DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending and hereby under 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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0029, line 1, “lable” should be “label”.
Paragraph 00100, remove indent.
Paragraph 00100, lines 1-2, “where each of one or of the …” should be “where each of the one or more …”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, line 5, “a user’s body” should read “the user’s body”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-2, 4-6, 10-12, 14-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naik et. al. (“Hand gestures for HCI using ICA of EMG”), hereinafter Naik, and Bailey (US 9372535).
Regarding claim 1, Naik discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
recording a plurality of time series of neuromuscular-signal data (Section 2.1, “acquire Surface EMG using surface electrodes”; Section 5.2, wherein multiple recordings are taken for certain lengths of time) from a user's body via a plurality of surface neuromuscular sensors (Fig. 1, electrodes placed on body), wherein:
the plurality of time series of neuromuscular-signal data comprise a mixing of a plurality of neuromuscular source signals (Section 5.2, wherein the four channel electrodes form a mixing matrix); and
each of the plurality of neuromuscular source signals corresponds to a different one of a plurality of biological structures (Section 5.2, wherein the four channel electrodes are associated with four active muscles; Table 1);
applying a source separation technique to the plurality of time series of neuromuscular-signal data recorded by the plurality of surface neuromuscular sensors to unmix the plurality of neuromuscular source signals from the plurality of time series of neuromuscular-signal data (Section 5.1, wherein independent component analysis (ICA) is performed to obtain an unmixing matrix); and
While Naik discloses separating and identifying hand motion and gestures as above and discusses that has applications related to controlling machines and computers (Section 1, paragraph 1), Naik fails to disclose controlling a device based on the unmixed signals.
However, Bailey teaches a human-electronics interface with wearable EMG devices, wherein a device is controlled based on the signals (Col 5, lines 25-41) which Bailey discusses is useful as the device(s) can be used without physically holding onto the device(s) (Col 1, lines 40-51).
Naik and Bailey are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wearable EMG. The use of gesture identification is useful to use one or more devices without physically holding onto the devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Naik to incorporate the teachings of Bailey.
Regarding claim 2, Naik as modified further discloses identifying, for at least one of the unmixed plurality of neuromuscular source signals, an associated biological structure (Naik, Table 1), wherein controlling the device is based, at least in part, on the at least one of the unmixed plurality of neuromuscular source signals having been generated by the associated biological structure (Bailey, Col 5, lines 25-41).
Regarding claim 4, Naik further discloses wherein the associated biological structure comprises a muscle/muscle (Table 1).
Regarding claim 5, Naik further discloses wherein the associated biological structure comprises a muscle fiber (Table 1).
Regarding claim 6, Naik as modified further discloses
classifying a first one of the unmixed plurality of neuromuscular source signals as having been generated by an extensor muscle (Table 1, brachioradialis); and
classifying a second one of the unmixed plurality of neuromuscular source signals as having been generated by a flexor muscle (Table 1), wherein controlling the device is based, at least in part, on the first one of the unmixed plurality of neuromuscular source signals having been generated by the extensor muscle and the second one of the unmixed plurality of neuromuscular source signals having been generated by the flexor muscle (Bailey, Col 5, lines 25-41, wherein the device is controlled from muscle activity which could include the extensor and flexor muscles identified by Naik).
Regarding claim 10, Naik further discloses wherein a number of the plurality of time series of neuromuscular-signal data is at least two times greater than a number of the plurality of neuromuscular source signals ("Table 2, four sources; Section 5.2, wherein there were 12 repetitions, 2.5 s each with 2500 samples").
Regarding claim 11, Naik discloses a system comprising:
a plurality of surface neuromuscular sensors, each of which is configured to record a time series of neuromuscular signals from a surface of a user’s body (Fig. 1, electrodes placed on body; Section 5.2, wherein multiple recordings are taken for certain lengths of time); and
signal processing circuitry (Section 5.2, wherein the data is analyzed using ICA matlab package) configured to:
record a plurality of time series of neuromuscular-signal data (Section 2.1, “acquire Surface EMG using surface electrodes”) from the user's body via a plurality of surface neuromuscular sensors, wherein:
the plurality of time series of neuromuscular-signal data comprise two or more overlapping neuromuscular source signals (Section 5.2, wherein the four channel electrodes form a mixing matrix); and
each of the overlapping neuromuscular source signals corresponds to a different one of a plurality of biological structures (Section 5.2, wherein the four channel electrodes are associated with four active muscles; Table 1);
apply a source separation technique to the plurality of time series of neuromuscular-signal data recorded by the plurality of surface neuromuscular sensors to decompose the overlapping neuromuscular source signals from the plurality of time series of neuromuscular-signal data (Section 5.1, wherein independent component analysis (ICA) is performed to obtain an unmixing matrix); and
While Naik discloses separating and identifying hand motion and gestures as above and discusses that has applications related to controlling machines and computers (Section 1, paragraph 1), Naik fails to disclose controlling a device based on the unmixed signals.
However, Bailey teaches a human-electronics interface with wearable EMG devices, wherein a device is controlled based on the signals (Col 5, lines 25-41) which Bailey discusses is useful as the device(s) can be used without physically holding onto the device(s) (Col 1, lines 40-51).
Regarding claim 12, Naik as modified further discloses wherein the signal processing circuitry is configured to identify, for at least one of the decomposed neuromuscular source signals, an associated biological structure (Naik, Table 1), and control the device based, at least in part, on the at least one of the decomposed neuromuscular source signals having been generated by the associated biological structure (Bailey, Col 5, lines 25-41).
Regarding claim 14, Naik further discloses wherein the associated biological structure comprises a muscle/muscle (Table 1).
Regarding claim 15, Naik further discloses wherein the associated biological structure comprises a muscle fiber (Table 1).
Regarding claim 6, Naik as modified further discloses
classify a first one of the decomposed neuromuscular source signals as having been generated by an extensor muscle (Table 1, brachioradialis); and
classify a second one of the decomposed neuromuscular source signals as having been generated by a flexor muscle (Table 1); and
control the device based, at least in part, on the first one of the decomposed neuromuscular source signals having been generated by the extensor muscle and the second one of the decomposed neuromuscular source signals having been generated by the flexor muscle (Bailey, Col 5, lines 25-41, wherein the device is controlled from muscle activity which could include the extensor and flexor muscles identified by Naik).
Regarding claim 20, Naik discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising one or more computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing device (Section 5.2, wherein the data is analyzed using ICA matlab package), cause the computing device to:
record a plurality of time series of neuromuscular-signal data (Section 2.1, “acquire Surface EMG using surface electrodes”; Section 5.2, wherein multiple recordings are taken for certain lengths of time) from a user's body via a plurality of surface neuromuscular sensors (Fig. 1, electrodes placed on body), wherein:
the plurality of time series of neuromuscular-signal data comprise a mixing of a plurality of neuromuscular source signals (Section 5.2, wherein the four channel electrodes form a mixing matrix); and
each of the plurality of neuromuscular source signals corresponds to a different one of a plurality of biological structures (Section 5.2, wherein the four channel electrodes are associated with four active muscles; Table 1);
apply a source separation technique to the plurality of time series of neuromuscular-signal data recorded by the plurality of surface neuromuscular sensors to unmix the plurality of neuromuscular source signals from the plurality of time series of neuromuscular-signal data (Section 5.1, wherein independent component analysis (ICA) is performed to obtain an unmixing matrix); and
While Naik discloses separating and identifying hand motion and gestures as above and discusses that has applications related to controlling machines and computers (Section 1, paragraph 1), Naik fails to disclose controlling a device based on the unmixed signals.
However, Bailey teaches a human-electronics interface with wearable EMG devices, wherein a device is controlled based on the signals (Col 5, lines 25-41) which Bailey discusses is useful as the device(s) can be used without physically holding onto the device(s) (Col 1, lines 40-51).
Claims 7-9 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naik and Bailey as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Catalan (US 20170025026 – cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 7, while Naik discloses the use of interactive computer systems with EMG, Naik as modified fails to disclose a virtual representation of the user.
However, Catalan teaches a neuromuscular system wherein myoelectrical signals (Paragraph 0029) are taken to update and present a virtual representation of a user (Fig. 1, display 106 with virtual limb 116 moving from first position 112 to second position 114), which is useful for motor control in virtual/robotic devices (Paragraph 0007).
Naik, Bailey, and Catalan are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wearable EMG. Updating and presenting a virtual representation of a user in response to a measured signal is useful for motor control in virtual and robotic devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Naik and Bailey to incorporate the teachings of Catalan.
Regarding claim 8, Catalan further discloses wherein controlling the device comprises:
predicting that the user will perform a control action with respect to a control interface of the device based, at least in part, on one or more of the unmixed plurality of neuromuscular source signals (Paragraph 0072, “The control unit 208 processes the electric signals and recognizes features in the electric signals such that motion intent of aggregated motions is predicted”); and
causing the device to respond to the control action before the user completes performance of the control action (Paragraph 0072, “After the intended motions have been predicted, the control unit 208 controls the virtual limb 214 on the display to perform the intended motions”).
Regarding claim 9, Catalan further discloses wherein controlling the device comprises:
determining, based on one or more of the unmixed plurality of neuromuscular source signals, musculo-skeletal position information describing a spatial relation between two or more connected segments of rigid body segments in a musculo-skeletal representation of the user; updating the musculo-skeletal representation based on the musculo-skeletal position information (Paragraph 0071, "For example, if a patient 102 intends to move his limb at a first joint, for example the elbow, and at the same time supinate the hand such that it rotates, the virtual limb 116 will move from a first position 112 to a second position 114 according to the aggregated intended motions. In the first position the missing limb is to the left and the palm of the hand faces the patient 102 viewing the display, then the aggregated motion of the limb intended by the patient 102 is to flex the elbow joint and to pronate the hand, the intended motion is predicted by the control unit 108 and the limb moves to position 114"); and
controlling, based on the musculo-skeletal representation, a visual representation of a character in a virtual reality environment presented by the device (Fig. 1, display 106; Paragraphs 0028 and 0081).
Regarding claim 17, Catalan further discloses a neuromuscular system wherein myoelectrical signals (Paragraph 0029) are taken to update and present a virtual representation of a user (Fig. 1, display 106 with virtual limb 116 moving from first position 112 to second position 114), which is useful for motor control in virtual/robotic devices (Paragraph 0007).
Regarding claim 18, Catalan further discloses wherein controlling the device comprises:
predicting that the user will perform a control action with respect to a control interface of the device based, at least in part, on one or more of the decomposed neuromuscular source signals (Paragraph 0072, “The control unit 208 processes the electric signals and recognizes features in the electric signals such that motion intent of aggregated motions is predicted”); and
causing the device to respond to the control action before the user completes performance of the control action (Paragraph 0072, “After the intended motions have been predicted, the control unit 208 controls the virtual limb 214 on the display to perform the intended motions”).
Regarding claim 19, Catalan further discloses wherein controlling the device comprises:
determining, based on one or more of the decomposed neuromuscular source signals, musculo-skeletal position information describing a spatial relation between two or more connected segments of rigid body segments in a musculo-skeletal representation of the user; updating the musculo-skeletal representation based on the musculo-skeletal position information (Paragraph 0071, "For example, if a patient 102 intends to move his limb at a first joint, for example the elbow, and at the same time supinate the hand such that it rotates, the virtual limb 116 will move from a first position 112 to a second position 114 according to the aggregated intended motions. In the first position the missing limb is to the left and the palm of the hand faces the patient 102 viewing the display, then the aggregated motion of the limb intended by the patient 102 is to flex the elbow joint and to pronate the hand, the intended motion is predicted by the control unit 108 and the limb moves to position 114"); and
controlling, based on the musculo-skeletal representation, a visual representation of a character in a virtual reality environment presented by the device (Fig. 1, display 106; Paragraphs 0028 and 0081).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 11-12, 14-16, 18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11635736. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both directed towards a system, comprising: a plurality of neuromuscular sensors, each of which is configured to record a plurality of time-series neuromuscular signal data from a surface of a user’s body and signal processing circuitry/computer-readable storage medium configured to perform: applying a source separation technique to the plurality of neuromuscular signals recorded by the plurality of neuromuscular sensors to obtain a plurality of neuromuscular source signals and identifying/classifying an associated biological structure based on the neuromuscular source signals, wherein the biological structures are a muscle, muscle group, muscle fiber, or motor unit. Additionally, they are both directed towards controlling a device based on the plurality of neuromuscular signals and predicting an action made by the user and controlling the device prior to the user completing the action.
Examiner notes that one in possession of the system described above would also be in possession of the method of the instant application claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8.
Examiner notes that claims 3 and 13 are distinct as the patent claims do not recite identifying biological structures via electrodes inserted into the biological structures. Additionally, claims 7, 9, 10, 17, and 19 are distinct as the patent claims do not recite a visual representation of the user nor a ratio of neuromuscular signal data to neuromuscular source signals.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Catalan discloses wherein the electrodes may be implanted (Paragraphs 0026-0027, 0054, 0071). However, Naik, Bailey, and Catalan fail to disclose wherein the identifying biological structures for the neuromuscular signals is performed by aligning the signals to a plurality of template source signals via electrodes inserted/implanted into the biological structures. Thus, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to teach or provide an obviousness rationale to combine the prior art to read on the claims.
Claims 3 and 13 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH MICHAEL HEALY whose telephone number is (703)756-5534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:30pm ET.
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 Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/ERIC F WINAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/NOAH M HEALY/Examiner, Art Unit 3791