DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 10-12, and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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(s) 1-2, 6, 8-9, 13, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Two-Dimensional Cursor-to-Target Control From Single Muscle Site sEMG Signals” to Claudia Perez-Maldonado et al (“Maldonado”) in view of US Patent Pub. 2011/0098593 A1 to Low et al (“Low”).
As to claim 1, Maldonado discloses a method comprising:
accessing electromyography (EMG) data of a subject, wherein the EMG data was collected by a signal data acquisition assembly that comprises one or more electrodes (pg. 203, A. Experimental Tests, 2) Electromyography, “We collected sEMG signals from the right AS muslc e surface non-disposable Ag-AgCl electrodes. We placed the electrodes on the scalp 1 cm from the tip of the pinna along the main axis of the muscle in a bipolar configuration, with the reference electrode on the right mastoid.);
accessing an initial position of a cursor displayed within a graphical user interface (pg. 205, column 2, “a relaxed muscle kept the cursor (X=0, Y=0) while a contraction moved it.”);
identifying, from the EMG data, a first signal that represents a first intent to contract a muscle of the subject (pg. 204, II. Methods, “we acquired the sEMG signals of the AS muscle of four able-bodied subjects. The subjects were trained to manipulate the position of the cursor to hit three separate fixed target points on the screen. The raw sEMG signal was filtered into two channels using two band-pass filters”);
translating the first signal to determine a first computer operation to move the cursor from the initial position to a target position within the graphical user interface (See Fig. 3; pg. 205, “Each subject sustained a contraction until reaching the target or its surrounding area or until s/he needed to regain focus on the task”); and
outputting first instructions to perform the first computer operation (See Fig. 4; Fig. 4 depicts the output of the cursor during experimentation during which subjects controlled cursor movement to hit each of the targets.).
Maldonado fails to disclose one or more cluster electrodes.
Low discloses a physiological data acquisition assembly comprising one or more cluster electrodes (See Fig. 1; ¶ 0009, 0020-0027).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Maldonado with the teachings of Low of one or more cluster electrodes, as suggested by Low thereby similarly using known configurations of cluster electrodes in detecting physiological data such as EMG signals.
As to claim 2, Maldonado discloses wherein translating the first signal includes: comparing the first signal to a signal signature that represents a movement of the cursor at a particular direction; and based on the comparison, determining that the first signal corresponds to the movement of the cursor at the particular direction to reach the target position (See Fig 3-4).
As to claim 6, Low discloses wherein each of the one or more clusters of electrodes includes at least an active electrode, and wherein the signal data acquisition assembly is configured to be positioned over the muscle of the subject (See Fig. 2).
As to claim 8, the same rejection or discussion is used as in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 9, the same rejection or discussion is used as in the rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 13, the same rejection or discussion is used as in the rejection of claim 6.
As to claim 15, the same rejection or discussion is used as in the rejection of claim 1
As to claim 16, the same rejection or discussion is used as in the rejection of claim 2.
Claim(s) 7, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Two-Dimensional Cursor-to-Target Control From Single Muscle Site sEMG Signals” to Claudia Perez-Maldonado et al (“Maldonado”) in view of US Patent Pub. 2011/0098593 A1 to Low et al (“Low”), and further in view of US Patent Pub. 2014/0347265 A1 to Aimone et al (“Aimone”)
AS to claim 7, Maldonado in view of Low fails to disclose wherein the muscle is one of a neck muscle or a jaw muscle.
Aimone discloses wherein the muscle is one of a neck muscle or a jaw muscle (¶ 0237).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Maldonado in view of Low with the teachings of Aimone wherein the muscle is one of a neck muscle or a jaw muscle, as suggested by Aimone thereby similarly using known configurations for detecting muscle contractions for operating an interface.
As to claim 14, the same rejection or discussion is used as in the rejection of claim 7.
As to claim 20, the same rejection or discussion is used as in the rejection of claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6PM.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
/NICHOLAS J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624