DETAILED ACTION
This Final action is in response to an amendment filed 1/29/2026. Currently claims 2-14, 16-18 and 20-25 are pending.
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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 uses the term “and/or” which does not clearly require or make optional the subsequent limitation. For the purpose of clarity and examination the term “and/or” was interpreted as “or”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, 9, 11-12, 14, 16-17, 20-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keller et al. in US 2019/0073605 (hereinafter Keller).
Regarding claim 2, Keller disclose a method of calibrating neural signals as universal switches to permit an individual to control an electronic device (Keller’s par. 47: calibrate biosignals as brain switch to trigger instructions executed on computing device), the method comprising:
measuring neural-related signals (Keller’s par. 45: measured electrical signals discharged by brain) when the individual generates a thought (Keller’s par. 47: focused thought) to obtain a sensed neural signal (Keller’s par. 47: biosignal associated with focused thought);
transmitting the sensed neural signal to a processing unit having a processor (Keller’s Figs. 1-3 and par. 53, 62: transmission of sensor signals of the computing device);
associating the sensed neural signal of the thought with a universal switch (Keller’s par. 47: associate focused thought as brain switch, par. 111: class label [thought]) in the processing unit (Keller’s Fig. 2 and par. 52); and
assigning the universal switch to a set of input commands of the electronic device (Keller’s par. 111-113: context map associates brain switch/class label to top-level contexts or sub-contexts which include commands such as increase the volume or pause the playback of a video) in the processing unit (Keller’s Fig. 2 and par. 52), the set comprising at least one input command (Keller’s par. 112: e.g. increase the volume or pause the playback of a video), wherein the universal switch is re-assignable to any set of input commands (Keller’s par. 112: brain switch is reassigned according to context, e.g. state of the mobile device, par. 119: update active context actions), wherein one or more input commands can be added to (Keller’s par. 115-116: additional context maps loaded, par. 49: change the action assigned to a thought [thus adding a newly assigned action]), removed from (Keller’s par. 115: unknown top-level context is discarded, par. 49: change the action assigned to a thought [thus removing the previously assigned action]), or modified from the set of input commands (Keller’s par. 112: context command modified according to context, par. 49: change the action assigned to a thought).
Regarding claim 9, Keller disclose a method of calibrating neural signals as universal switches to permit an individual to control an electronic device (Keller’s par. 47: calibrate biosignals as brain switch to trigger instructions executed on computing device), the method comprising:
measuring neural-related signals (Keller’s par. 45: measured electrical signals discharged by brain) when the individual generates a thought (Keller’s par. 47: focused thought) to obtain a sensed neural signal (Keller’s par. 47: biosignal associated with focused thought);
transmitting the sensed neural signal to a processor (Keller’s Figs. 1-3 and par. 53, 62: transmission of sensor signals of the computing device);
calibrating (Keller’s par. 49), via the processor (Keller’s Fig. 2 and par. 52), a universal switch based on the sensed neural signal of the thought (Keller’s par. 47: associate focused thought as brain switch, par. 111: class label [thought]), and
assigning, via the processor (Keller’s Fig. 2 and par. 52), the universal switch to a modifiable set of input commands of the electronic device (Keller’s par. 111-113: context map associates brain switch/class label to top-level contexts or sub-contexts which include commands such as increase the volume or pause the playback of a video and can be modified according to context),
the set comprising a first input command of the electronic device and a second input command of the electronic device (Keller’s par. 112: e.g. increase the volume or pause the playback of a video), wherein the set is modifiable by adding (Keller’s par. 115-116: additional context maps loaded, par. 49: change the action assigned to a thought [thus adding a newly assigned action]), removing (Keller’s par. 115: unknown top-level context is discarded, par. 49: change the action assigned to a thought [thus removing the previously assigned action]), or modifying an input command (Keller’s par. 112: context command modified according to context, par. 49: change the action assigned to a thought), and
wherein the universal switch is re-assignable to any set of input commands (Keller’s par. 112: brain switch is reassigned according to context, e.g. state of the mobile device, par. 119: update active context actions).
Regarding claim 3, Keller disclose further comprising assigning the universal switch to the set of input commands of the electronic device (Keller’s par. 111-113: context map associates brain switch/class label to top-level contexts or sub-contexts which include commands) via user input (Keller’s par. 118: individual add context maps having sub-contexts).
Regarding claim 5, Keller disclose further comprising compiling the thought, the sensed neural signal, and the set of input commands to a database (Keller’s par. 47, 111-113: context maps stores the context [set of input commands] and the class label, where the class label is associated with a predetermined brain signal upon a thought per par. 78, 85-86) stored in electronic format (Keller’s par. 49: context maps in memory storage) which allows the individual to control the electronic device (Keller’s par. 47, 112-113) by producing the thought (Keller’s par. 112: generated brain switch) to cause electrical transmission of one or more input commands (Keller’s par. 112: increase the volume or pause the playback of a video) of the set of input commands (Keller’s par. 112: contexts or sub-contexts associated with the brain switch) to the electronic device (Keller’s par. 112: mobile device).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Keller disclose where the thought is about a real muscle contraction of an arm or finger of the individual, or where the thought is about an imagined muscle contraction of an arm or finger of the individual (Keller’s par. 76, 112: closing the right hand).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Keller disclose where the sensed neural signal is electrical brain activity (Keller’s par. 45: EEG, EMG or EOG).
Regarding claim 11, Keller disclose further comprising compiling the thought, the sensed neural signal, and the first input command or the second input command to a database (Keller’s par. 47, 111-113: context maps stores the context [first or second input commands] and the class label, where the class label is associated with a predetermined brain signal upon a thought per par. 78, 85-86) stored in electronic format (Keller’s par. 49: context maps in memory storage) which allows the individual to control the electronic device (Keller’s par. 47, 112-113) by producing the thought (Keller’s par. 112: generated brain switch) to cause electrical transmission of the first input command or the second input command (Keller’s par. 112: increase the volume or pause the playback of a video) to the electronic device (Keller’s par. 112: mobile device).
Regarding claim 14, Keller disclose wherein the sensed neural signal comprises detectable neural-related signals (Keller’s par. 45: EEG, EMG or EOG), extracted features from neural-related signals (Keller’s par. 84, 93-95), or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 16, Keller disclose further comprising compiling the thought, the sensed neural signal, the first input command, and the second input command to a database (Keller’s par. 47, 111-113: context maps stores the context [first and second input commands] and the class label, where the class label is associated with a predetermined brain signal upon a thought per par. 78, 85-86) stored in electronic format (Keller’s par. 49: context maps in memory storage) which allows the individual to control the electronic device by (Keller’s par. 47, 112-113) producing the thought (Keller’s par. 112: generated brain switch) to cause electrical transmission of the first input command and the second input command (Keller’s par. 112: increase the volume or pause the playback of a video) to the electronic device (Keller’s par. 112: mobile device).
Regarding claim 20, Keller disclose a method of calibrating neural signals as universal switches to permit an individual to control an electronic device (Keller’s par. 47: calibrate biosignals as brain switch to trigger instructions executed on computing device), the method comprising:
calibrating (Keller’s par. 49) a first universal switch (Keller’s par. 47: associate focused thought as brain switch, par. 111: class label [thought, e.g. associated with thought of closing a left hand per par. 86]) by measuring neural-related signals of the individual (Keller’s par. 45: measured electrical signals discharged by brain) to obtain a first sensed neural signal (Keller’s par. 47: biosignal associated with focused though, e.g. thought of closing a left hand per par. 86) when the individual generates a first thought (Keller’s par. 47: focused thought, e.g. thought of closing a left hand per par. 86),
transmitting the first sensed neural signal to a processing unit having a processor (Keller’s Figs. 1-3 and par. 53, 62: transmission of sensor signals of the computing device), and
associating the first thought and the first sensed neural signal with the first universal switch (Keller’s par. 47: associate focused thought as brain switch, par. 111: class label [thought], where the first thought is e.g. closing a left hand per par. 86);
calibrating (Keller’s par. 49) a second universal switch (Keller’s par. 47: associate focused thought as brain switch, par. 111: class label [thought, e.g. associated with thought of closing a right hand per par. 76]) by measuring neural-related signals of the individual (Keller’s par. 45: measured electrical signals discharged by brain) to obtain a second sensed neural signal (Keller’s par. 47: biosignal associated with focused though, e.g. thought of closing a right hand per par. 76) when the individual generates a second thought (Keller’s par. 47: focused thought, e.g. thought of closing a right hand per par. 76),
transmitting the second sensed neural signal to the processing unit (Keller’s Figs. 1-3 and par. 53, 62: transmission of sensor signals of the computing device), and
associating the second thought and the second sensed neural signal with the second universal switch (Keller’s par. 47: associate focused thought as brain switch, par. 111: class label [thought], where the first thought is e.g. closing a right hand per par. 76); and
assigning the first universal switch and the second universal switch to a modifiable set of input commands of the electronic device (Keller’s par. 111-113: context map associates brain switch/class label [these are the first and second universal switches] to top-level contexts or sub-contexts which include commands such as increase the volume or pause the playback of a video and can be modified according to context), the set comprising at least one input command (Keller’s par. 112: e.g. increase the volume or pause the playback of a video), wherein the set is modifiable by adding (Keller’s par. 115-116: additional context maps loaded, par. 49: change the action assigned to a thought [thus adding a newly assigned action]), removing (Keller’s par. 115: unknown top-level context is discarded, par. 49: change the action assigned to a thought [thus removing the previously assigned action]), or modifying an input command (Keller’s par. 112: context command modified according to context, par. 49: change the action assigned to a thought).
Regarding claim 21, Keller disclose where the first thought and the second thought are about a real muscle contraction of an arm or finger of the individual, or where the first thought and the second thought are about an imagined muscle contraction of an arm or finger of the individual (Keller’s par. 76, 86: closing the right or left hand).
Regarding claim 22, Keller disclose where producing a combination of the first thought and the second thought (Keller’s par. 76, 86: closing the right hand and the left hand) causes electrical transmission of one or more input commands of the modifiable set of input commands to the electronic device (Keller’s par. 113: imagining closing of the left hand pauses the video, and imagining closing of right hand mutes the video for a paused and muted video).
Regarding claim 23, Keller disclose where the first universal switch and the second universal switch (Keller’s par. 111-113: brain switch/class label [these are the first and second universal switches]) are re-assignable to any set of input commands (Keller’s par. 112: brain switch is reassigned according to context, e.g. state of the mobile device, par. 119: update active context actions).
Regarding claim 25, Keller disclose further comprising detecting activation of the first universal switch and the second universal switch (Keller’s par. 112: brain switch is generated, which includes left hand closing [par. 86] or right hand closing [par. 112]) based on the first sensed neural signal and the second sensed neural signal (Keller’s par. 45: EEG, EMG or EOG) or features extracted therefrom (Keller’s par. 84, 93-95).
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 4, 10, 13 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller.
Regarding claim 4, Keller fails to disclose further comprising assigning the universal switch to the set of input commands of the electronic device via a user interface.
However, Keller does disclose the individual using the method able to add the context maps (Keller’s par. 118), and the computer interacting with the user through a user interface (Keller’s Figs. 11 and par. 98: providing feedback on a GUI to the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Keller’s assigning the universal switch to the set of input commands of the electronic device (Keller’s par. 118: additional context maps added by the user) is via a user interface (upon combination, using already available user interface of Keller’s Figs. 11 and par. 98);
in order to obtain the intended result of enabling the user to add context maps (Keller’s par. 118) by the already available technology of interacting with the user (Keller’s Fig. 11 and par. 98: GUI).
Regarding claim 10, Keller fails to disclose further comprising assigning the universal switch to the modifiable set of input commands via a user interface.
However, Keller does disclose the individual using the method able to add the context maps (Keller’s par. 118), and the computer interacting with the user through a user interface (Keller’s Figs. 11 and par. 98: providing feedback on a GUI to the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Keller’s assigning the universal switch to the modifiable set of input commands (Keller’s par. 118: additional context maps added by the user) is via a user interface (upon combination, using already available user interface of Keller’s Figs. 11 and par. 98);
in order to obtain the intended result of enabling the user to add context maps (Keller’s par. 118) by the already available technology of interacting with the user (Keller’s Fig. 11 and par. 98: GUI).
Regarding claim 13, Keller fails to explicitly disclose an application programming interface.
However, Keller does disclose remote devices loading additional context maps (Keller’s par. 115). Furthermore, the office takes official notice that it is known in the art that APIs are used for communication with remote devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Keller’s universal switch re-assignable to any set of input commands via an application programming interface (Keller’s par. 115: additional context maps loaded from remote computing devices, thus implying the use of an API for communication with the remote computing device);
in order to obtain the predictable result of known methods of communication with remote devices (common knowledge).
Regarding claim 24, Keller fails to explicitly disclose an application programming interface.
However, Keller does disclose remote devices loading additional context maps (Keller’s par. 115). Furthermore, the office takes official notice that it is known in the art that APIs are used for communication with remote devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Keller’s
first universal switch and second universal switch (Keller’s par. 111-113: brain switch/class label [these are the first and second universal switches]) are re-assignable to any set of input commands (Keller’s par. 112: brain switch is reassigned according to context, e.g. state of the mobile device, par. 119: update active context actions) via an application programming interface (Keller’s par. 115: additional context maps loaded from remote computing devices, thus implying the use of an API for communication with the remote computing device);
in order to obtain the predictable result of known methods of communication with remote devices (common knowledge).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller in view of John et al. in US 2019/0038438 (hereinafter John).
Keller fails to disclose where measuring neural-related signals comprises measuring neural-related signals of the individual with an implanted endovascular device.
However, in the same field of endeavor of sensing brain waves, John discloses measuring neural-related signals using an implanted endovascular device (John's Fig. 31 and par. 304).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Keller’s measuring neural-related signals (Keller’s par. 45: measured electrical signals discharged by brain) comprises measuring neural-related signals of the individual with an implanted endovascular device (John's Fig. 31 and par. 304);
in order to obtain the benefit of advantageously recording brain activity 24/7 (John's par. 304).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see above rejection addressing amended limitations in view of newly cited reference to Keller.
Conclusion
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 Liliana Cerullo whose telephone number is (571)270-5882. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM to 3PM MT.
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.
/LILIANA CERULLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621