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
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner suggests changing the phrase “…process the bio-signal data to determine user states of the user, including brain states;…” to read --… process the bio-signal data to determine user states of the user, including brain states; and…-- (emphasis added) in order to place the claim in better form.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 3 recites that a flexible printed circuit board (FPCB) is disposed within the interior of the matrix [of the pad for the earpiece]. While the specification discloses a FPCB being disposed in the matrix of a face pad 120/121, the specification does not disclose that a FPCB could be inserted into the earpiece pad 145. Support for placing a FPCB in the earpiece pad 145 must be added to the specification or the claim should be amended.
Claim 9 recites that an optical device is mounted into the pad [earpiece pad]. While the specification discloses an optical device 140 being mounted into the face pad 120/121, the specification does not disclose an optical device mounted into the earpiece pad 145. Support for mounting an optical device in the earpiece pad 145 must be added to the specification or the claim should be amended.
Claim 10 recites that the pad is configured to detachably attach to a wearable computing device. While the specification discloses a face pad 120 that is detachably attached to a wearable computing device 100, the specification does that an earpiece pad 145 is detachably attached to a wearable computing device 100. Support for a detachable earpiece pad 145 must be added to the specification or the claim should be amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Antos et al (hereinafter Antos – US Doc. No. 20170325738).
Regarding claim 1, Antos discloses a earpiece (Figure 1, element 1) comprising:
an earpiece body (5);
a pad (8), wherein the pad comprises an interior (see Figure 6, element 44), an exterior surface (38), and a coupler for attaching the pad to the earpiece body (see paragraph 0052);
a speaker (see Figure 12, element 60); and
one or more electrodes to detect bio-signal data from a user (41).
Regarding claim 2, Antos discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above and further that the interior comprises an interior matrix (as shown in Figures 6 and 8 – note the matrix of flexible tube supports 48).
Regarding claim 8, Antos discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above and further that earpiece is in communication with a computing device (see paragraph 0063).
Regarding claim 13, Antos discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above and further an electrical signal generator (see paragraphs 0062-0063 – note that the EEG sensors are also considered signal generators since they measure the brainwaves of the user and produce a signal of the measurements which is sent to the processor(s)).
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 manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antos et al (hereinafter Antos – US Doc. No. 20170325738).
Regarding claim 3, Antos discloses all of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed in the claim 2 rejection above. Although Antos discloses that a speaker driver is disposed within the interior matrix (see Figure 12, element 61), Antos does not specifically disclose that a flexible printed circuit board is disposed within the interior matrix.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had good reason to pursue the known option of disposing electronics within the interior matrix of the pad. It would require no more than "ordinary skill and common sense," to place a flexible PCB into the interior matrix instead of the speaker driver in order for the electronic device to fit within the designed form factor.
Claims 4, 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antos et al (hereinafter Antos – US Doc. No. 20170325738) in view of Cowan (USPN 5740812).
Regarding claim 4, Antos discloses all of the limitations of claim 2 as discussed in the claim 2 rejection above. Antos does not specifically disclose that the interior matrix comprises an open-cell foam.
Cowan, in the same field of endeavor of bio-sensing headphones, discloses a headset (see Figure 1, element 10) including a pad (32), speaker (36), and EEG sensors (40) wherein the interior matrix of the pad comprises an open-cell foam (see col. 3, lines 12-20 – note the use of foam).
It would have been obvious to combine the headset as disclosed by Antos with the bio-sensing headset using a foam cushion as disclosed by Cowan, the combination yielding predictable results and no more than one of ordinary skill in the art would expect from such an arrangement and further to create a more comfortable user experience.
Regarding claim 6, Antos discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Antos does not specifically disclose that the pad comprises a conductive coating.
Cowan, in the same field of endeavor of bio-sensing headphones, discloses a headset (see Figure 1, element 10) including a pad (32), speaker (36), and EEG sensors (40) wherein the pad comprises a conductive coating applied on the exterior surface (see col. 3, lines 12-20 – note the use of conductive sponge/foam or other electrically conductive material).
It would have been obvious to combine the headset as disclosed by Antos with the bio-sensing headset using a foam cushion as disclosed by Cowan, the combination yielding predictable results and no more than one of ordinary skill in the art would expect from such an arrangement and further to create a more comfortable user experience while increasing the fidelity of the bio-feedback.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Antos and Cowan discloses all of the limitations of claim 6 as discussed in the claim 6 rejection above. Cowan further discloses that the pad includes the electrodes disposed thereon and in electrical connection with the conductive coating (see col. 3, lines 12-20 – note the use of conductive sponge/foam or other electrically conductive material).
Regarding claim 10, Antos discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Antos does not specifically disclose that the pad is configured to detachably attach to a wearable computing device.
Cowan, in the same field of endeavor of bio-sensing headphones, discloses a headset (see Figure 1, element 10) including a pad (32), speaker (36), and EEG sensors (40) and further comprising a headband pad is detachably attached to the headset (see col. 3, line 66 thru col. 4, line 10). Although Cowan discloses a detachably attached pad, Cowan does not disclose that the earpiece pad is detachably attached.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had good reason to pursue the known option of detachable pads (as disclosed by Cowan). It would require no more than "ordinary skill and common sense," to arrange for the pad as disclosed by Antos to be detachably attached as disclosed by Cowan.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antos et al (hereinafter Antos – US Doc. No. 20170325738) in view of Jeon et al. (hereinafter Jeon – US Doc. No. 20150230020).
Regarding claim 5, Antos discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Antos does not specifically disclose that the exterior surface of the cushion [read: pad] is thermoplastic urethane or synthetic leather.
Jeon, in the same field of endeavor of biosensing headphones, discloses a headset (as shown in Figure 11) including an earpiece (as shown in Figure 11; see also paragraph 0048), a pad (see paragraph 0048 – note ‘ear cushions’), and EEG sensors (see paragraph 0041) wherein the exterior surface of the pad is faux [read: synthetic] leather (see Figure 15; see also paragraph 0051).
It would have been obvious to combine the headset as disclosed by Antos with the headset with faux leather covering the ear pads as disclosed by Jeon, the combination yielding predictable results and no more than one of ordinary skill in the art would expect from such an arrangement and furthermore to provide the user with a comfortable listening experience.
Regarding claim 12, Antos discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Antos does not specifically disclose that the one or more electrodes are distributed along the pad and spaced apart.
Jeon, in the same field of endeavor of biosensing headphones, discloses a headset (as shown in Figure 11) including an earpiece (as shown in Figure 11; see also paragraph 0048), a pad (see paragraph 0048 – note ‘ear cushions’), and EEG sensors (see paragraph 0041) wherein the one or more electrodes are distributed along the pad and spaced apart (see paragraphs 0041-0042).
It would have been obvious to combine the headset as disclosed by Antos with the headset with faux leather containing spaced apart electrodes covering the ear pads as disclosed by Jeon, the combination yielding predictable results and no more than one of ordinary skill in the art would expect from such an arrangement and furthermore to provide the user with a comfortable listening experience.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antos et al (hereinafter Antos – US Doc. No. 20170325738) in view of Aimone et al. (hereinafter Aimone – US Doc. No. 20160077547).
Regarding claim 9, Antos discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Antos does not specifically disclose an optical device mounted into the pad.
Aimone discloses a head-mounted display (shown in Figure 1) comprising a display (110), a computing device (150), EEG sensors (120; see also paragraph 0068), and a headband comprising a sound generator (140) wherein the sound generator comprises headphones (see paragraph 0055) and further that there is an optical device mounted into the pad (110).
It would have been obvious to combine the headset as disclosed by Antos with the VR headset comprising headphones [read: headset] as disclosed by Aimone, the combination yielding predictable results and no more than one of ordinary skill in the art would expect from such an arrangement.
Regarding claim 11, Antos discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Antos does not specifically disclose a head mounted display.
Aimone discloses a head-mounted display (shown in Figure 1) comprising a display (110), a computing device (150), EEG sensors (120; see also paragraph 0068), and a headband comprising a sound generator (140) wherein the sound generator comprises headphones (see paragraph 0055) and further that there is an optical device mounted into the pad (110).
It would have been obvious to combine the headset as disclosed by Antos with the head mounted display comprising headphones [read: headset] as disclosed by Aimone, the combination yielding predictable results and no more than one of ordinary skill in the art would expect from such an arrangement.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aimone et al. (hereinafter Aimone – US Doc. No. 20160077547) in view of Antos et al (hereinafter Antos – US Doc. No. 20170325738).
Regarding claim 14, Aimone discloses a wearable computing device (as shown in Figure 1) comprising: headphones (140; see also paragraph 0055). Aimone does not specifically disclose all of the elements of claim 1.
Antos, discloses a set of headphones as described in claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above).
It would have been obvious to combine the wearable computing device including headphones as disclosed by Aimone with the audio headset as disclosed by Antos, the combination yielding predictable results and no more than one of ordinary skill in the art would expect from such an arrangement and further to increase the number of bio-sensor readings for increased data sensing/fidelity by using a headset including more biosensors.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Aimone and Antos discloses all of the limitations of claim 14 as discussed in the claim 14 rejection above. Aimone further discloses a head mounted display (Figure 1, element 110).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Aimone and Antos discloses all of the limitations of claim 14 as discussed in the claim 14 rejection above. Aimone further discloses that the wearable computing device provides an interactive mediated reality environment for a user (see paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Aimone and Antos discloses all of the limitations of claim 14 as discussed in the claim 14 rejection above. Aimone further discloses that the computing device is in communication with a processor (see paragraph 0110 – note the use of one or more processors) configured to:
present content via the speaker (see paragraph 0057 – note that the sound generator 140 presents audio to the user);
receive the bio-signal data of a user from the one or more electrodes (see paragraph 0057 – note that the bio-signal data is received);
process the bio-signal data to determine user states of the user, including brain states (see paragraph 0057 – note that the bio-signal data is processed to determine brain states);
modify a property of the content according to the bio-signal data of the user (see paragraph 0054 – note that the content is modified based on the bio-signal data).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Aimone and Antos discloses all of the limitations of claim 17 as discussed in the claim 17 rejection above. Aimone further discloses that the processor is further configured to: receive user manual inputs from an input device for creating or modifying the content (see paragraph 0054 – note that the user input has affects the VR environment).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Aimone and Antos discloses all of the limitations of claim 17 as discussed in the claim 17 rejection above. Aimone further discloses that the content is presented as part of an interactive mediated reality environment (see paragraph 0054 – note that the content is part of a VR environment).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Aimone and Antos discloses all of the limitations of claim 17 as discussed in the claim 17 rejection above. Aimone further discloses that the user states are processed using a user profile stored in a data storage device accessible by the processor (see paragraphs 0057 and 0060 – note the use of user profiles).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hwang et al. (US Doc. No. 20160320840) discloses bio-sensing headphones for connection with a computing device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM R GIESY whose telephone number is (571)272-7555. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-6.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 5712727603. 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.
/ADAM R. GIESY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights