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 Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“the power of the at least” in line 2 of claim 1 should read as “a power of at least”
“wherein the power” in line 2 of claim 2 should read as “wherein a power”
“method of claim 1” in the preamble of claim 3 should read as “method of claim 1,”
“a predefined signal power threshold and a predefined” in line 2 of claim 3 should read as “the predefined signal power threshold and the predefined”
“method of claim 2” in the preamble of claim 4 should read as “method of claim 2,”
“a predefined” in line 2 of claim 4 should read as “the predefined”
“of claim 2” in the preamble of claims 5-9 should read as “of claim 2,”
“of at least” in line 2 of claim 5 should read as “of the at least”
“of at least” in line 2 of claim 6 should read as “of the at least”
“of at least” in line 2 of claim 8 should read as “of the at least”
“of at least” in line 2 of claim 9 should read as “of the at least”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a method. However, there are no active method steps recited in claim 1. Examiner suggests to amend the step(s) of claim 1 to be active steps.
Claim 2 recites a method. However, there are no active method steps recited in claim 2. Examiner suggests to amend the step(s) of claim 2 to be active steps.
Claim 3 recites “A method” in the preamble. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “A method” should read as “The method” to refer to the method of claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “A method” in the preamble. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “A method” should read as “The method” to refer to the method of claim 2.
Claims 5-9 recite “A system” in the preamble. However, claim 2 recites a method, not a system. The preamble of claims 5-9 should read as “The method”. Furthermore, claims 5-9 do not recite active method steps. Examiner suggests to amend the claims to recite active method steps.
Claim 7 recites “wherein communication can be generated” in line 1. It is unclear what it means to generate communication. It is also what two structures are communicating. Clarification is requested.
Claim 9 recites “any element of a computer game can be triggered, activated, controlled or played…” in lines 1-2. Iti s unclear what “any element of a computer game” is. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Molnar et al. ‘998 (US Pub No. 2012/0108998).
Regarding claim 1, Molnar et al. ‘998 teaches a method comprising of at least one neurological signal from a human subject obtained from the prefrontal cortex without any external stimulus (Fig. 18A step 148 and [0206]) wherein the power of the at least one neurological signal is measured against a predefined signal power threshold (Fig. 18A step 154 and [0206]) and a predefined time duration ([0206]; “period of time”) threshold to generate a trigger, activation or control of a computer user interface (Fig. 18A step 152 and [0207]).
Regarding claim 2, Molnar et al. ‘998 teaches a method comprising of at least one neurological signal from a human subject obtained from the prefrontal cortex without any external stimulus (Fig. 18 A step 148 and [0206]) wherein the power of the at least one neurological signal is determined to be below, at or above a predefined signal power threshold (Fig. 18A step 154 and [0206]) within a predefined time duration threshold ([0206]; “period of time”) and if below the predefined signal power threshold, the neurological signal stops or does not generate a trigger, activation or control of a computer user interface and if at or above a predefined signal power threshold within a predefined time duration, the neurological signal generates a trigger, activation or control of a computer user interface (Fig. 18A step 156, 152, and [0207]).
Regarding claim 3, Molnar et al. ’998 teaches wherein the power of the at least one neurological signal is measured either manually or automatically against a predefined signal power threshold (Fig. 18A steps 154, 156 and [0206]-[0207]; One of ordinary skill would understand that this is done automatically as there is no human intervention to compare the EEG signal to the threshold.) and a predefined time duration threshold ([0206]; “period of time”).
Regarding claim 4, Molnar et al. ‘998 teaches wherein the power of the at least one neurological signal is manually or automatically determined to be below, at or above a predefined signal power threshold (Fig. 18A step 156 and [0207]; One of ordinary skill would understand that this is done automatically as there is no human intervention to determine if the EEG signal is below, above, or at the threshold.) within a predefined time duration threshold ([0206]; “period of time”).
Regarding claim 7, to best to the Examiner’s understanding, Molnar et al. ‘998 teaches wherein communication can be generated by the power of the at least one neurological signal without any external stimulus (Fig. 18A step 152 and [0202]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molnar et al. ‘998 in view of Cash ‘007 (US Pub No. 2015/0045007).
Regarding claim 5, Molnar et al. ‘998 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein musical tracks or musical playlists can be played, paused, or forwarded to the next musical track by the power of at least one neurological signal without any external stimulus.
Cash ‘007 teaches EEG sensors worn on the forehead or throat of the user. The smartphone can run an application that analyzes the brainwave patterns sent from the EEG sensors and a thought recognition algorithm initiates the actions on the smartphone device. The user receives feedback from the device in the form of speech synthesis as well as the target thought action. The system can be able to open menus, press buttons, play music and videos, use map navigation, make phone calls, and other smartphone-related activities that would previously be possible through a voice-activated virtual assistant (Fig. 1 and [0024]) to allow mind-controlled operation with the smartphone ([0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Molnar et al. ‘998 to include wherein musical tracks or musical playlists can be played, paused, or forwarded to the next musical track by the power of at least one neurological signal without any external stimulus as Cash ‘007 teaches that this will aid in allowing for mind-controlled operation with the smartphone.
Regarding claim 6, Molnar et al. ‘998 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein videos or video playlists can be played, paused, or forwarded to the next video by the power of at least one neurological signal without any external stimulus.
Cash ‘007 teaches EEG sensors worn on the forehead or throat of the user. The smartphone can run an application that analyzes the brainwave patterns sent from the EEG sensors and a thought recognition algorithm initiates the actions on the smartphone device. The user receives feedback from the device in the form of speech synthesis as well as the target thought action. The system can be able to open menus, press buttons, play music and videos, use map navigation, make phone calls, and other smartphone-related activities that would previously be possible through a voice-activated virtual assistant (Fig. 1 and [0024]) to allow mind-controlled operation with the smartphone ([0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Molnar et al. ‘998 to include wherein videos or video playlists can be played, paused, or forwarded to the next video by the power of at least one neurological signal without any external stimulus as Cash ‘007 teaches that this will aid in allowing for mind-controlled operation with the smartphone.
Regarding claim 8, Molnar et al. ‘998 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein a smart assistant or Internet of Things (loT) smart device can be triggered, activated or controlled by the power of at least one neurological signal without any external stimulus.
Cash ‘007 teaches EEG sensors worn on the forehead or throat of the user. The smartphone can run an application that analyzes the brainwave patterns sent from the EEG sensors and a thought recognition algorithm initiates the actions on the smartphone device. The user receives feedback from the device in the form of speech synthesis as well as the target thought action. The system can be able to open menus, press buttons, play music and videos, use map navigation, make phone calls, and other smartphone-related activities that would previously be possible through a voice-activated virtual assistant (Fig. 1 and [0024]) to allow mind-controlled operation with the smartphone ([0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Molnar et al. ‘998 to include wherein a smart assistant or Internet of Things (loT) smart device can be triggered, activated or controlled by the power of at least one neurological signal without any external stimulus as Cash ‘007 teaches that this will aid in allowing for mind-controlled operation with the smartphone.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molnar et al. ‘998 in view of Ayers ‘057 (US Patent No. 5,571,057).
Regarding claim 9, Molnar et al. ‘998 teaches wherein a computer game or any element of a computer game can be triggered, activated, controlled or played with by the power of at least one neurological signal without any external stimulus.
Ayers ‘057 teaches an apparatus and method for controlling video and film games by utilizing a player's bioelectrical signals comprising the steps of displaying a sequence of visual images having a predetermined control signal, obtaining an electroencephalographic (EEG) signal from the player while the player is viewing the display of visual images, analyzing the EEG signal to determine its magnitude, and sending a signal to the player when the magnitude falls within a range of values corresponding to an amplitude threshold voltage thereby causing the player to mentally concentrate on the display and affect a change on the magnitude of the EEG signal which changes the sequence of visual images being displayed in accordance with the change in magnitude (Column 2 Lines 46-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Molnar et al. ‘998 to include wherein a computer game or any element of a computer game can be triggered, activated, controlled or played with by the power of at least one neurological signal without any external stimulus as Ayers ‘057 teaches that this will aid in controlling a sequence of change in EEG signals which conveys to the player a heightened sense of participation with the visual images displayed (Column 1 Lines 43-46).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AURELIE H TU whose telephone number is (571)272-8465. The examiner can normally be reached [M-F] 7:30-3:30.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/AURELIE H TU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791