DETAILED ACTION
This Final action is in response to an amendment filed 1/2/2026. Currently claims 1-11 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 recites “associating…the sensed-brain related signal with a device input command associated with a first device task….associating, the sensed brain-related signal with the device input command associated with a second device task, where the second device task is different from the first device task and the second device task is irrelevant to the first task”. This limitation requires that the same device input command is associated with a first device task different from a second device task, however, this requirement does not find support in the disclosure as follows:
On the Remarks filed 1/02/2026 pgs. 4-5, Applicant traverses the rejection and points to par. 64 where “N input commands can be assignable to Y end applications”, where if it’s assumed N=1 and Y=100, then it follows that one input command can be assignable to one hundred end applications. Applicant also points to par. 29 where once an input command is triggered it can be sent to various end applications that can execute the instructions of the input command to move a wheelchair forward or turn on a smart coffee machine. Applicant further explains that Fig. 1C shows the input command 18 of the center column can be associated with multiple end applications 12 of the right columns.
The office must respectfully disagree, while par. 64 does state than N can be 1 to 100, and Y can be 1 to 100, the disclosure never explicitly disclose this specific combination, nor does it exemplify or inherently imply that the same input command can be associated with multiple end applications. This is because throughout the specification, the input command is associated with the end applications, just as the applicant explained with respect to par. 29, the input command for a wheelchair is to move it forward, and the input command for a smart coffee machine is to turn it on, which are two different input commands (moving a wheelchair forward vs. turning-on a coffee machine), each associated with a different end application (wheelchair vs. coffee machine). This is further explained with respect to Fig. 1C and par. 49-50 where the input commands 1-3 (18a-18c) are associated with end application 12a, and the input command 4 (18d) is associated with end application 12b. In other words, there is nothing in the disclosure that explicitly or inherently disclose an input command such as the left arrow (Fig. 1C) associated with both e.g. a remote and a wheelchair.
The disclosure does support the same thought 9 assignable to an input command of a first end application and to an input command of a second end application in par. 18-19, 32, 37, 50, 60, 64. In other words, the disclosure would support “associating…the sensed brain-related signal [thought] with a device input command associated with a first device task, and associating…the [same] sensed brain-related signal with another device input command associated with a second device task”.
Dependent claims 2-11 inherit the issues of parent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segal in US 2015/0091791 (hereinafter Segal) in view of Steiner et al. in US 2015/0338917 (hereinafter Steiner).
Regarding claim 1, Segal discloses a method (Segal’s par. 2) for preparing an individual (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77: user 11) to interface with a first device (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77: display 19) and a second device (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77: device 17), the method comprising:
measuring a brain-related signal of the individual (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77: brain wave) to obtain a sensed brain-related signal (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77: electrical signals representing brain waves) when the individual generates a thought (Segal’s par. 77, 85: directional thought) by thinking of a first task (Segal’s par. 8, 85: moving a ball or hand on a computer); transmitting the sensed brain-related signal (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77: electrical signals representing brain waves) to a processing unit (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77: from 11 to 12); associating, via the processing unit (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77:12 and 13 combined), the sensed brain-related signal (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77: electrical signals representing brain waves) with a device input command (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77: series of directional intentions) associated with a first device task (Segal’s par. 61: navigation on a menu or selection in a menu displayed on a user interface, shown as display 19 in Fig. 1), where the device input command (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77: series of directional intentions) and the first device task (Segal’s par. 61: navigation on a menu or selection in a menu) are irrelevant to the first task (Segal’s par. 8, 85: moving a ball on a computer); upon associating the sensed brain-related signal (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77: electrical signals representing brain waves) with the device input command (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77: series of directional intentions), electrically transmitting (Segal’s par. 77, 100) the device input command (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77: series of directional intentions) to the first device (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77: display 19) to execute the first device task (Segal’s par. 61: navigation on a menu or selection in a menu) associated with the device input command (Segal’s par. 61: move menu selection one menu lower or execute the current selection in a menu displayed on a user interface) or electrically transmitting the device input command to the second device to execute the second device task (limitation in the alternative).
Segal fails to explicitly disclose associating, via the processing unit, the sensed brain-related signal with the device input command associated with a second device task, where the second device task is different from the first device task and the second device task is irrelevant to the first task, or determining an activation state of the first device and the second device.
However, in the same field of endeavor of devices controlled by brain-waves, Steiner discloses that an input command activates different device tasks according to the device (Steiner’s par. 278: command On turns-on e.g. the television and the dishwasher) where the devices are different (Steiner’s par. 278: e.g. television vs. dishwasher); Steiner also discloses determining an activation state (Steiner’s par. 279: current active device) of the first device (Steiner’s par. 278-279: e.g. TV) and the second device (Steiner’s par. 278-279: e.g. dishwasher), and electrically transmitting the device input command to execute the first device task when the first device is active (Steiner’s par. 278-279: when e.g. the TV is the currently active device, then the command “on” results in turning on the TV).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Segal’s device input command (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77, 100: series of directional intentions, e.g. line patterns) is associated with a first device task and a second device task different from the first device task (Steiner’s par. 278: command On turns-on e.g. the television and the dishwasher), and to determine the activation state of different devices (Steiner’s par. 279: currently active state among plural devices) and transmit the input command to the active device (Steiner’s par. 279), in order to obtain: the predictable result of assigning a directional intention or set of directional intentions to any action, making it possible to create a near limitless library of “thought-to-something” commands/actions, resulting in a mind operating system to everything and overcoming the weakness of one-to-one correlation (Segal’s par. 56, 10), the benefit of controlling more than one device (Steiner’s par. 279), and the benefit of uniquely identifying to what device should a generic command by transmitted for execution (Steiner’s par. 278-279).
By doing such combination, Segal in view of Steiner disclose:
A method (Segal’s par. 2) for preparing an individual (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77: user 11) to interface with a first device (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77: display 19) and a second device (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77: device 17), the method comprising:
measuring a brain-related signal of the individual (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77: brain wave) to obtain a sensed brain-related signal (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77: electrical signals representing brain waves) when the individual generates a thought (Segal’s par. 77, 85: directional thought) by thinking of a first task (Segal’s par. 8, 85: moving a hand or ball on a computer);
transmitting the sensed brain-related signal (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77: electrical signals representing brain waves) to a processing unit (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77: from 11 to 12);
associating, via the processing unit (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77:12 and 13 combined), the sensed brain-related signal (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77: electrical signals representing brain waves) with a device input command (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77: series of directional intentions, e.g. line pattern which is equivalent to e.g. command “on” in Steiner’s par. 278-279) associated with a first device task (Segal’s par. 61: navigation on a menu or selection in a menu displayed on a user interface which upon combination is equivalent to e.g. turning-on a TV in Steiner’s par. 278-279), where the device input command (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77: series of directional intentions, e.g. line pattern which is equivalent to e.g. command “on” in Steiner’s par. 278-279) and the first device task (Segal’s par. 61: navigation on a menu or selection in a menu displayed on a user interface which upon combination is equivalent to e.g. turning-on a TV in Steiner’s par. 278-279) are irrelevant to the first task (Segal’s par. 85: moving a ball on a computer);
associating, via the processing unit (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77:12 and 13 combined), the sensed brain-related signal (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77: electrical signals representing brain waves) with the device input command (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77: series of directional intentions, e.g. line pattern which is equivalent to e.g. command “on” in Steiner’s par. 278-279) associated with a second device task (upon combination with Steiner’s par. 278-279: see command “on” associated with e.g. turning-on a dishwasher), where the second device task is different from the first device task (Steiner’s par. 278-279: e.g. turning-on a TV) and the second device task is irrelevant to the first task (Segal’s par. 8, 85: moving a ball on a computer); and
determining an activation state (Steiner’s par. 279: currently active state) of the first device and the second device (Steiner’s par. 278-279: e.g. TV and dishwasher); and
electrically transmitting (Segal’s par. 77, 100) the device input command (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77: series of directional intentions, e.g. line pattern which is equivalent to e.g. command “on” in Steiner’s par. 278-279) to the first device (upon combination with Steiner’s par. 278-279: e.g. TV) to execute the first device task (Segal’s par. 61: navigation on a menu or selection in a menu displayed on a user interface which upon combination is equivalent to e.g. turning-on the TV in Steiner’s par. 278-279) when the first device is active (Steiner’s par. 279: when the TV is the currently active device), or electrically transmitting (Segal’s par. 77, 100) the device input command (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77: series of directional intentions, e.g. line pattern which is equivalent to e.g. command “on” in Steiner’s par. 278-279) to the second device (upon combination with Steiner’s par. 278-279: e.g. dishwasher) to execute the second device task (upon combination with Steiner’s par. 278-279: command “on” associated with turning-on e.g. a dishwasher) when the second device is active (Steiner’s par. 279: when the dishwasher is the currently active device).
Regarding claim 2, Segal in view of Steiner disclose where the sensed brain-related signal is sensed electrical brain activity (Segal’s par. 39-47).
Regarding claim 4, Segal in view of Steiner disclose where the thought is associated with muscle contraction (Segal’s par. 93: muscle movement: blinking eye, raising brow, clenching jaw, smiling).
Regarding claim 5, Segal in view of Steiner disclose where the thought is from a motor cortex or a sensory cortex of a brain of the individual (Segal’s par. 39, 43: motor or sensory cortical areas).
Regarding claim 6, Segal in view of Steiner further disclose associating, via the processing unit (Segal’s par. 61, 77: associating of electrical signals representing brain-waves with series of directional intentions, e.g. line pattern, which is equivalent to associating a thought pattern [brain-related signal] with a command using a GUI in Steiner’s par. 256), comprises using a graphical user interface (Steiner’s par. 256: GUI).
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for Segal’s associating step to use a graphical user interface (Steiner’s par. 256: GUI), in order to obtain the benefit of allowing the user to train their device (Steiner’s par. 256).
Regarding claim 9, Segal in view of Steiner disclose where measuring the brain-related signal (Segal’s par. 77) comprises using one or more sensors to detect the brain-related signal (Segal’s par. 45).
Claims 3, 7, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segal in view of Steiner as applied above, in further view of John et al. in US 2019/0038438 (hereinafter John).
Regarding claim 3, Segal in view of Steiner disclose where measuring the sensed brain-related signal (Segal’s Fig. 1 and par. 77: brain wave) comprises measuring the sensed brain-related signal with an implanted device (Segal’s par. 10, 50, 76). But Segal fails to explicitly disclose an implanted endovascular device.
However, in the same field of endeavor of sensing brain waves, John discloses the implanted device being endovascular (John’s Fig. 31 and par. 304).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Segal’s implanted device (Segal’s par. 10, 50, 76) would be endovascular (as taught by John) in order to obtain the benefit of advantageously recording brain activity 24/7 (John’s par. 304).
Regarding claim 7, Segal in view of Steiner fail to explicitly disclose where measuring the brain-related signal comprises measuring the brain-related signal from a biological medium of the individual.
However, in the same field of endeavor of sensing brain waves, John discloses measuring brain-related signal from a biological medium of the individual (John’s par. 91, 94, 116).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Segal’s measuring the brain-related signal (Segal’s par. 77) is performed from a from a biological medium of the individual (John’s par. 91, 94, 116) in order to obtain the benefit of advantageously recording brain activity 24/7 (John’s par. 304) and because Segal already discloses implanted devices (Segal’s par. 10, 50, 76).
Regarding claim 8, Segal in view of Steiner and John disclose where the biological medium comprises a medium selected from a neural tissue, a vascular tissue, blood, bone, muscle, cerebrospinal fluid, or any combination thereof (John’s par. 91, 94, 116).
Regarding claim 10, Segal in view of Steiner fail to disclose where the one or more sensors comprise one or more electrical conductor for sensing electrical activity of a biological medium of the individual.
However, in the same field of endeavor of sensing brain waves, John discloses a sensor comprising one or more electrical conductor (John’s par. 103: electrode) for sensing electrical activity of a biological medium of the individual (John’s par. 103, 116).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Segal’s sensor (Segal’s par. 45) comprises one or more electrical conductor for sensing electrical activity of a biological medium of the individual (John’s par. 103, 116), in order to obtain the benefit of advantageously recording brain activity 24/7 (John’s par. 304) and because Segal already discloses implanted devices (Segal’s par. 10, 50, 76).
Regarding claim 11, Segal in view of Steiner fail to disclose where the one or more sensors comprise biochemical sensors. However, in the same field of endeavor of sensing brain waves, John discloses a sensor comprising biochemical sensors (John’s par. 91, 158: medical device sensing activity of tissues and fluids by using electrode per par. 116).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Segal’s sensor (Segal’s par. 45) comprises biochemical sensors (John’s par. 91, 158, 116), in order to obtain the benefit of advantageously recording brain activity 24/7 (John’s par. 304) and because Segal already discloses implanted devices (Segal’s par. 10, 50, 76).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Please see under 112 Rejection addressing the arguments regarding the new matter rejection, which is maintained.
On the Remarks pgs. 5-7, Applicant argues with respect to the prior art rejection, that Segal does not disclose the added limitations. Please see the above rejections which addresses the added limitations by the combination of Segal and Steiner.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Liliana Cerullo whose telephone number is (571)270-5882. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM to 3PM MT.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/LILIANA CERULLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621