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 .
Status of the Application
This non-final first office action is in response to the communication filed on 4/23/2025. Claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been examined below. This is the first action on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a biological information acquiring unit that acquires; a content generating unit that generates; and a content accumulating unit that accumulates in claim 1; a specifying information acquiring unit that acquires in claim 2; a token recording unit that performs recording processing and an owner processing unit that performs predetermined owner processing in claim 5; the token recording unit is configured to perform recording processing; and a provider processing unit that performs predetermined provider processing in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, Claim 9 recites specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) as follows:
a content generating step of generating content information using the measurement information; and
a content accumulating step of accumulating the content information generated in the content generating step.
As noted above, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Specifically, these limitations fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. That is – the limitations describe generating content using measured biological information of a living body. The specification states that “The content is, for example, images (which may be still or moving images), sounds (voice, music, etc.), tones, colors, sentences, poems, drawings, shapes (which may be three-dimensional or two-dimensional shapes), or the like.” Examiner notes that a human being can draft and write a poem, pick a color, write a sentence, etc. based on biological information of a user. A human being can also accumulate the content information in the human mind or with pen and paper (e.g., write down a series of poems). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Accordingly claim 9 recites an abstract idea.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 9 recites the additional limitations of:
a biological information acquiring step of acquiring measurement information on a status of a living body of a providing user; and
[accumulating the content information] in the storage unit.
The additional limitations when viewed individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because each of the additional elements are recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it) or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically:
With respect to the limitation “[accumulating the content information] in the storage unit is recited at a high level of generality and merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or uses a generic computer with storage as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
With respect to the limitation a biological information acquiring step of acquiring measurement information on a status of a living body of a providing user, Examiner notes that this limitation is recited at a very high level of generality acquiring measurement information on a status of a living body which merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, or at most, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., insignificant pre-solution data gathering of generic biological information).
Additionally, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra- solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the limitation a biological information acquiring step of acquiring measurement information on a status of a living body of a providing user was analyzed as extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Examiner notes that paragraph [0033] recites “’Acquiring’ may include acquiring a matter that is input by a user or the like, or acquiring information stored in the apparatus or another apparatus (the information may be information stored in advance or information generated through information processing in the apparatus).” At this high level of generality, acquiring information amounts to no more than simply receiving information input by a user or receiving information stored on a generic device. Receiving and transmitting data is well-understood routine and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner as evidenced by the decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, a conclusion that this limitation is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
Alice Corp. also establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims (e.g., product and process claims). Therefore, system claim 1 and non-transitory computer readable medium claim 10 are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent method claim 9. The additional limitations in claim 1 (i.e., the various units) and the additional limitations of claim 10 (i.e., a non-transitory computer readable medium) add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. The components are merely providing a particular technological environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 11 merely further narrow the abstract idea and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment / apply it and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 4, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication Number 20230342583 (“Cheng”). NOTE: Cheng was filed on 12/13/2022 and claims benefit to US provisional application 63/334,063, filed 4/22/2022. The Examiner has examined the provisional application and found that the claims and specification are identical to the published nonprovisional application.
Claims 1, 9, and 10
As per claims, 1, 9 and 10, Cheng teaches an information processing apparatus; an information processing method performed using a storage unit in which information is stored; and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer capable of accessing a storage unit in which information is stored, comprising:
a biological information acquiring unit that acquires measurement information on a status of
a living body of a providing user ([0011] “sensor capabilities include the ability to measure and monitor a variety of biosignals. For example, a smart watch may have photoplethysmography (PPG) and/or electrocardiogram (ECG).” And, [0014] “two biosignals, EEG and PPG, are measured from a user.” And, [0022] “may obtain biosignal data from sensor , encode the biosignal data into a vector using encoder, and generate content based on the vector using generative model.” And, [0023] “ Encoder may obtain samples of the biosignal data directly from sensor.”);
a content generating unit that generates content information using the measurement information ([0012] “converts biosignal data into machine-learning generated content such as artwork.” And, [0015] “a generative adversarial network (GAN) to generate content such as artwork represented by image based on vector.” And, [0027] “generative model may be trained to generate audio content such as music or text content based on the vectors from encoder.”);
a content accumulating unit that accumulates the content information generated by the content
generating unit, in a storage unit in which information is stored ([0016] “biosignal data encoded into vectors for generative model to generate a sequence of images over time.” And, [0021] “Memory . . . enable storage of . . . generated data.” And, [0032] “five iterations of the process of generating an image as a user.” And, [0035]. And Figure 4.).
Claim 4
As per claim 4, Cheng further teaches:
wherein the content generating unit generates the content information using learning information configured such that input information containing the measurement information or information based on the measurement information is used to output information ([0023] “encoder is a machine learning model trained to encode a sample of biosignal data (e.g., 3 seconds, 10 seconds, etc.) into a representative vector.” And, [0024] “, generative model is a machine learning model trained to generate content, such as an image, using one or more vectors encoded by encoder as inputs.”).
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20230342583 (“Cheng”) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20210286429 (“Azemi”).
Claim 2
As per claim 2, Cheng does not explicitly teach but Azemi teaches:
wherein the content generating unit includes a specifying information acquiring unit that acquires specifying information for specifying a status of the providing user, using the measurement information, and is configured to acquire the content information based on the specifying information ([0006] “biosignal can be processed using a machine learning model to generate a particular categorical output.” And, [0070] “Each of the set of predefined categories may pertain to a particular characteristic of a context (e.g., “High mental attention” and “Low mental attention”).” And, [0022] “ a biosignal and a label that is indicative of a context during which the biosignal was collected. For example, the label can indicate which mental or physical task was being performed by a subject, a subject-identified satisfaction with content being presented, a subject-identified level of alertness, a subject-identified mood, etc. The label can be or can represent a rank category.” And, [0075] “a device operation is selected based on the predicted contextual category . . . The device operation can include changing, initiating or stopping presentation of particular music, video or image content. The device operation can be selected based on one or more static or learned rules.” And, [0023] “a device may determine to change a presentation (e.g., to change a sound being played) when an output predicts that a subject is relatively less satisfied with the stimulus being presented.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Cheng to include wherein the content generating unit includes a specifying information acquiring unit that acquires specifying information for specifying a status of the providing user, using the measurement information, and is configured to acquire the content information based on the specifying information as taught by Azemi in order to “improve[] the overall performance and utility of the app for the particular user” (Azemi [0090]) and so that the status determination is less “sensitive to cross-user variation in absolute signal characteristics and/or task engagement, making the model faster to train, more accurate and more generalizable” (Azemi [0036]).
Claim 3
As per claim 3, Cheng does not explicitly teach but Azemi teaches:
wherein the specifying information contains degree information indicating a degree to which the status of the providing user falls under a predetermined category ([0006] “biosignal can be processed using a machine learning model to generate a particular categorical output.” And, [0028] “input a biosignal and to generate an interim result that includes a numeric value along a bounded or unbounded continuum. For example, the interim result can be a real number between 0 and 1 or between −100 and 100.” And, [0021] “the second sub-model can be configured to transform the numeric output to a categorical output that predicts a context during which a given input biosignal was collected.” Examiner interprets the numeric value as a degree to which the status of the providing user falls under a predetermined category.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Cheng and Azemi to include wherein the specifying information contains degree information indicating a degree to which the status of the providing user falls under a predetermined category as taught by Azemi in order to “improve[] the overall performance and utility of the app for the particular user” (Azemi [0090]) and so that the status determination is less “sensitive to cross-user variation in absolute signal characteristics and/or task engagement, making the model faster to train, more accurate and more generalizable” (Azemi [0036]).
Claims 5-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20230342583 (“Cheng”) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication Number 20220294630 (“Collen”).
Claim 5
As per claim 5, Cheng does not explicitly teach but Collen teaches:
a token recording unit that performs recording processing that records a non-fungible token corresponding to the content information generated by the content generating unit, in a predetermined manner in association with an owner identifier for identifying an owning user of the content information ([0013] “A blockchain based token is created to represent ownership of the digital design.” And, [0090] “a smart contract is initiated to represent the digital asset, for example ERC-721 or 1155.” And, [0091] “transaction and owner information is appended to the smart contract by, for example, owner field updated, transaction price, and time recorded.” And, [0307] “ownership information associated with the digital asset, and metadata identifying the location of the plurality of digital files associated with the digital asset.”).
Cheng does not explicitly teach but Collen teaches:
an owner processing unit that performs predetermined owner processing using the owner identifier corresponding to the token in a case in which a predetermined processing condition corresponding to the token is satisfied ([0303] “ownership of the digital asset is checked . . . User A proves ownership of digital asset . . . the integrator grants User A access . . . User A enters the integrator.” And, [0304] “If the User B cannot show ownership proof . . . the Integrator denies user B access.” And [0020] “A integration partner could visit some-shoe-001.dshoe to determine if a user in question is the owner and has activated access before deciding to grant anything to the user.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Cheng to include a token recording unit that performs recording processing that records a non-fungible token corresponding to the content information generated by the content generating unit, in a predetermined manner in association with an owner identifier for identifying an owning user of the content information and an owner processing unit that performs predetermined owner processing using the owner identifier corresponding to the token in a case in which a predetermined processing condition corresponding to the token is satisfied as taught by Collen because “[t]hrough NFTs, creators can sell goods, experiences, creations, moments, and artwork directly to fans. Creators can also earn royalties on secondary sales of their work” (Collen [0004]) increasing the motivation of users to generate content based on biological information.
Claim 6
As per claim 6, Cheng does not explicitly teach but Collen teaches:
wherein in a case in which the token recording unit acquires sales information on a sale of the content information, the token recording unit performs the recording processing such that the token corresponding to the sold content information is associated with the owner identifier corresponding to the sales information ([0147] “the method includes receiving a request to purchase the digital asset, wherein the purchase request comprises transaction information identifying at least the cryptographic token and a digital wallet associated with a user, transmitting, upon validation of the purchase request, cryptographic information to the digital wallet associated with the user, wherein the cryptographic information links the user with the cryptographic token, updating the digital ledger to record the transaction, and updating the cryptographic token with information related to the transaction, said information including at least new ownership information based on the transaction.” And, [0266] “ownership of the digital asset is transferred to User C.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Cheng and Collen to include wherein in a case in which the token recording unit acquires sales information on a sale of the content information, the token recording unit performs the recording processing such that the token corresponding to the sold content information is associated with the owner identifier corresponding to the sales information as taught by Collen because “[t]hrough NFTs, creators can sell goods, experiences, creations, moments, and artwork directly to fans. Creators can also earn royalties on secondary sales of their work” (Collen [0004]) increasing the motivation of users to generate content based on biological information.
Claim 7
As per claim 7, Cheng does not explicitly teach but Collen teaches:
wherein the token recording unit is configured to perform recording processing that records the token in a predetermined manner in association with a provider identifier for identifying a providing user corresponding to the content information ([0012] “each blockchain-based token/asset may contain identifying information about the asset (for example, a digital sneaker), such as when it was created, the designer, prior owners, prior sale prices, current sale price.”).
Cheng does not explicitly teach but Collen teaches:
the information processing apparatus further comprises a provider processing unit that performs predetermined provider processing using the provider identifier corresponding to the token in a case in which a predetermined processing condition corresponding to the token is satisfied ([0016] “The royalties for the creator(s) and/or collaborator(s) for the digital and physical asset(s) may be built into the smart contract architecture. All proceeds from sales of the digital asset/NFT and any related physical assets would accrue to that NFT/smart contract, and the underlying computer code would pay the royalties according to the pre-defined proportions in the smart contract.” And, [0091] “the smart contract programmatically distributes proceeds of the sale to the digital asset's creators and designers based on pre-defined instructions.” And, [0132] “Each designer, collaborator, and promoter, for example, automatically receives the payment to a blockchain-based wallet that is able to receive ETH.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Cheng and Collen to include wherein the token recording unit is configured to perform recording processing that records the token in a predetermined manner in association with a provider identifier for identifying a providing user corresponding to the content information; and the information processing apparatus further comprises a provider processing unit that performs predetermined provider processing using the provider identifier corresponding to the token in a case in which a predetermined processing condition corresponding to the token is satisfied as taught by Collen because “[t]hrough NFTs, creators can sell goods, experiences, creations, moments, and artwork directly to fans. Creators can also earn royalties on secondary sales of their work” (Collen [0004]) increasing the motivation of users to generate content based on biological information.
Claim 8
As per claim 8, Cheng does not explicitly teach but Collen teaches:
wherein the provider processing unit grants a predetermined reward to the providing user using the provider identifier corresponding to the token, in a case in which the token recording unit performs recording processing that records the token newly in association with the owner identifier ([0017] “each subsequent sale of the digital and/or physical asset(s) may yield a royalty to the original creator(s) and collaborator(s).” And, [0025] “User A 2302 sells the digital/physical sneaker combination to User B 2304 for 4.0 ETH.” And, [0027]-[0028] “25% (1.0 ETH) divided amongst the original creators of the assets—2322 0.15 ETH to designer—2328.” And, [0232] “This pattern would continue for each and every subsequent sale of the assets.” And, [0266] “ownership of the digital asset is transferred to User C.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Cheng and Collen to include wherein the provider processing unit grants a predetermined reward to the providing user using the provider identifier corresponding to the token, in a case in which the token recording unit performs recording processing that records the token newly in association with the owner identifie as taught by Collen because “[t]hrough NFTs, creators can sell goods, experiences, creations, moments, and artwork directly to fans. Creators can also earn royalties on secondary sales of their work” (Collen [0004]) increasing the motivation of users to generate content based on biological information.
Claim 11
As per claim 11, Cheng does not explicitly teach but Collen teaches:
wherein the token recording unit is configured to perform recording processing that records the token in a predetermined manner in association with a provider identifier for identifying a providing user corresponding to the content information ([0012] “each blockchain-based token/asset may contain identifying information about the asset (for example, a digital sneaker), such as when it was created, the designer, prior owners, prior sale prices, current sale price.”).
Cheng does not explicitly teach but Collen teaches:
the information processing apparatus further comprises a provider processing unit that performs predetermined provider processing using the provider identifier corresponding to the token in a case in which a predetermined processing condition corresponding to the token is satisfied ([0016] “The royalties for the creator(s) and/or collaborator(s) for the digital and physical asset(s) may be built into the smart contract architecture. All proceeds from sales of the digital asset/NFT and any related physical assets would accrue to that NFT/smart contract, and the underlying computer code would pay the royalties according to the pre-defined proportions in the smart contract.” And, [0091] “the smart contract programmatically distributes proceeds of the sale to the digital asset's creators and designers based on pre-defined instructions.” And, [0132] “Each designer, collaborator, and promoter, for example, automatically receives the payment to a blockchain-based wallet that is able to receive ETH.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Cheng and Collen to include wherein the token recording unit is configured to perform recording processing that records the token in a predetermined manner in association with a provider identifier for identifying a providing user corresponding to the content information; and the information processing apparatus further comprises a provider processing unit that performs predetermined provider processing using the provider identifier corresponding to the token in a case in which a predetermined processing condition corresponding to the token is satisfied as taught by Collen because “[t]hrough NFTs, creators can sell goods, experiences, creations, moments, and artwork directly to fans. Creators can also earn royalties on secondary sales of their work” (Collen [0004]) increasing the motivation of users to generate content based on biological information.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication Number 20230377543 (“Flood”) discloses one or more sensors to infer the state of a user. Commonly used sensors include, without limitation, heart rate (PPG), movement (accelerometer), emotion (facial recognition), EEG sensors, muscle activity (EMG), eye movement (EOG), galvanic skin response (GSR), skin temperature, blood oxygenation. And feedback is collected in real-time, i.e., the adaptation of the music being generated is based on the data as it is collected, and the adaptation is performed in real-time, such that the generated music is immediately adapted while being played to the same user from which data are collected, to apply the feedback in real-time.
US Patent Application Publication Number 20220067376 (“Lee”) discloses storing various data used to generate an associated with the multimedia content on the basis of the biometric data of the user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II whose telephone number is (571)272-6904. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. 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.
/ALLAN J WOODWORTH, II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
