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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-30 are currently pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 10/03/2023 contains 108 NPL references. By signing the accompanying 1449 forms, Examiner is merely acknowledging the submission of the cited references and indicating that only a cursory review has been made, to the extent reasonably expected during normal examination time. If applicant considers there is a particular reference or teaching particularly relevant to the claimed invention it is requested from the applicant to provide a statement indicating such relevance and a clear identification of such reference.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,429,847 (Perkins et al.). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because (Perkins) anticipates the claimed invention as follows:
Instant Application
1. A method of decoding observed spike counts for spiking cells, comprising: receiving a first set of observed spike counts for the spiking cells; determining a set of probabilities by: retrieving the set of probabilities from stored information; or calculating the set of probabilities based on the stored information, wherein the stored information regards possible biological states of a subject, wherein each of the possible biological states belongs to at least one of a plurality of time sequences of biological states, wherein each of the plurality of time sequences of biological states corresponds to a possible action of the subject, and wherein each probability in the set of probabilities indicates a likelihood of observing a possible spike count for one of the plurality of spiking cells; identifying using a hardware processor a first identified biological state of the subject from the possible biological states based on the first set of observed spike counts and the set of probabilities; determining an action to be performed based on the first identified biological state; and causing the action to be performed.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the identifying of the first identified biological state of the subject comprises: for each of the possible biological states in each of the plurality of time sequences of biological states: retrieving or calculating a spiking cell probability for each of the spiking cells by matching the first set of observed spike counts to corresponding stored information for the possible biological state; and calculating a combined probability that the first set of spike counts corresponds to the possible biological state based on a combination of the spiking cell probabilities.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the action is to cause at least a portion of the subject, or a device controlled by the subject, to move relative to space around the subject.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the action is to indicate an internal state of the brain of the subject.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the identifying of the first identified biological state of the subject comprises identifying the first identified biological state based on the first set of observed spike counts, the set of probabilities, and a utility function.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying a second identified biological state of the subject from the possible biological states based on the first set of observed spike counts and the set of probabilities; and determining a third identified biological state from at least the first identified biological state and the second identified biological state.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the spiking cells are muscle cells.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the spiking cells are neurons1.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a subsequent set of observed spike counts for the spiking cells, wherein the subsequent set of observed spike counts are observed at a different time than the first set of observed spike counts are observed; and identifying a subsequent identified biological state of the subject from the possible biological states based on the subsequent set of observed spike counts, the first set of observed spike counts, and the set of probabilities.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the probabilities are log-probabilities.
US Patent No. 11,429,847
1. A method of decoding observed spike counts for spiking cells, comprising: receiving a first set of observed spike counts for the spiking cells; determining a set of probabilities by: retrieving the set of probabilities from stored information; or calculating the set of probabilities based on the stored information, wherein the stored information regards possible biological states of a subject, wherein each of the possible biological states belongs to at least one of a plurality of time sequences of biological states, wherein each of the plurality of time sequences of biological states corresponds to a possible action of the subject, and wherein each probability in the set of probabilities indicates a likelihood of observing a possible spike count for one of the plurality of spiking cells; identifying using a hardware processor a first identified biological state of the subject from the possible biological states based on the first set of observed spike counts and the set of probabilities, wherein the identifying of the first identified biological state of the subject comprises: for each of the possible biological states in each of the plurality of time sequences of biological states: retrieving or calculating a spiking cell probability for each of the spiking cells by matching the first set of observed spike counts to corresponding stored information for the possible biological state; and calculating a combined probability that the first set of spike counts corresponds to the possible biological state based on a combination of the spiking cell probabilities; determining an action to be performed based on the first identified biological state; and causing the action to be performed.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the action is to cause at least a portion of the subject, or a device controlled by the subject, to move relative to space around the subject.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the action is to indicate an internal state of the brain of the subject.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the identifying of the first identified biological state of the subject comprises identifying the first identified biological state based on the first set of observed spike counts, the set of probabilities, and a utility function.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying a second identified biological state of the subject from the possible biological states based on the first set of observed spike counts and the set of probabilities; and determining a third identified biological state from at least the first identified biological state and the second identified biological state.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the spiking cells are muscle cells.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a subsequent set of observed spike counts for the spiking cells, wherein the subsequent set of observed spike counts are observed at a different time than the first set of observed spike counts are observed; and identifying a subsequent identified biological state of the subject from the possible biological states based on the subsequent set of observed spike counts, the first set of observed spike counts, and the set of probabilities.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the probabilities are log-probabilities.
Instant Application
11. A system for decoding observed spike counts for spiking cells, comprising: a memory; and a hardware processor coupled to the memory and configured to: receive a first set of observed spike counts for the spiking cells; determine a set of probabilities by: retrieving the set of probabilities from stored information; or calculating the set of probabilities based on the stored information, wherein the stored information regards possible biological states of a subject, wherein each of the possible biological states belongs to at least one of a plurality of time sequences of biological states, wherein each of the plurality of time sequences of biological states corresponds to a possible action of the subject, and wherein each probability in the set of probabilities indicates a likelihood of observing a possible spike count for one of the plurality of spiking cells; identify a first identified biological state of the subject from the possible biological states based on the first set of observed spike counts and the set of probabilities; determine an action to be performed based on the first identified biological state; and cause the action to be performed.
19. The system of claim 11, wherein the identifying of the first identified biological state of the subject comprises: for each of the possible biological states in each of the plurality of time sequences of biological states: retrieving or calculating a spiking cell probability for each of the spiking cells by matching the first set of observed spike counts to corresponding stored information for the possible biological state; and calculating a combined probability that the first set of spike counts corresponds to the possible biological state based on a combination of the spiking cell probabilities.
12. The system of claim 11, wherein the action is to cause at least a portion of the subject, or a device controlled by the subject, to move relative to space around the subject.
13. The system of claim 11, wherein the action is to indicate an internal state of the brain of the subject.
14. The system of claim 11, wherein the identifying of the of first identified biological state of the subject comprises identifying the first identified biological state based on the first set of observed spike counts, the set of probabilities, and a utility function.
15. The system of claim 11, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to: identify a second identified biological state of the subject from the possible biological states based on the first set of observed spike counts and the set of probabilities; and determine a third identified biological state from at least the first identified biological state and the second identified biological state.
16. The system of claim 11, wherein the spiking cells are muscle cells.
17. The system of claim 11, wherein the spiking cells are neurons2.
18. The system of claim 11, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to: receive a subsequent set of observed spike counts for the spiking cells, wherein the subsequent set of observed spike counts are observed at a different time than the first set of observed spike counts are observed; and identify a subsequent identified biological state of the subject from the possible biological states based on the subsequent set of observed spike counts, the first set of observed spike counts, and the set of probabilities.
20. The system of claim 11, wherein the probabilities are log-probabilities.
US Patent No. 11,429,847
9. A system for decoding observed spike counts for spiking cells, comprising: a memory; and a hardware processor coupled to the memory and configured to: receive a first set of observed spike counts for the spiking cells; determine a set of probabilities by: retrieving the set of probabilities from stored information; or calculating the set of probabilities based on the stored information, wherein the stored information regards possible biological states of a subject, wherein each of the possible biological states belongs to at least one of a plurality of time sequences of biological states, wherein each of the plurality of time sequences of biological states corresponds to a possible action of the subject, and wherein each probability in the set of probabilities indicates a likelihood of observing a possible spike count for one of the plurality of spiking cells; identify a first identified biological state of the subject from the possible biological states based on the first set of observed spike counts and the set of probabilities, wherein the identifying of the first identified biological state of the subject comprises: for each of the possible biological states in each of the plurality of time sequences of biological states: retrieving or calculating a spiking cell probability for each of the spiking cells by matching the first set of observed spike counts to corresponding stored information for the possible biological state; and calculating a combined probability that the first set of spike counts corresponds to the possible biological state based on a combination of the spiking cell probabilities; determine an action to be performed based on the first identified biological state; and cause the action to be performed.
10. The system of claim 9, wherein the action is to cause at least a portion of the subject, or a device controlled by the subject, to move relative to space around the subject.
11. The system of claim 9, wherein the action is to indicate an internal state of the brain of the subject.
12. The system of claim 9, wherein the identifying of the first identified biological state of the subject comprises identifying the first identified biological state based on the first set of observed spike counts, the set of probabilities, and a utility function.
13. The system of claim 9, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to: identifying a second identified biological state of the subject from the possible biological states based on the first set of observed spike counts and the set of probabilities; and determining a third identified biological state from at least the first identified biological state and the second identified biological state.
14. The system of claim 9, wherein the spiking cells are muscle cells.
15. The system of claim 9, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to: receiving a subsequent set of observed spike counts for the spiking cells, wherein the subsequent set of observed spike counts are observed at a different time than the first set of observed spike counts are observed; and identifying a subsequent identified biological state of the subject from the possible biological states based on the subsequent set of observed spike counts, the first set of observed spike counts, and the set of probabilities.
16. The system of claim 9, wherein the probabilities are log-probabilities.
Instant Application
21. A non-transitory computer-readable medium containing computer executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method of decoding observed spike counts for spiking cells, the method comprising: receiving a first set of observed spike counts for the spiking cells; determining a set of probabilities by: retrieving the set of probabilities from stored information; or calculating the set of probabilities based on the stored information, wherein the stored information regards possible biological states of a subject, wherein each of the possible biological states belongs to at least one of a plurality of time sequences of biological states, wherein each of the plurality of time sequences of biological states corresponds to a possible action of the subject, and wherein each probability in the set of probabilities indicates a likelihood of observing a possible spike count for one of the plurality of spiking cells; identifying a first identified biological state of the subject from the possible biological states based on the first set of observed spike counts and the set of probabilities; determining an action to be performed based on the first identified biological state; and causing the action to be performed.
29. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21, wherein the identifying of the first identified biological state of the subject comprises: for each of the possible biological states in each of the plurality of time sequences of biological states: retrieving or calculating a spiking cell probability for each of the spiking cells by matching the first set of observed spike counts to corresponding stored information for the possible biological state; and calculating a combined probability that the first set of spike counts corresponds to the possible biological state based on a combination of the spiking cell probabilities.
22. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21, wherein the action is to cause at least a portion of the subject, or a device controlled by the subject, to move relative to space around the subject.
23. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21, wherein the action is to indicate an internal state of the brain of the subject.
24. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21, wherein the identifying of the first identified biological state of the subject comprises identifying the first identified biological state based on the first set of observed spike counts, the set of probabilities, and a utility function.
25. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21, wherein the method further comprises: identifying a second identified biological state of the subject from the possible biological states based on the first set of observed spike counts and the set of probabilities; and determining a third identified biological state from at least the first identified biological state and the second identified biological state.
26. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21, wherein the spiking cells are muscle cells.
27. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21, wherein the spiking cells are neurons3.
28. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21, wherein the method further comprises: receiving a subsequent set of observed spike counts for the spiking cells, wherein the subsequent set of observed spike counts are observed at a different time than the first set of observed spike counts are observed; and identifying a subsequent identified biological state of the subject from the possible biological states based on the subsequent set of observed spike counts, the first set of observed spike counts, and the set of probabilities.
30. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 21, wherein the probabilities are log-probabilities.
US Patent No. 11,429,847
17. A non-transitory computer-readable medium containing computer executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method of decoding observed spike counts for spiking cells, the method comprising: receiving a first set of observed spike counts for the spiking cells; determining a set of probabilities by: retrieving the set of probabilities from stored information; or calculating the set of probabilities based on the stored information, wherein the stored information regards possible biological states of a subject, wherein each of the possible biological states belongs to at least one of a plurality of time sequences of biological states, wherein each of the plurality of time sequences of biological states corresponds to a possible action of the subject, and wherein each probability in the set of probabilities indicates a likelihood of observing a possible spike count for one of the plurality of spiking cells; identifying a first identified biological state of the subject from the possible biological states based on the first set of observed spike counts and the set of probabilities, wherein the identifying of the first identified biological state of the subject comprises: for each of the possible biological states in each of the plurality of time sequences of biological states: retrieving or calculating a spiking cell probability for each of the spiking cells by matching the first set of observed spike counts to corresponding stored information for the possible biological state; and calculating a combined probability that the first set of spike counts corresponds to the possible biological state based on a combination of the spiking cell probabilities; determining an action to be performed based on the first identified biological state; and causing the action to be performed.
18. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the action is to cause at least a portion of the subject, or a device controlled by the subject, to move relative to space around the subject.
19. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the action is to indicate an internal state of the brain of the subject.
20. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the identifying of the first identified biological state of the subject comprises identifying the first identified biological state based on the first set of observed spike counts, the set of probabilities, and a utility function.
21. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the method further comprises: identifying a second identified biological state of the subject from the possible biological states based on the first set of observed spike counts and the set of probabilities; and determining a third identified biological state from at least the first identified biological state and the second identified biological state.
22. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the spiking cells are muscle cells.
23. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the method further comprises: receiving a subsequent set of observed spike counts for the spiking cells, wherein the subsequent set of observed spike counts are observed at a different time than the first set of observed spike counts are observed; and identifying a subsequent identified biological state of the subject from the possible biological states based on the subsequent set of observed spike counts, the first set of observed spike counts, and the set of probabilities.
24. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the probabilities are log-probabilities.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claims 1, 11, and 21:
Step 1:
Claim 1 is drawn to a method of decoding observed spike counts for spiking cells, claim 11 is drawn to a system for decoding observed spike counts for spiking cells, and claim 21 is drawn to non-transitory computer-readable medium containing computer executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method of decoding observed spike counts for spiking cells, therefore each of claims 1, 11, and 21 falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (process/method, machines/products/apparatus, manufactures, and compositions of matter).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Nonetheless, claims 1, 11, and 21 are directed to a judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Each of claims 1, 11 and 21 recites functions of “identifying…a first identified biological state of the subject…based on the first set of observed spike counts and the set of probabilities” and “determining an action to be performed based on the first identified biological state” that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, enumerates a mental concept. Other than reciting a generic “a hardware processor” (as recited only in claims 1 and 11), nothing in the claims preclude the steps from the mental concept. For example, a human can visually observe a spike histogram to assess neuron activities and can evaluate the spikes to associate with some physical activities (i.e., arm movements). The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor to perform a concept that the human can perform does not take the claim limitations out of the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Each of claims 1, 11, and 21 recites additional element “a memory” and limitations “receive a first set of observed spike counts for the spiking cells”, “retrieving the set of probabilities from stored information…wherein the stored information regards possible biological states of a subject, wherein each of the possible biological states belongs to at least one of a plurality of time sequences of biological states, wherein each of the plurality of time sequences of biological states corresponds to a possible action of the subject, and wherein each probability in the set of probabilities indicates a likelihood of observing a possible spike count for one of the plurality of spiking cells4” and “causing the action to be performed”. The step to receive and retrieve information [i.e., from memory] is a form of insignificant input-solution activity, such that data receiving and/or retrieving is necessary for the use of the judicial exception (i.e., the mental steps to “identify” and to “determine” requires collecting of information in order to mentally evaluate) (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The step “causing an action to be performed” is recited at a high level of generality, not being specific what type of action nor whom performs the action. However, an action as defined in claims 3, 13, and 23 is “to indicate an internal state of the brain of the subject” which is also a form of insignificant output solution activity for data outputting (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B:
The additional steps that is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because the court decisions have determined that this additional steps to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner for data receiving/retrieving and data outputting (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(iv: Storing and retrieving information, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) and See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). As such, claims 1, 11 and 21 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30:
Step 1:
Claims 2-10 are drawn to a method of decoding observed spike counts for spiking cells, claims 12-20 are drawn to a system for decoding observed spike counts for spiking cells, and claims 22-30 are drawn to non-transitory computer-readable medium containing computer executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method of decoding observed spike counts for spiking cells, therefore each of claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30 falls under one of four categories of statutory subject matter (process/method, machines/products/apparatus, manufactures, and compositions of matter). Nonetheless, dependent claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30 are also ineligible for the same reasons given with respect to claims 1, 11, and 21.
Steps 2A-2B:
Claims 2, 12, and 22 recite limitation “to cause at least a portion of the subject, or a device controlled by the subject, to move relative to space around the subject” that is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claims 3, 13, and 23 recite further the insignificant extra solution activity for data outputting “the action is to indicate an internal state of the brain of the subject” (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claims 4-5, 14-15, and 14-25 recite further a mental evaluation where a human can evaluate the steps “identifying the first identified biological state based on the first set of observed spike counts, the set of probabilities, and a utility function” and “identify a second identified biological state of the subject from the possible biological states based on the first set of observed spike counts and the set of probabilities; and determine a third identified biological state from at least the first identified biological state and the second identified biological state” (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Claims 6-7, 16-17, and 26-27 recite further the insignificant extra solution activity for defining the type of data being received and/or retrieved “the spiking cells are muscle cells” and “the spiking cells are neurons” (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claims 8, 18, and 28 recite the combination of insignificant extra solution activity “receive a subsequent set of observed spike counts for the spiking cells” and a mental concept “identify a subsequent identified biological state of the subject from the possible biological states based on the subsequent set of observed spike counts” (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claims 9-10, 19-20, and 29-30 recite the combination of insignificant extra solution activity “retrieving…a spiking cell probability for each of the spiking cells” and a mathematical concept “calculating a combined probability that the first set of spike counts corresponds to the possible biological state based on a combination of the spiking cell probabilities… wherein the probabilities are log-probabilities” (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional steps that is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because the court decisions have determined that this additional steps to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner for data receiving/retrieving and data outputting (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(iv: Storing and retrieving information, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) and See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). As such, claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30 are not patent eligible.
Note: To overcome the 101 rejections, Examiner suggests amending the last step of claims 1, 11, and 21 to ‘positively’ recite a field of use by adding: “controlling a device based on the determined action to move relative to space around the subject”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 11-14, 16-17, 21-24, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Yu et al. (“Neural Decoding for Motor and Communication Prostheses”, Elsevier, 2010, p.219-263).
With respect to claims 1, 11, and 21, Yu teaches a method, a system for decoding observed spike counts for spiking cells (neural decoding for motor and communication prostheses, title, via brain-computer interfaces, p.219), comprising: a memory; a hardware processor coupled to the memory; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing computer executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method of decoding observed spike counts for spiking cells (memory and processing instructions of brain-computer interfaces, p.219; improving prosthetic system design…emphasis on neural decoding algorithms with decoding algorithms for communication prostheses based on large populations of neurons…recorded using intra-cortical electrode arrays, p.241) and configured to:
receive a first set of observed spike counts for the spiking cells (observed spike counts, p.242; spike counts per neurons, fig.7.7b-c);
determine a set of probabilities (apply probabilistic models for spike counts, equations 7.19-7.22 and p.241-242; fig.7.7 teaches the probability of a “plan” to move arm to leftward target with spike counts for each neuron based on simulated data for two neurons) by:
retrieving the set of probabilities from stored information or calculating the set of probabilities based on the stored information (prior information about the identity of the movement regime {i.e., motor activities of a subject, figs.7.1-7.4}, is incorporated into a probabilistic mixture of trajectory models (MTM), p.232; prior information is interpreted as “stored information”),
wherein the stored information regards possible biological states of a subject (model of neural motor control that captures the hard physical constraints of the limb… movement regimes include different parts of the workspace, different reach speeds, and different reach curvatures…state posterior based on individual trajectory model corresponding to that regime, p.231),
wherein each of the possible biological states belongs to at least one of a plurality of time sequences of biological states, wherein each of the plurality of time sequences of biological states corresponds to a possible action of the subject (decoding a continuous arm trajectory involves finding the likely sequences of arm states corresponding to the observed neural activity…compute the distribution of the arm state xt given the movement neural activity y1, y2,..., yt (denoted by {y}t1) observed up to that time, p.228), and
wherein each probability in the set of probabilities indicates a likelihood of observing a possible spike count for one of the plurality of spiking cells (apply probabilistic models for spike counts, equations 7.19-7.22, fig.7.7, and p.241-245;
PNG
media_image1.png
182
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, p.231);
identify a first identified biological state of the subject from the possible biological states based on the first set of observed spike counts and the set of probabilities (decoding a continuous arm trajectory involves finding the likely sequences of arm states corresponding to the observed neural activity…each time step t,…compute the distribution of the arm state xt given the movement neural activity y1, y2,..., yt (denoted by {y}t1) observed up to that time, p.228; arm movement trajectories, fig.7.7 and p.244);
determine an action to be performed based on the first identified biological state and cause the action to be performed (assist disabled patients by translating thoughts into actions…arm trajectories, p.252-253).
With respect to claims 2, 12, and 22, Yu teaches wherein the action is to cause at least a portion of the subject, or a device controlled by the subject, to move relative to space around the subject (assist disabled patients by translating thoughts into actions…arm trajectories, p.252-253).
With respect to claims 3, 13, and 23, Yu teaches wherein the action is to indicate an internal state of the brain of the subject (translating thoughts into actions…arm trajectories, p.252-253).
With respect to claims 4, 14, and 24, Yu teaches wherein the identifying of the of first identified biological state of the subject comprises identifying the first identified biological state based on the first set of observed spike counts, the set of probabilities, and a utility function (
PNG
media_image1.png
182
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, p.231).
With respect to claims 6, 16, and 26, Yu teaches wherein the spiking cells are muscle cells (the neural trajectories are extracted, they can then be related to the subject’s behavior, such as arm kinematics and muscle activity, p.256).
With respect to claims 7, 17, and 27, Yu teaches wherein the spiking cells are neurons (fig. 7.7 teaches number of spikes for each neuron, p.244).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 10, 20 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (“Neural Decoding for Motor and Communication Prostheses”, Elsevier, 2010, p.219-263) in view of Truccolo et al. (US 10,448,877).
With respect to claims 10, 20, and 30, Yu does not appear to teach wherein the probabilities are log-probabilities.
However, it is known by Truccolo to teach of a system and methods for prediction and early detection of neurological events (Truccolo: title) that applies a log-probabilities (Truccolo: Model parameters were estimated via gradient-ascent maximization of the penalized log-likelihood functions, col.20 lines 53-57)
Because Truccolo is also directed to neural decoding (Truccolo: col.20 lines 53-57; Yu: title), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of a log-probabilities as taught by Truccolo with the neural decoding system and method as taught by Yu for the purpose of multivariating neuronal spike train data via collective dynamics: neural decoding (Truccolo: col.20 lines 53-57).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8-9, 15, 18-19, 25, and 28-29 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 and further overcome the 101 and ODP rejections as presented above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious, which makes the following claims allowable over the prior art:
With respect to claims 5, 15, and 25, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to: identify a second identified biological state of the subject from the possible biological states based on the first set of observed spike counts and the set of probabilities; and determine a third identified biological state from at least the first identified biological state and the second identified biological state.
With respect to claims 8, 18, and 28, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to: receive a subsequent set of observed spike counts for the spiking cells, wherein the subsequent set of observed spike counts are observed at a different time than the first set of observed spike counts are observed; and identify a subsequent identified biological state of the subject from the possible biological states based on the subsequent set of observed spike counts, the first set of observed spike counts, and the set of probabilities.
With respect to claims 9, 19, and 29, wherein the identifying of the first identified biological state of the subject comprises: for each of the possible biological states in each of the plurality of time sequences of biological states: retrieving or calculating a spiking cell probability for each of the spiking cells by matching the first set of observed spike counts to corresponding stored information for the possible biological state; and calculating a combined probability that the first set of spike counts corresponds to the possible biological state based on a combination of the spiking cell probabilities.
Conclusion
The additional prior arts made of record and have not been relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as follows: Kao et al. (US-20140257520-A1), US-7392079-B2, US-20140081895-A1, US-20140330404-A1, US-20210076963-A1, US-20210365114-A1, US-20240192776-A1, WO-2007120819-A2, and WO-2012141714-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEN (CINDY) D KHUU whose telephone number is (571)272-8585. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HIEN D KHUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116 September 23, 2025
1 Perkins anticipates the claimed limitation “wherein the spiking cells are neurons” based on the recited limitation that the spiking cells are of “biological states of a subject”.
2 Perkins anticipates the claimed limitation “wherein the spiking cells are neurons” based on the recited limitation that the spiking cells are of “biological states of a subject”.
3 Perkins anticipates the claimed limitation “wherein the spiking cells are neurons” based on the recited limitation that the spiking cells are of “biological states of a subject”.
4 The underlining limitations merely to define the type of information being retrieved.