DETAILED ACTION
This is responsive to application 19/479,484 filed on 10/28/2025 in which claims 1-12 are presented for examination.
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 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 mindfulness control section..” in claims 1, 8 and 12.
“a connection evoking control section...”, in claims 1, 3., 9, 12.
“a self-compassion control section...” in claim 4.
“a generation unit..” in claims 5, 6, 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 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation ““a mindfulness control section..” in claims 1, 8 and 12.
“a connection evoking control section...”, in claims 1, 3., 9, 12.
“a self-compassion control section...” in claim 4.
“a generation unit..” in claims 5, 6, 7.” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification seems to designate these elements as units (Fig. 2); furthermore these units are merely described at high level, substantially same as the claim language. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which filter structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, 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 and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should 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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 4, 11, and 12 recites “....wherein the provision...” , it is unclear which provision applicant is implying to, as there is no mention of “provision” in the claim limitations before. For examining purposes, the examiner is interpreting “the provision”, as simply step of claiming application of the stimuli.
Dependent claims 2-3, and 5-10 are rejected on the basis of rejected base claim.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of recited elements. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes, it’s a machine(device).
Step 2a Prong 1 (judicial exception)
Step 2A (1): “Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes , the claim comes under mental processes.
Claim 1 recites:
“An information processing device comprising: a mindfulness control section that performs control in a mindfulness mode, which is an operation mode for bringing a user into a mindful state, in such a way as to provide a first stimulus for the user; and a connection evoking control section that performs control in a connection evoking mode, which is an operation mode for evoking a sense of connection in the user, in such a way as to provide a second stimulus for the user on a basis of recalled person information, which is information acquired from a recalled person, who evokes the sense of connection, wherein the provision of the first stimulus is initiated prior to the provision of the second stimulus.”
All the limitations above are abstract idea related to the mental process (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)) with the exception of bold and underlined limitations. Claim language pertains to providing the user a mindfulness/relaxation experience, such as breathing guidance, calming sound, vibration, or other soothing stimuli. After that, it gives a second experience based on “recalled person information” gathered from someone meaningful to the user, such as a heartbeat, voice, text, image, or other time-series data. The second experience is meant to evoke a sense of connection with that person. It further observe the change in user due to stimuli, thus observing, evaluating, and judging.
Step 2A(2): Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. NO
The claim does recite additional elements; however they don’t integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Processing device (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
mindfulness control section (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
connection evoking control section(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception? NO
As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Dependent claims 2-10 further narrows the abstract idea defined in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 claims “a program”, which is software per se, thus doesn’t fall under one of the statutory categories. Note, though the program causes computer to function as claimed device, all the computer related limitation are external to a program. Assuming, the applicant makes corrections to overcome the statutory category issues, the claim is rejected under abstract idea for the same rational as presented in claim 1 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)(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 1,3, 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(2) as anticipated by Santarnecchi (US 20260112487 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Santarnecchi teaches an information processing device comprising:
a mindfulness control section that performs control in a mindfulness mode, which is an operation mode for bringing a user into a mindful state, in such a way as to provide a first stimulus for the user (para, “[0402] In some embodiments, a VR environment may be created to elicit a specific brain state where stimuli are visualized in specific sequences to elicit a brain response representative of a more mindful, calm state, with decreased activation of emotion-regulation areas of the brain such as the amygdala, thus favoring neutral reprocessing of traumatic memories...”
Also, para “[0037] .....The method includes receiving information characterizing an initial brain state of the person, wherein the information includes electrophysiological and cognitive data recorded from the person, defining an optimal sequence of cognitive changes to be induced to change a state of the person from the initial brain state to a target brain state, delivering, based on the optimal sequence of cognitive changes to be induced, one or more cognitive modulators targeting specific brain structures and cognitive functions, and receiving feedback regarding the effect of the delivered one or more cognitive modulators to determine whether a state of the brain of the person is in the target brain state.”
Also, para “[0011] In some embodiments, a method of changing a state of a brain of a person to a target brain state is provided. The method includes receiving information associated with digital replica of an initial brain state of the person, the digital replica including a plurality of brain metrics, determining based, at least in part, on the received information associated with the digital replica of the initial brain state of the person, a non-invasive brain stimulation protocol to change the state of the brain of the person from the initial brain state to the target brain state, and stimulating, with at least one non-invasive brain stimulation device, the brain of the person according to the determined non-invasive brain stimulation protocol to change the state of the brain of the person from the initial brain state to the target brain state. “ Note: Also , see para ,0224, 0038; para 0457-0463 teach different type of stimuli that can be used to bring the user to target state (mindful state).))
and a connection evoking control section that performs control in a connection evoking mode, which is an operation mode for evoking a sense of connection in the user, in such a way as to provide a second stimulus for the user on a basis of recalled person information(para, “[0573] In some embodiments, manipulation of time may be applied to exposure to (i) external stimuli (e.g., a photo, a sound, a movie, sensory stimulation in the form of tactile stimulation) or (ii) internal stimuli (e.g., a memory of a past trauma, visual imagery of a future event, a memory of a specific individual). Duration of the stimuli may be manipulated according to the desired effect.”),
which is information acquired from a recalled person, who evokes the sense of connection (para, “[0573] In some embodiments, manipulation of time may be applied to exposure to (i) external stimuli (e.g., a photo, a sound, a movie, sensory stimulation in the form of tactile stimulation) or (ii) internal stimuli (e.g., a memory of a past trauma, visual imagery of a future event, a memory of a specific individual). Duration of the stimuli may be manipulated according to the desired effect.” Note: here memory of trauma, or memory of person is information that can evoke sense of connection.
“[0168]..... NFTs for unique memories, moments and brain states may be manually generated by an individual by assigning labels to specific moments in time, or automatically generated via algorithms based on thresholds of brain, psychological and physiological activation marking the beginning and end of a uniquely valuable moment in time to be stored as an NFT. .....An NFT may be automatically generated in moments of high emotional activation (for instance, when meeting a partner or member of the family after a long separation, when interacting with a pet or a child, when remembering a positive or negative memory). Brain state detection, analysis and storage may be performed via algorithms from DARWIN and stored in DATANET.” Note: Also, see para 0279)
wherein the provision of the first stimulus is initiated prior to the provision of the second stimulus (Para, “[0196] Once a DMDT is available, the DARWIN module may be configured to estimate the potential of an individual brain to grow, evolve, adapt and/or learn, in accordance with some embodiments. DARWIN may be configured to create a digital representation of an individual brain, including its structural and functional properties and corresponding cognitive and psychological hierarchies and abilities, allowing to perform simulations describing the response to stimuli such as normal and pathological aging, external perturbation as in the case of traumatic brain injury or brain tumors or magnetic/electrical stimulation, or psychological stressors such as trauma. For instance, DARWIN may be configured to identify optimal trajectories to guide brain change, both when the goal is a modifiable, transient target state, or a new stable brain configuration (a trait). DARWIN also allows to specifically modify one or more brain properties relevant for a given objective, for instance learning a new musical instrument or inducing a meditative state. Details on exemplary different applications of using DARWIN are described below. DARWIN may be informed by data collected via PERCEPTRON, by models and information from SYNAPSE and IMPROVE, may generate assessment tools via SCREEN, and/or guide procedures used in STIMOLA.” Note: here, once the initial state is determined, the state can be modified, and a new state can be induced; basically, any sequence of multiple stimuli can be performed depending on the target state. Also, see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 3, Santarnecch teaches the information processing device according to claim 1.
Santarnecch further teaches:
wherein the connection evoking mode includes a passive mode for providing the second stimulus regardless of an input from the user (Para, “[0144] Some embodiments relate to creating a DMDT based, at least in part, on passive data, evoked data, active data, or any combination thereof. For example, the passive data may be obtained by recording passive data from the brain using noninvasive electrophysiology in the form of electroencephalography (EEG), and the dynamics of brain activity may be summarized in a series of indices and metrics describing topology, activity and dynamic of a given brain under the name of “Electrome” per its similarity to the brain Connectome.”
Para 0374, “...Given the possibility to collect this information “passively,” e.g., without having the subject actively engage in a cognitive test or a particular task, these methods are particularly useful in patient populations characterized by cognitive impairment, behavioral disturbances and lack of compliance (as in the case of AD patients). Moreover, these methods for identification of altered cognitive function via passive perturbation also reduce patients' burden by potentially adding valuable information on a patient's cognitive status without the need for extensive and tiring cognitive assessments.” Also, see para 0518)
and an active mode for providing the second stimulus according to an input from the user (Para, “[0522] In some embodiments, passive data may be combined with active data collected via dedicated questionnaires prompted during, before and/or after a gaming session, to elicit specific behavioral, cognitive and psychological responses.”),
and the connection evoking control section performs control in such a way as to provide the second stimulus for the user on a basis of the recalled person information in at least one of the passive mode and the active mode (Para, “para, “[0573] In some embodiments, manipulation of time may be applied to exposure to (i) external stimuli (e.g., a photo, a sound, a movie, sensory stimulation in the form of tactile stimulation) or (ii) internal stimuli (e.g., a memory of a past trauma, visual imagery of a future event, a memory of a specific individual). Duration of the stimuli may be manipulated according to the desired effect.” Note: here memory of trauma, or memory of person is information that can evoke sense of connection.” Also, see para 0522).
Regarding claim 5, Santarnecch teaches the information processing device according to claim 1.
Santarnecch further teaches further comprising: a generation unit that generates feedback information indicating a change in the user due to the first stimulus and the second stimulus (Para, “[0026] In some embodiments, a method of stimulating one or more brain regions of a person to guide a state of the brain of the person to a target state is provided. The method includes receiving non-invasive brain stimulation parameters, wherein the non-invasive brain stimulation parameters are determined using information included in a dynamic multilayer digital twin (DMDT) associated with the brain of the person, controlling at least one non-invasive brain stimulation device according to the non-invasive brain stimulation parameters to stimulate the one or more brain regions of the person, and receiving feedback regarding an effect of the stimulation of the one or more brain regions to determine whether the state of the brain of the person is in the target state.” Note: this is information is true for first, or second, or n number of stimuli.)
Regarding claim 6, Santarnecch teaches the information processing device according to claim 5.
Santarnecch further teaches further comprising: wherein the generation unit generates the feedback information on a basis of time-series biological information measured by a measurement unit that measures the biological information regarding the user (Para, “[0151].... Metrics related to local activity may also be extracted and integrated with network-level metrics. Metrics related to activity may be applied to both static and dynamic data (e.g., time series data), as a summary of activity over time and/or a continuous discrete measure of activity over time.”
Para, “[0014] In some embodiments, a method of creating a digital replica of a brain state of a person is provided. The method includes receiving information associated with a brain of the person, the information including structural brain information and functional brain information, the functional brain information including electrophysiological data recorded from the person, processing the received information to determine a plurality of brain metrics that characterize a brain state of the person, and creating a digital replica of the brain state of the person based, at least in part, on the plurality of brain metrics determined from received information.”)
Regarding claim 7, Santarnecch teaches the information processing device according to claim 5.
Santarnecch further teaches wherein the generation unit generates the feedback information on a basis of an input from the user (Para, “[0522] In some embodiments, passive data may be combined with active data collected via dedicated questionnaires prompted during, before and/or after a gaming session, to elicit specific behavioral, cognitive and psychological responses.”
Para, “[0145] The evoked data may be obtained by, for example, recording active data from the brain including, but not limited to, electrical and/or hemodynamic signals measured in response to external stimuli (e.g., in response to a flashing light or sound) or manipulation of brain state via specific instructions (e.g., induction of a meditative state).”)
Regarding claim 8, Santarnecch teaches the information processing device according to claim 5.
Santarnecch further teaches wherein the mindfulness control section determines the first stimulus to be provided for the user on a basis of the feedback information (Para, “[0244] In some embodiments, DARWIN may be used to identify optimal brain structures, areas and networks exerting a controlling effect on brain activity, and therefore may be important to induce changes in brain state. Identification of such structures and functional networks may allow for performing a selective perturbation aimed at increasing levels of brain control, thus inducing, for instance, a specific change in brain state or an overall decrease in brain controllability (e.g., resulting in enhanced shielding against perturbation). Analysis of network controllability was performed by representing the human brain as a network, based on both its structural and functional connectome. The resulting connectome matrices were used to define preferential connectivity pathways supporting information processing and hierarchical organization of brain activity.”
Para, “[0341] In some embodiments, analysis of individual or group-level brain data may be carried out to quantify differences in brain activity before and after a treatment for Alzheimer's disease or memory problems. Pre-Post treatment changes in perturbation-based metrics may be used to evaluate individual or group-level response to a given treatment, alter the treatment parameters, or facilitate a decision to continue or discontinue treatment.”)
Regarding claim 9, Santarnecch teaches the information processing device according to claim 5.
Santarnecch further teaches wherein the connection evoking control section determines the second stimulus to be provided for the user on a basis of the feedback information (Para, “[0171].... the individual may want to restore the previous pattern of brain activity in order to regain his/her performance; the NFT used at a first time point may be used as a template to guide rewiring of brain activity patterns using DARWIN. FIG. 3C shows that a similar procedure may be implemented to rewire brain activity of an individual to match that of a different individual with desirable patterns of brain activity and corresponding behavior/performance.”
Para, “[0163] In some embodiments, a NFT may be used in clinical settings as a template to derive DARWIN solutions to transition from a current BRAINPRINT of a patient to a past brain state/trait using STIMOLA and including interventions including, but not limited to, transcranial electrical and magnetic stimulation....” Note: here, current brainprint is feedback information regarding current state, and NFT can be used to go to target state. Also note, NFT is generated by using a particular stet or moment in time (para 0162), thus recalling. Also NFT can be from other individuals (see para 0165), thus a connection to individual.)
Regarding claim 10, Santarnecch teaches the information processing device according to claim 1.
Santarnecch further teaches wherein the second stimulus is a physical stimulus or a cognitive stimulus (Para, “[0030] In one aspect, the method further includes controlling a non-invasive stimulation device to provide the first non-invasive stimulation to each location of the plurality of locations in the brain of the person. In another aspect, providing the first non-invasive stimulation includes providing at least one of transcranial electrical stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation or transcranial focused ultrasound stimulation. In another aspect, providing the first non-invasive stimulation comprises providing at least one sensory or cognitive stimulus.....”)
Regarding claim 11, Santarnecchi teaches An information processing method performed by an information processing device, the information processing method comprising:
a mindfulness control step of performing control in a mindfulness mode, which is an operation mode for bringing a user into a mindful state, in such a way as to provide a first stimulus for the user((para, “[0402] In some embodiments, a VR environment may be created to elicit a specific brain state where stimuli are visualized in specific sequences to elicit a brain response representative of a more mindful, calm state, with decreased activation of emotion-regulation areas of the brain such as the amygdala, thus favoring neutral reprocessing of traumatic memories...”
Also, para “[0037] .....The method includes receiving information characterizing an initial brain state of the person, wherein the information includes electrophysiological and cognitive data recorded from the person, defining an optimal sequence of cognitive changes to be induced to change a state of the person from the initial brain state to a target brain state, delivering, based on the optimal sequence of cognitive changes to be induced, one or more cognitive modulators targeting specific brain structures and cognitive functions, and receiving feedback regarding the effect of the delivered one or more cognitive modulators to determine whether a state of the brain of the person is in the target brain state.”
Also, para “[0011] In some embodiments, a method of changing a state of a brain of a person to a target brain state is provided. The method includes receiving information associated with digital replica of an initial brain state of the person, the digital replica including a plurality of brain metrics, determining based, at least in part, on the received information associated with the digital replica of the initial brain state of the person, a non-invasive brain stimulation protocol to change the state of the brain of the person from the initial brain state to the target brain state, and stimulating, with at least one non-invasive brain stimulation device, the brain of the person according to the determined non-invasive brain stimulation protocol to change the state of the brain of the person from the initial brain state to the target brain state. “ Note: Also , see para ,0224, 0038; para 0457-0463 teach different type of stimuli that can be used to bring the user to target state (mindful state).));
and a connection evoking control step of performing control in a connection evoking mode, which is an operation mode for evoking a sense of connection in the user, in such a way as to provide a second stimulus for the user on a basis of recalled person information(para, “[0573] In some embodiments, manipulation of time may be applied to exposure to (i) external stimuli (e.g., a photo, a sound, a movie, sensory stimulation in the form of tactile stimulation) or (ii) internal stimuli (e.g., a memory of a past trauma, visual imagery of a future event, a memory of a specific individual). Duration of the stimuli may be manipulated according to the desired effect.”),
which is information acquired from a recalled person, who evokes the sense of connection(para, “[0573] In some embodiments, manipulation of time may be applied to exposure to (i) external stimuli (e.g., a photo, a sound, a movie, sensory stimulation in the form of tactile stimulation) or (ii) internal stimuli (e.g., a memory of a past trauma, visual imagery of a future event, a memory of a specific individual). Duration of the stimuli may be manipulated according to the desired effect.” Note: here memory of trauma, or memory of person is information that can evoke sense of connection.
“[0168]..... NFTs for unique memories, moments and brain states may be manually generated by an individual by assigning labels to specific moments in time, or automatically generated via algorithms based on thresholds of brain, psychological and physiological activation marking the beginning and end of a uniquely valuable moment in time to be stored as an NFT. .....An NFT may be automatically generated in moments of high emotional activation (for instance, when meeting a partner or member of the family after a long separation, when interacting with a pet or a child, when remembering a positive or negative memory). Brain state detection, analysis and storage may be performed via algorithms from DARWIN and stored in DATANET.” Note: Also, see para 0279),
wherein the provision of the first stimulus is initiated prior to the provision of the second stimulus Para, “[0196] Once a DMDT is available, the DARWIN module may be configured to estimate the potential of an individual brain to grow, evolve, adapt and/or learn, in accordance with some embodiments. DARWIN may be configured to create a digital representation of an individual brain, including its structural and functional properties and corresponding cognitive and psychological hierarchies and abilities, allowing to perform simulations describing the response to stimuli such as normal and pathological aging, external perturbation as in the case of traumatic brain injury or brain tumors or magnetic/electrical stimulation, or psychological stressors such as trauma. For instance, DARWIN may be configured to identify optimal trajectories to guide brain change, both when the goal is a modifiable, transient target state, or a new stable brain configuration (a trait). DARWIN also allows to specifically modify one or more brain properties relevant for a given objective, for instance learning a new musical instrument or inducing a meditative state. Details on exemplary different applications of using DARWIN are described below. DARWIN may be informed by data collected via PERCEPTRON, by models and information from SYNAPSE and IMPROVE, may generate assessment tools via SCREEN, and/or guide procedures used in STIMOLA.” Note: here, once the initial state is determined, the state can be modified, and a new state can be induced; basically, any sequence of multiple stimuli can be performed depending on the target state. Also, see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 12, Santarnecchi teaches a program causing a computer to function as an information processing device including:
a mindfulness control section that performs control in a mindfulness mode, which is an operation mode for bringing a user into a mindful state, in such a way as to provide a first stimulus for the user(para, “[0402] In some embodiments, a VR environment may be created to elicit a specific brain state where stimuli are visualized in specific sequences to elicit a brain response representative of a more mindful, calm state, with decreased activation of emotion-regulation areas of the brain such as the amygdala, thus favoring neutral reprocessing of traumatic memories...”
Also, para “[0037] .....The method includes receiving information characterizing an initial brain state of the person, wherein the information includes electrophysiological and cognitive data recorded from the person, defining an optimal sequence of cognitive changes to be induced to change a state of the person from the initial brain state to a target brain state, delivering, based on the optimal sequence of cognitive changes to be induced, one or more cognitive modulators targeting specific brain structures and cognitive functions, and receiving feedback regarding the effect of the delivered one or more cognitive modulators to determine whether a state of the brain of the person is in the target brain state.”
Also, para “[0011] In some embodiments, a method of changing a state of a brain of a person to a target brain state is provided. The method includes receiving information associated with digital replica of an initial brain state of the person, the digital replica including a plurality of brain metrics, determining based, at least in part, on the received information associated with the digital replica of the initial brain state of the person, a non-invasive brain stimulation protocol to change the state of the brain of the person from the initial brain state to the target brain state, and stimulating, with at least one non-invasive brain stimulation device, the brain of the person according to the determined non-invasive brain stimulation protocol to change the state of the brain of the person from the initial brain state to the target brain state. “ Note: Also , see para ,0224, 0038; para 0457-0463 teach different type of stimuli that can be used to bring the user to target state (mindful state).))
and a connection evoking control section that performs control in a connection evoking mode, which is an operation mode for evoking a sense of connection in the user, in such a way as to provide a second stimulus for the user on a basis of recalled person information(para, “[0573] In some embodiments, manipulation of time may be applied to exposure to (i) external stimuli (e.g., a photo, a sound, a movie, sensory stimulation in the form of tactile stimulation) or (ii) internal stimuli (e.g., a memory of a past trauma, visual imagery of a future event, a memory of a specific individual). Duration of the stimuli may be manipulated according to the desired effect.”),
which is information acquired from a recalled person, who evokes the sense of connection(para, “[0573] In some embodiments, manipulation of time may be applied to exposure to (i) external stimuli (e.g., a photo, a sound, a movie, sensory stimulation in the form of tactile stimulation) or (ii) internal stimuli (e.g., a memory of a past trauma, visual imagery of a future event, a memory of a specific individual). Duration of the stimuli may be manipulated according to the desired effect.” Note: here memory of trauma, or memory of person is information that can evoke sense of connection.
“[0168]..... NFTs for unique memories, moments and brain states may be manually generated by an individual by assigning labels to specific moments in time, or automatically generated via algorithms based on thresholds of brain, psychological and physiological activation marking the beginning and end of a uniquely valuable moment in time to be stored as an NFT. .....An NFT may be automatically generated in moments of high emotional activation (for instance, when meeting a partner or member of the family after a long separation, when interacting with a pet or a child, when remembering a positive or negative memory). Brain state detection, analysis and storage may be performed via algorithms from DARWIN and stored in DATANET.” Note: Also, see para 0279),
wherein the provision of the first stimulus is initiated prior to the provision of the second stimulus(Para, “[0196] Once a DMDT is available, the DARWIN module may be configured to estimate the potential of an individual brain to grow, evolve, adapt and/or learn, in accordance with some embodiments. DARWIN may be configured to create a digital representation of an individual brain, including its structural and functional properties and corresponding cognitive and psychological hierarchies and abilities, allowing to perform simulations describing the response to stimuli such as normal and pathological aging, external perturbation as in the case of traumatic brain injury or brain tumors or magnetic/electrical stimulation, or psychological stressors such as trauma. For instance, DARWIN may be configured to identify optimal trajectories to guide brain change, both when the goal is a modifiable, transient target state, or a new stable brain configuration (a trait). DARWIN also allows to specifically modify one or more brain properties relevant for a given objective, for instance learning a new musical instrument or inducing a meditative state. Details on exemplary different applications of using DARWIN are described below. DARWIN may be informed by data collected via PERCEPTRON, by models and information from SYNAPSE and IMPROVE, may generate assessment tools via SCREEN, and/or guide procedures used in STIMOLA.” Note: here, once the initial state is determined, the state can be modified, and a new state can be induced; basically, any sequence of multiple stimuli can be performed depending on the target state. Also, see Fig. 10).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santarnecchi in view of HONEY et al. (US 20210406315 A1)
Regarding claim 2, Santarnecchi teaches the information processing device according to claim 1.
Santarnecchi does not explicitly teach wherein the recalled person information is time-series information regarding the recalled person (Note: reference does teach capturing metrics with time series data (para 0151); it just doesn’t explicitly teach that time series information is related to recalled person.).
HONEY teaches wherein the recalled person information is time-series information regarding the recalled person(para, “[0079] At block 212, in some cases, the memory creation module 170 can associate one or more additional attributes with the digital memory. In an example, the additional attributes can be one or more of a date and time stamp, location coordinates, replay information, a face recognition score, a scene recognition score, and an object recognition score.”
Also, para “[0063] Advantageously, the present embodiments can determine patterns that are generally not determinable by the user and, based on such patterns, can intelligently adapt recall and replay. Cognitive psychology generally holds that a person's conscious perception and subsequent memory is fundamentally linked to attention. Sensory systems generally have capacity limits at the level of conscious perception, meaning that the majority of stimuli a person encounters in daily life can go unnoticed. Specifically, the phenomenon of inattentional blindness describes the fact that people are often unable to perceive a stimulus that is in plain sight, in particular when the stimuli are complex and dynamic (for example, videos). ....”
Also, para “[0011] In yet another case, the additional attributes comprise at least one of a date, a time stamp, location coordinates, replay information, a face recognition score, and an object recognition score.”)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply time series teachings of HONEY into the teachings of Santarnecchi at the time the application was filed in order to determine an optimal time for replay for memory retrieval. (Para, “[0137] In further cases of the embodiments described herein, the replay session module 172 can determine an optimal time for replay for memory retrieval. In particular, the replay session module 172 determines the optimal time for replay in relation to sleep of the user.”)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santarnecchi in view of Alexander et al. (US 20220202312 A1)
Regarding claim 4, Santarnecch teaches the information processing device according to claim 1.
Santarnecchi does not explicitly teach further comprising::
a self-compassion control section that performs control in a self-compassion mode, which is an operation mode for promoting improvement in self-compassion of the user, in such a way as to provide a third stimulus to the user,
wherein the provision of the second stimulus is initiated prior to the provision of the third stimulus.
Alexander teaches:
a self-compassion control section that performs control in a self-compassion mode, which is an operation mode for promoting improvement in self-compassion of the user, in such a way as to provide a third stimulus to the user (“[0038] .... The software application 200 may be preconfigured with a list of different session types, in which each or some of the sessions may be directed to different purposes for achieving different mindfulness, relaxation, health, or other objectives. The software application 200 may further be updated, so as to add, remove, or modify any pre-existing guided session information.
[0039] ..... For example, the user may select a guided session for meditation and then further select additional guidance for deep relaxation, self-compassion, sleep induction, or another activity type...”),
wherein the provision of the second stimulus is initiated prior to the provision of the third stimulus (Para, “[0039] ..... For example, the user may select a guided session for meditation and then further select additional guidance for deep relaxation, self-compassion, sleep induction, or another activity type...” Note: here user is selecting additional guidance, thus the provision can be initiated at anytime. Also, primary reference teaches initiating plurality of stimuli, thus it is obvious that any stimuli can be selected in any sequence. )
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply self-compassion evoking teachings of Alexander into the teachings of Santarnecchi at the time the application was filed in order to select the mid-focus content. (Para, “[0088] ....Mind-focused content may, for example, include or refer to content related to gratitude, encouragement, acceptance, positive-visioning, loving kindness, self-compassion, and intention setting. Each of the body-focused content and the mind-focused content may include audio content and/or visual content.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160042140 A1 “The present invention may provide a method and apparatus for generating a Personalized Memory Compilation, soliciting memories from members of a first group, collecting content from one or more data for the memories into a content collection, identifying preferences of the members of the first group, analyzing portions of the content collection to identify collaborative memories presenting the collaborative memories to a user for indication of social support, developing latent memories from collaboration between group members, reconsolidating memories from the collaborative memories and the developed latent memories, and compiling a collaborative output from the content. The method may include steps of increasing or decreasing social support or altering perceived social support..”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUMA WASEEM whose telephone number is (571)272-1316. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday(9:00 am - 5 pm) EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason B. Dunham can be reached on (571) 272-8109. 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.
/HUMA WASEEM/Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/JASON B DUNHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights