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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 10, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tee et al. US 2012/0143104 in view of Grove et al. ES2239857T3
Regarding claim 1, Tee discloses a rehabilitation system (abstract: “motor learning”) based on brainwave control comprising (0038)
a rehabilitation device (System of figure 1) including a power unit (robot control module 114) and a rehabilitation unit (robotic device 118), wherein the power unit is coupled to the rehabilitation unit (0054) and is used to provide a predetermined output to drive the rehabilitation unit to move (0038, “controlling the robotic device 118 via the robot control module 114;”) and wherein the rehabilitation unit is used to drive a rehabilitation part of a user to move (0039 states that “This configuration advantageously facilitates autonomous optimization of the level of assistance provided by the robotic device 118 to the user 102.”).
a brainwave device (Depicted in figure 1 with 104a and 104b) including a plurality of brainwave sensing units each being used to detect a brainwave signal of an active brain area corresponding to the rehabilitation part of the user (0038 states “A plurality of electrodes 104a are attached to the scalp of the user 102”);
and a control unit (Computer system 110) coupled with the rehabilitation device and the brainwave device (Figure 1); wherein in a state where the power unit provides the predetermined output to control the rehabilitation unit to drive the rehabilitation part to move the control unit receives the brainwave signal (Computer system 110 receives brainwave signal from signal acquisition device 106) and determines whether the brainwave signal is lower than an intention threshold and in a state where the brainwave signal is lower than the intention threshold, the control unit sends a suspension signal to stop the power unit so as to stop the rehabilitation unit (0046 states that “A moderated threshold value R can be set such that any value of Q.sup.t below R can be interpreted as a lack of motor intent, resulting in a failure to elicit motor assistance from the robotic device”)
whether the brainwave signal is lower than a stimulation threshold (The stimulation threshold being any range above the intention threshold described in 0046, where any sort of stimulation or movement is taking place.) and in a state where the brainwave signal is lower than the stimulation threshold, the control unit sends an adjustment signal to control the power unit to adjust the predetermined output to drive the rehabilitation unit to move (0046 states that “Conversely, any value of Q.sup.t above R can be interpreted as a presence of motor intent.” 0014 states that “detecting a user's motor intent; and a robotic device for giving robotic assistance to the user for executing a motor task associated with the motor intent; wherein the robotic device is configured for giving of the robotic assistance based on the detected motor intent.” Therefore as long as there is motor intent above the intention threshold, motor assistance will be provided).
and wherein in a state where the rehabilitation unit is in an inactive state due to the power unit not providing any output, the control unit receives the brainwave signal and determines: whether the brainwave signal is lower than an intention threshold; and in a state where the brainwave signal is not lower than the intention threshold, the control unit sends a trigger signal to control the power unit to drive the rehabilitation unit to move with the predetermined output (0047 states that “Conversely, any value of Q.sup.t above R can be interpreted as a presence of motor intent.”).
Tee fails to teach determining whether the brainwave signal is greater than a suspension threshold; and in a state where the brainwave signal is greater than the suspension threshold, the control unit sends a suspension signal to stop the power unit so as to stop the rehabilitation unit.
Grove teaches an analogous patient movement device that does teach determining whether the brainwave signal is greater than a suspension threshold; and in a state where the brainwave signal is greater than the suspension threshold, the control unit sends a suspension signal to stop the power unit so as to stop the rehabilitation unit (Page 6 of the translated application states “After the detection of a threshold level of electrical activity, a predetermined amount over the previous levels, the unit of control stops the movement of the foot plate”). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tee with the teachings of Grove and include determining whether the brainwave signal is greater than a suspension threshold; and in a state where the brainwave signal is greater than the suspension threshold, the control unit sends a suspension signal to stop the power unit so as to stop the rehabilitation unit as the inclusion of this would allow for the device to avoid causing pain or injury on the user (Page 6).
Regarding claim 10, modified Tee teaches the rehabilitation system based on brainwave control as claimed in claim 1, wherein the intention threshold is smaller than the stimulation threshold (The stimulation threshold is any arbitrary range that is above the intention threshold described in 0046 of Tee, as the stimulation threshold is the range where movement is occurring before a suspension threshold is reached, the stimulation threshold would be above the intention threshold.).
Regarding claim 14, modified Tee teaches the rehabilitation system based on brainwave control as claimed 1, wherein the rehabilitation system based on brainwave control as claimed in wherein the stimulation threshold is dynamically adjusted by a pre-established system/module according to the brainwave signals detected during rehabilitation (0017 - 0019 describe the ability to dynamically change the threshold), and the system/module is trained and built based on a physiological data and a historical brainwave signal of the user (0049 – 0062 discusses the system and method of dynamically changing the threshold, 0049 discusses the use of past performance and the learning curve to adjust a threshold.).
Regarding claim 15, modified Tee teaches a method for automatically determining brainwave-controlled rehabilitation, using the rehabilitation system as claimed in claim 1, comprising:
detecting a brainwave signal from an active brain area corresponding to a rehabilitation part of a user during a rehabilitation process (0072 states “a continuous measure of movement intent from the neural signals acquired non-invasively from the user.”);
comparing the brainwave signal with the stimulation threshold to enable the control unit to drive the rehabilitation unit (0006 states that “detecting a user's motor intent; and giving robotic assistance to the user for executing a motor task associated with the motor intent based on the detected motor intent.”); Since the stimulation threshold is defined as a threshold range between the intention and suspension thresholds of modified Tee, the brainwave signal would by default be compared to the stimulation threshold as once the signal determines intent by surpassing the intention threshold, it is now within the stimulation threshold range.)
dynamically adjusting the stimulation threshold according to the brainwave signal detected during the rehabilitation process by a pre-established system/module, wherein the system/module is trained and built based on a physiological data and a historical brainwave signals of the user (0007-0010 and 0050-0062);
and comparing the brainwave signal with the adjusted stimulation threshold to enable the control unit to drive the rehabilitation unit (0050 states that “Robotic assistance provided by the robotic device 118 to the user 102 can be advantageously adapted by autonomously adjusting the moderated threshold value R based on a user-specific learning curve that takes into account past measures of the user's 102 movement performance.”). As the intention threshold of modified Tee is now adjusted, by default the stimulation threshold being the range above the intention threshold and below the suspension threshold is also adjusted.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Tee, further in view of Kawala-Sterniuk et al. “Summary of over Fifty Years with Brain-Computer Interfaces—A Review” and Rashid et al. “An EEG Experimental Study Evaluating the Performance of Texas Instruments ADS1299” (Both attached with previous office action)
Regarding claim 9, modified Tee teaches the rehabilitation system based on brainwave control as claimed in claim 1,wherein the stimulation threshold is a value (The stimulation threshold is any arbitrary range that is above the intention threshold described in 0046 of Tee, and below the suspension threshold of Grove now included in modified Tee.). The combination explicitly fails to teach an energy of the brainwave signal measured in dB and ranging from 1.00 dB - 10.00 dB. However, Kawala-Sterniuk discloses analogous EEG based systems that use various signal processing methods to calculate SNR, such as those listed on page 23 of the attached reference. Furthermore, Rashid discloses an analogous EEG device that was used to measure the dB based on ankle dorsiflexion, and a stepping on and off motion. In this study the “Signal-to-noise ratio in dorsiflexion was 5.56 ± 2.06 dB and 6.13 ± 2.67 dB for the gold standard and the prototype respectively. In step on/off the values for the two systems were 2.99 ± 2.85 dB and 2.09 ± 2.17 dB” as stated on page 8. The measured values are all within the desired range wanted from the present invention. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close as one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the range to teach an energy of the brainwave signal measured in dB and ranging from 1.00 dB - 10.00 dB as this range optimizes the SNR ratio and the apparatus’s movability as a lower activation level is required due to the users’ current rehabilitative state and presumed lack of control of the limb being rehabilitated. MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 has 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.
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 ROHAN DEEP PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 5:30 AM - 3:00 PM PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brandy S Lee can be reached on (571) 2707410. 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.
/ROHAN PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785