DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), 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) 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) 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.
Claim element(s):
1. body-tracking means configured to sense
is/are a means (or step) plus function limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function:
1. sense
Applicant is required to:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be a means (or step) plus function limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant is required to clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim(s) 10, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 10 and 16, the claimed machine learning is not described in a way to convey possession because it is described in the disclosure in a generic manner.
Regarding claim 20, “body-tracking means configured to sense” is indefinite as per 112(f) above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 20, “body-tracking means configured to sense” is indefinite as per 112(f) above.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 12, and 17-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chan (US 2010/0112533, of record).
Regarding claims 1 and 23, Chan discloses an electronic device comprising circuitry and method configured to generate a vestibular stimulus based on motion sequences included in control information and to perform vestibular stimulation based on the vestibular stimulus ([0052]: “to deliver current to the vestibular system of the user in response to the control signals”).
Regarding claim 5, Chan discloses that the circuitry is further configured for the user to perform motion rehearsal and/or accustomization based on vestibular stimulation ([0059]: “provides stimulation to the user to alter or induce the user’s motion. Once the user’s motions are altered, the user’s body may be trained to perform such motions. Such training may be done in a repetitious manner whereby motions are induced over and over after the user is prompted to perform the motions).
Regarding claim 12, Chan discloses that the circuitry is configured to track position or posture of a user with body trackers to estimate the pose of the user ([0047]: “Sensor 220 may be any variety of sensors including accelerometers, strain gauges gyros, MEMS gyros, current sensors, magnetic field sensors, velocity sensors, angular orientation sensors, etc.”).
Regarding claim 17, Chan discloses the circuitry is further configured to cause a video display apparatus to display, to the user, video information associated with the motion sequences ([0062]: “video output”).
Regarding claim 18, Chan discloses that the circuitry is further configured to stimulate, with the vestibular stimulus, at least one semicircular canal of the user's vestibular system; or at least one otolithic organ of the user's vestibular system; or at least one semicircular canal and at least one otolithic organ of the user's vestibular system ([0043]: “semicircular canal”, “otolithic”).
Regarding claim 19, Chan discloses the circuitry is further configured to stimulate the user's vestibular system by at least one of a direct current stimulation ([0052]: currently is directly applied to the subject).
Regarding claim 20, Chan discloses that the circuitry comprises an EEG device or body-tracking means configured to sense the user reaction ([0047]: “Sensor 220 may be any variety of sensors including accelerometers, strain gauges gyros, MEMS gyros, current sensors, magnetic field sensors, velocity sensors, angular orientation sensors, etc.”).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Chan discloses that the circuitry is provided in one or more individual head-mounted casings, or is incorporated into headphones (Fig. 1).
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-7, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 2010/0112533, of record).
Regarding claims 2-6, while Chan does not explicitly disclose that the control information includes timing information, that the motion sequences include information on sequences of intended stimuli that controls the generation of the vestibular stimulus, that motion sequences can be selected by a user input or based on user preference information, and that the motions sequences describe a difficult and/or technical motion and the motion is a sports motion. However, Chan does teach that a user undergoing rehab will have desired motions and that the system of Chan will account for motions which contain ‘timing information’ that will be associated with vestibular stimulation ([0059]: “walking” is a sports motion that may be difficult). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the rehabilitation elements of Chan, as to provide robust association of intended movements and vestibular stimulation.
Regarding claim 7, while Chan does not explicitly disclose that the motion sequences are obtained by inertial measurement of the movement and/or the acceleration of the motion of an athlete, Chan teaches that a user’s motion is accounted for by a variety of inertial sensors ([0047]: “Sensor 220 may be any variety of sensors including accelerometers, strain gauges gyros, MEMS gyros, current sensors, magnetic field sensors, velocity sensors, angular orientation sensors, etc.”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the measurements of Chan, as to provide accurate and robust measurements of a user’s motion.
Regarding claim 15, Chan does not explicitly disclose that the motion sequences are obtained during a training process in advance. However, Chan does teach acquiring a motion sequence a priori ([0016]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply a previously obtained motion sequence, as to provide motion data that was acquired in a past session.
Regarding claim 16, Chan does not explicitly disclose that motion sequences are obtained by machine learning. The use of machine learning would have been obvious in that it offers enhanced recognition of pertinent signals and patterns. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply machine learning to a motion sequence, as to provide a robust motion sequence.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 2010/0112533, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ralston (US 2022/0257149, of record).
Regarding claim 8, Chan does not explicitly disclose that the vestibular stimulation is a calibrated vestibular stimulation. However, Ralston teaches calibrating electro vestibular stimulation signals that are applied to a subject ([0152]; [0223]: “calibrate EVS pulses of varying amplitudes and frequences to the postural responses they evoke”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the calibration of Ralston to the system of Chan, as to provide a properly calibrated system.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Chan does not explicitly disclose that the calibration is obtained from a user and/or machine learning. However, Ralston teaches calibrating electro vestibular stimulation signals that are applied to a specific subject ([0152]; [0223]: “calibrate EVS pulses of varying amplitudes and frequences to the postural responses they evoke”). The use of machine learning would have been obvious in that it offers enhanced recognition of pertinent signals and patterns. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the calibration of Ralston to the system of Chan, as to provide a properly calibrated system.
Regarding claim 11, Chan does not explicitly disclose generating vestibular stimulus at various levels of intensity. However, Ralston teaches that vestibular stimuli may be at varying amplitudes and frequencies ([0223]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the varying levels of intensity as taught by Ralston to the system of Chan, as to provide control over the intensity of current applied to a subject.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 2010/0112533, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Bierer (US 2012/0226187).
Regarding claim 13, Chan does not explicitly disclose that the circuitry is configured to further control the generation of the vestibular stimulus based on an eye movement. However, Bierer teaches setting vestibular activation levels based upon recordings of eye movements ([0046]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the eye movement recording of Bierer to the system of Chan, as to provide robust correlation between eye movement and vestibular stimulation.
Regarding claim 14, Chan does not explicitly disclose that the circuitry is further configured to interrupt the stimulation based on the eye movement. However, Bierer teaches setting vestibular activation levels based upon recordings of eye movements, wherein the stimulation is controlled so as to not produce adverse effects, such as vertigo ([0046]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the eye movement recording of Bierer to the system of Chan, as to provide robust and controlled vestibular stimulation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Ip whose telephone number is (571) 270-5387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9a-5p PST.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached on (571) 272-7230. 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.
/JASON M IP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3793
Prosecution Insights