DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 25 March 2026 has been entered.
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.
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 device for registering brain activity” recited in claims 1 and 11.
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.
According to the specification, the device for registering brain activity is one of an electroencephalograph (EEG), a near-range infrared spectroscopy device, a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device, or a device that registers magnetic fields resulting from electrical activity of the brain (i.e., a magnetoencephalograph (MEG)).
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 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 11 and 14-24 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. The originally filed disclosure fails to provide support for “displaying on the visual device a visual presentation of the task being performed, wherein the virtual image of the trained object displayed on the visual display device interacts with the visual object demonstrated on the visual display device and associated with the goal of the movement of the trained object, the virtual image of the trained object moving synchronously with the robotic device impacting the trained object” (emphasis added).
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 1-11 and 14-24 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “registered signals of a brain activity” in lines 6-7 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the phrase is referring to brain activity registered by the device in line 3. For this examination, the phrase is being interpreted such that the “registered signals of a brain activity” are brain activity signals registered by the device for registering brain activity.
Further regarding claim 1, as visual evoked potentials are event related potentials, it is unclear how the visual evoked potentials would include event related potentials. For this examination, the phrase “the visual evoked potentials include event related potentials (ERPs)” is not being given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 11, the claim as a whole is not understood. The phrases amended into the claim add indefiniteness issues throughout the claim. For example:
The claim requires presenting a movement by a trained object on a visual display device. How is presenting a “movement by a trained object” a task?
The phrase “the visual objects” in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis.
The phrase “the movements by the trained object” in lines 3-4 lacks proper antecedent basis as the claim previously recites “a movement” (singular) by a trained object.
What does it mean for “planning and implementation of the movements” to be “aimed at interacting of the trained object with the visual objects”?
The phrase “the registered signals of the brain activity” in line 8 lacks proper antecedent basis.
The phrase “a computer with a software associated with a database” is unclear.
As with claim 1, visual evoked potentials are event related potentials; it is unclear how the visual evoked potentials would include event related potentials.
The phrase “the visual object” (singular) in line 13 and in line 17 lacks proper antecedent basis as the claim previously recites “the visual objects” (plural). To which of the plurality of visual objects is “the visual object” referring?
The phrase “the goal of the movement” in line 14, in lines 17-18, and in line 20 lacks proper antecedent basis as the claim previously recites “the goals of the movement”.
The phrase “the visual object associated with the goal of the movement” in lines 16-17 lacks proper antecedent basis as the claim previously recites “the visual objects associated with goals of the movements”.
The entire wording of the “interpreting the extracted registered signals” limitation makes the limitation unclear. Is the goal of the movement determined using the database or is it determined by analyzing ERPs? Are the cognitive processes associated with planning and attempting the movement detected using the database or are they detected by analyzing a motor imagination signal? Is the motor imagination signal the same as or different than the motor imagination signal recited earlier in the claim? In addition to the lack of clarity regarding the wording of the limitation, the following phrases lack proper antecedent basis: “the goal of the movement”, “the movement”, “the visual object”, “a motor imagination signal”.
The phrase “the virtual image of the trained object displayed” in the last limitation lacks proper antecedent basis.
The phrase “the visual object” (singular) in the last limitation lacks proper antecedent basis as the claim previously recites “the visual objects” (plural).
The phrase “the goal of the movement” in the last limitation lacks proper antecedent basis as the claim previously recites “the goals of the movement”.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear what further limitation the claim provides to the claimed invention as claim 11 already recites that the registered signals comprise visual evoked potentials and a motor imagination signal. It is further noted that the phrase “the visual evoked potential signal” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “the registered signals derived from a brain activity associated with a healthy object” lacks proper antecedent basis as there is no previous mention of a healthy object.
Regarding claim 17, it is unclear if the “a muscular activity of a healthy object” recited in the claim is the same as or different than the “signals of muscle activity” recited in claim 16.
Regarding claim 21, the phrase “the interpretation of brain activity obtained from the task being performed by the robotic device” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claims not explicitly rejected above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim. The indefiniteness issues within claim 11 have rendered a proper prior art search unable to be performed.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flaherty et al.’530 (US Pub No. 2006/0167530) in view of Yu et al. (Enhanced Motor Imagery Training…).
Regarding claim 1, Flaherty et al.’530 discloses a neurorehabilitation system comprising: a visual display device (Figure 3, display device 302); a device for registering brain activity (Figure 2, sections [0048-0052]); a robotic device for impacting a trained object (sections [0008], [0036], [0068]); and a computer with a database and a software (any of processing unit first portion 130a, processing unit second portion 130b, or “external device” of section [0058]), wherein the computer is configured to recognize and extract registered signals of a brain activity and interpret the extracted registered signals using the database (sections [0058], [0061]: the “variables, coefficients, algorithms, and/or filter selections” mentioned in [0061] can be considered a database of operational parameters), wherein the registered signals comprise a motor imagination signal (section [0065] states that signals from the motor cortex are acquired; step 20 of Figure 1 shows acquiring brain activity data while a patient imagines movement; sections [0036], [0038], [0073], [0086-0087]), and wherein the computer with the software is configured to transmit commands formed on the basis of the interpretation of the registered signals of the brain activity to the robotic device and/or to the visual display device on a transmit-receive basis (step 23 of Figure 1; sections [0042-0043], [0058], [0086-0087], [0101]).
Flaherty et al.’530 discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed above, except for the registered signals comprising visual evoked potentials, the visual evoked potentials including event related potentials. Yu et al. teaches that hybrid brain computer interface (BCI) systems that use registered signals comprising both visual evoked potentials and a motor imagination signal enhance motor imagery training (see ABSTRACT, and first paragraph of IV. DISCUSSION section on page 1714). Yu et al. registers brain signals comprising visual evoked potentials and a motor imagination signal, and uses the visual evoked potentials to provide feedback that enhances the effectiveness of the BCI (see ABSTRACT, and second to last paragraph of the I. INTRODUCTION section on page 1707 -- beginning with “In this study, we propose a hybrid BCI system…”). Yu et al. further teaches that the hybrid feedback provided by the use of both visual evoked potentials and a motor imagination signal helps to prevent frustration in subjects by presenting feedback that better reflects the subjects’ intention, and that the feedback is more accurate than feedback obtained using only a motor imagination signal (see first paragraph of the IV. DISCUSSION section on page 1714. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the computer of Flaherty et al.’530 to be configured to recognize and extract registered signals comprising visual evoked potentials (visual evoked potentials are event related potentials), as taught by Yu et al., as the use of both visual evoked potentials and a motor imagination signal has been shown to enhance motor imagery training.
Regarding claim 3, Flaherty et al.’530 teaches the robotic device comprises an exoskeleton (sections [0044], [0068], [0101]).
Regarding claim 4, Flaherty et al.’530 discloses that the device for registering brain activity is an EEG (sections [0026], [0049]).
Regarding claim 8, section [0109] of Flaherty et al.’530 discloses that at least two devices can be used to register brain activity (“The sensors of the systems of this application can take various forms, including multiple discrete component forms, such as multiple penetrating arrays that can be placed at different locations within the body of a patient.”) (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 9, Flaherty et al.’530 discloses the neurorehabilitation system further comprises an electrical stimulator (FES device of sections [0036], [0041], [0101]).
Regarding claim 10, Flaherty et al.’530 discloses that the neurorehabilitation system further comprises an electromyograph (sections [0026], [0063], [0076], [0099]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flaherty et al.’530 in view of Yu et al., as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kouider et al.’094 (US Pub No. 2022/0409094).
Flaherty et al.’530 in view of Yu et al. discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed in paragraph 10 above, except for the visual display device being a virtual reality device. Kouider et al.’094 teaches that a visual stimulus for a BCI may be presented to a subject using a computer monitor or a virtual reality device (section [0005]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have substituted a virtual reality device for the visual display device (a computer monitor) of Flaherty et al.’530 in view of Yu et al., as it would merely be the simple substitution of one known visual stimuli display device for another to yield predictable results.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flaherty et al.’530 in view of Yu et al., as applied to claim 1, further in view of Baugh et al.’580 (US Pub No. 2019/0146580).
Regarding claim 5, Flaherty et al.’530 in view of Yu et al. discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed in paragraph 10 above, except for the device for registering brain activity being a near-range infrared spectroscopy device. Baugh et al.’580 teaches that using two different types of brain activity registering devices for a BCI improves system communication speed and accuracy. Baugh et al.’580 further teaches that the two different types of brain activity registering devices can be an EEG and a near-range infrared spectroscopy device (section [0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the neurorehabilitation system of Flaherty et al.’530 in view of Yu et al. to include an additional device for registering brain activity, the additional device being a near-range infrared spectroscopy device, as a BCI using two types of brain activity registering devices improves the communication speed and accuracy of the BCI.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Flaherty et al.’530 in view of Yu et al. further in view of Baugh et al.’580 teaches a neurorehabilitation system that uses at least two devices registering brain activity.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flaherty et al.’530 in view of Yu et al., as applied to claim 1, further in view of Baugh et al.’580 further in view of Desain et al.’476 (US Pub No. 2017/0202476).
Regarding claims 5-7, Flaherty et al.’530 in view of Yu et al. discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed in paragraph 10 above, except for the device for registering brain activity being a near-range infrared spectroscopy device, an MRI device or an MEG device. Baugh et al.’580 teaches that using two different types of brain activity registering devices for a BCI improves system communication speed and accuracy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the neurorehabilitation system of Flaherty et al.’530 in view of Yu et al. to include an additional device for registering brain activity, the additional device being a near-range infrared spectroscopy device, as a BCI using two types of brain activity registering devices improves the communication speed and accuracy of the BCI.
Flaherty et al.’530 in view of Yu et al. further in view of Baugh et al.’580 discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed above, except for the additional brain activity registering device being an MRI device or an MEG device. Desain et al.’476 teaches that near-range infrared spectroscopy data, MRI data, or MEG data can be used as part of a BCI (sections [0026-0027]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the neurorehabilitation system of Flaherty et al.’530 in view of Yu et al. further in view of Baugh et al.’580 such that the additional device for registering brain activity is either an MRI device or an MEG device. The modification to Flaherty et al.’530 in view of Yu et al. further in view of Baugh et al.’580 would merely be the simple substitution of one known device for registering brain activity (an MRI or an MEG) for another (a near-range infrared spectroscopy device) to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Flaherty et al.’530 in view of Yu et al. further in view of Baugh et al.’580 further in view of Desain et al.’476 teaches a neurorehabilitation system that uses at least two devices registering brain activity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 March 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have warranted new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as discussed in paragraphs 6 and 8 above.
With regard to the previous rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments are moot as the amendments to the claims have warranted new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Each of Hagedorn et al.’377 (US Pub No. 2012/0271377), Segal’856 (US Pub No. 2019/0209856), and Flaeschner et al.’534 (US Pub No. 2020/0170534) teaches providing a visual stimulus to a subject using a virtual reality display device.
Ayaz et al.’812 (US Pub No. 2015/0038812) teaches using a near-range infrared spectroscopy device to register brain activity data for a brain-machine interface device.
Each of Feng et al. (A hybrid BCI system…), Horki et al. (Combined motor imagery…), Ko et al. (Developing a Few-channel Hybrid BCI…), and Ma et al. (The hybrid BCI system…) teaches the advantages of creating a hybrid BCI using both visual evoked potentials and a motor imagination signal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETSUB D BERHANU whose telephone number is (571)270-5410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:30pm 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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/ETSUB D BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights