease brightness of one or more lights in the environment,” “modify color of one or more lights,” or turn lights on or off. (Porges, ¶[0100].) Thus, Porges changes a property of illuminating light in the subject's environment when the current-state/desired-state comparison indicates a mismatch.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sankai's method by using its cerebral-blood-flow-derived thinking state as Porges's current-state input, comparing that state with a desired target state, and changing an ambient-light property when the states do not match. Porges supplies the reason for the modification: its closed-loop feedback uses the current and desired states to move the current state toward the desired state. (Porges, ¶[0098].) Because Porges accepts a current-state determination for downstream environmental feedback control, a skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success using Sankai's existing thinking-state determination without changing its cerebral-blood-flow acquisition. This is prior-art-supplied motivation under MPEP 2143(I)(G). Porges is analogous art because its feedback is reasonably pertinent to using a measured user state to control environmental stimuli toward a desired state. See MPEP 2141.01(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to AARON MERRIAM whose telephone number is (703) 756-
5938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 4:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing
using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is
encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at
http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor, Jason Sims can be reached on (571)272-4867. 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.
/AARON MERRIAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/MATTHEW KREMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights