Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-6 are pending. Bolded claim language below regards newly amended subject matter with a corresponding new rejection citation. Newly amended subject matter that is not bolded does not comprise a new rejection citation (utilizes previous interpretation that is unchanged in view of the new language) or is a newly added claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aimone et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0132194), herein after referred to as Aimone, in view of Yadav et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0285220), herein after referred to as Yadav.
Regarding independent claim 1, Aimone discloses an information transmission apparatus (Figure 1 client device 14) comprising:
a first information acquisition unit configured to acquire first brain activity information of a first user (Figure 1 client device 14 described in paragraphs [0115]-[0117] to comprise sensors 18 which acquire brain-state signals such as EEG. Paragraph [0110] describes that one or more client devices 1 may be connected with server 10.);
a second information acquisition unit configured to acquire second brain activity information of a second user (As described above, paragraph [0110] describes a plurality of users and devices 14 may exist.);
a determination unit configured to calculate, based on the first brain activity information and the second brain activity information, an amount of a difference [ ] between the first user and the second user and to make a determination as to whether the difference is equal to or larger than a preset determination value (Paragraphs [0222]-[0223] describes correlation analysis is performed between different users brain state relative to a common stimulus (exampled as a video playing (content)) to determine if the users are “in-sync”. Greater correlation being associated with more “in-sync” describing at least a preset determination value/threshold for determining user to be “in-sync” or not (such as 50%). Paragraph [0254] describes particular brain state to be above a threshold to be considered “interested” in content.); and
an information controller configured to change a capacity of content transmitted and received between the first user and the second user based on a result of the determination by the determination unit (Paragraph [0031] describes a comparison of brain waves between two users watching the same content. The stream of content may be modulated based on determined correspondences between the respective users’ brain state data. Paragraphs [0222]-[0223] describes a correspondence in relation to an “in-sync” determination.).
Aimone does not specifically disclose the difference amount, based on the first and second brain activity information, is an understanding ability or an understanding speed.
Yadav discloses based on the first brain activity information and the second brain activity information, an amount of a difference in an understanding ability or an understanding speed between the first user and the second user (Paragraph [0050] describes measuring brain state characteristics, via brain waves, such that high values may indicate a person susceptible to symptoms such as high adrenaline, anxiety and/or inability to relax compared to a person with lower values that may be better adapted to engaging in activities with conscious focus, better memory, and improved problem solving (describing a person with a better understanding ability). Paragraph [0055] describes a description of a brain activity value as being high or low is relative to a pre-designated threshold. Paragraph [0057] describes determining brain activity between a first and second person via detected brain wave activity from neurotransmitters such that a determined difference between the users indicates a difference in approach for treatment.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Aimone’s calculated amount of difference, based on the first and second brain activity, for determining whether a first and second users are in sync with the known technique of the amount being an understanding ability or an understanding speed yielding the predictable results of determining whether the user is susceptible to symptoms such as high adrenaline, anxiety, ability to relax, conscious focus, better memory, and/or improved problem solving as disclosed by Yadav (paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 3, Aimone discloses the information transmission apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the information controller is further configured to, in response to a determination by the determination unit that the difference is equal to or greater than the preset determination value, change a reproduction speed of the content (Paragraph [0311] describes to change the speed of the video playback based on whether the content is considered “interesting”. Paragraph [0222]-[0223] describes the “in-sync” between users is based on both users watching similar content. Paragraph [0030] describes modulating the content based on a determined correspondence between two users.).
Regarding claim 4, Aimone discloses the information transmission apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
a multiplexing unit configured to multiplex the content to yield multiplexed content, wherein
the information controller is further configured to, in response to a determination by the determination unit that the difference is equal to or greater than the preset determination value, transmit the multiplexed content (Paragraph [0222]-[0223] describes the “in-sync” between users is based on both users watching similar content (multiplexed content). Paragraph [0030] describes modulating the content based on a determined correspondence between two users.).
Regarding independent claim 5, Aimone discloses an information transmission method (Figure 1 information transmission device 14 described in paragraphs [0108]-[0117] regarding the method of operation.) comprising:
acquiring first brain activity information of a first user (Figure 1 client device 14 described in paragraphs [0115]-[0117] to comprise sensors 18 which acquire brain-state signals such as EEG. Paragraph [0110] describes that one or more client devices 1 may be connected with server 10.);
acquiring second brain activity information of a second user (As described above, paragraph [0110] describes a plurality of users and devices 14 may exist.);
calculating, based on the first brain activity information and the second brain activity information, an amount of a difference [ ] between the first user and the second user;
determining whether the difference is equal to or greater than a preset determination value (Paragraphs [0222]-[0223] describes correlation analysis is performed between different users brain state relative to a common stimulus (exampled as a video playing (content)) to determine if the users are “in-sync”. Greater correlation being associated with more “in-sync” describing at least a preset first determination value/threshold for determining user to be “in-sync” or not (such as 50%). Paragraph [0254] describes particular brain state to be above a threshold to be considered “interested” in content.); and
changing a capacity of content transmitted and received between the first user and the second user based on a result of the determining (Paragraph [0031] describes a comparison of brain waves between two users watching the same content. The stream of content may be modulated based on determined correspondences between the respective users’ brain state data. Paragraphs [0222]-[0223] describes a correspondence in relation to an “in-sync” determination.).
Aimone does not specifically disclose the difference amount, based on the first and second brain activity information, is an understanding ability or an understanding speed.
Yadav discloses based on the first brain activity information and the second brain activity information, an amount of a difference in an understanding ability or an understanding speed between the first user and the second user (Paragraph [0050] describes measuring brain state characteristics, via brain waves, such that high values may indicate a person susceptible to symptoms such as high adrenaline, anxiety and/or inability to relax compared to a person with lower values that may be better adapted to engaging in activities with conscious focus, better memory, and improved problem solving (describing a person with a better understanding ability). Paragraph [0055] describes a description of a brain activity value as being high or low is relative to a pre-designated threshold. Paragraph [0057] describes determining brain activity between a first and second person via detected brain wave activity from neurotransmitters such that a determined difference between the users indicates a difference in approach for treatment.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Aimone’s calculated amount of difference, based on the first and second brain activity, for determining whether a first and second users are in sync with the known technique of the amount being an understanding ability or an understanding speed yielding the predictable results of determining whether the user is susceptible to symptoms such as high adrenaline, anxiety, ability to relax, conscious focus, better memory, and/or improved problem solving as disclosed by Yadav (paragraph [0050]).
Regarding independent claim 6, Aimone discloses a non-transitory storage medium that stores a program for causing a computer to execute (paragraphs [0410]-[0413]):
acquiring first brain activity information of a first user (Figure 1 client device 14 described in paragraphs [0115]-[0117] to comprise sensors 18 which acquire brain-state signals such as EEG. Paragraph [0110] describes that one or more client devices 1 may be connected with server 10.);
acquiring second brain activity information of a second user (As described above, paragraph [0110] describes a plurality of users and devices 14 may exist.);
calculating, based on the first brain activity information and the second brain activity information, an amount of a difference [ ] between the first user and the second user;
determining whether the difference is equal to or greater than a preset determination value (Paragraphs [0222]-[0223] describes correlation analysis is performed between different users brain state relative to a common stimulus (exampled as a video playing (content)) to determine if the users are “in-sync”. Greater correlation being associated with more “in-sync” describing at least a preset first determination value/threshold for determining user to be “in-sync” or not (such as 50%). Paragraph [0254] describes particular brain state to be above a threshold to be considered “interested” in content.); and
changing a capacity of content transmitted and received between the first user and the second user based on a result of the determining (Paragraph [0031] describes a comparison of brain waves between two users watching the same content. The stream of content may be modulated based on determined correspondences between the respective users’ brain state data. Paragraphs [0222]-[0223] describes a correspondence in relation to an “in-sync” determination.).
Aimone does not specifically disclose the difference amount, based on the first and second brain activity information, is an understanding ability or an understanding speed.
Yadav discloses based on the first brain activity information and the second brain activity information, an amount of a difference in an understanding ability or an understanding speed between the first user and the second user (Paragraph [0050] describes measuring brain state characteristics, via brain waves, such that high values may indicate a person susceptible to symptoms such as high adrenaline, anxiety and/or inability to relax compared to a person with lower values that may be better adapted to engaging in activities with conscious focus, better memory, and improved problem solving (describing a person with a better understanding ability). Paragraph [0055] describes a description of a brain activity value as being high or low is relative to a pre-designated threshold. Paragraph [0057] describes determining brain activity between a first and second person via detected brain wave activity from neurotransmitters such that a determined difference between the users indicates a difference in approach for treatment.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Aimone’s calculated amount of difference, based on the first and second brain activity, for determining whether a first and second users are in sync with the known technique of the amount being an understanding ability or an understanding speed yielding the predictable results of determining whether the user is susceptible to symptoms such as high adrenaline, anxiety, ability to relax, conscious focus, better memory, and/or improved problem solving as disclosed by Yadav (paragraph [0050]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aimone in view of Coleman et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0113973), herein after referred to as Coleman.
Regarding claim 2, Aimone discloses the information transmission apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
The information controller is further configured to, in response to a determination by the determination unit that the difference is equal to or greater than the preset determination value, modulate the content (Paragraph [0222]-[0223] describes the “in-sync” between users is based on both users watching similar content. Paragraph [0030] describes modulating the content based on a determined correspondence between two users.).
Aimone does not specifically disclose to summarize the content.
Coleman discloses to summarize the content based on brain activity (Paragraphs [0453]-[0454] describes to summarize video content based on EEG/brain activity.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Aimone’s determined difference is equal to or larger than the preset first determination value to modulate content with the known technique of content being modulated by summarizing the content yielding the predictable results of highlighting a user’s day determined from the user’s brain activity as disclosed by Coleman (paragraph [0454]).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 have been fully considered but they relate towards newly amended subject matter. Newly cited art Yadav is utilized in combination with previously cited art Aimone to reject the subject matter.
It is noted newly amended subject matter states to calculate an amount of a difference in an understanding ability or an understanding speed between the first user and the second user. An understanding ability/speed is subjective between arts. For example, prior art Yadav discloses the limitation is determined from beta, gamma, and theta waves.
However, page 11 lines 1-14 of the current application’s originally filed specification, describes the measurable amount of a person’s ability/speed in understanding is determined from the histamine H3 receptor density such that, the lower the histamine H3 receptor density in the frontal cortex is, the quicker thinking the person is. While there may be a correlation between the histamine H3 receptor density and beta, gamma, and theta brain waves, there is a signal difference between the H3 receptor density and said brain waves. The current application attributes the H3 receptor density signal to a correlated “understanding ability/speed” while the prior art attributes the synonymous “understanding ability/speed” to the beta/gamma brain waves. It is suggested to claim this difference to overcome the current rejection, specifying how the current application is able to calculate and determine a person’s “understanding ability/speed”. Please note that while this suggestions overcomes the current rejection further search and consideration must be performed before any determination of allowability can be made.
This action is final necessitated by amendment
Conclusion
6. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E LEIBY whose telephone number is (571)270-3142. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E LEIBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights