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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 03/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 39 and 58 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/26/2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Applicant’s addition of claims 160-163, in the response filed 03/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-18 and 160-163 are currently under examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 1, 2B, 2D, 2E, 3C, 6, 9, 10, 15, 22, 23 contain writing that is not legible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, “a stroke”, should read -a previous stroke-
In claim 3, “wherein the subject is paralyzed”, should read -wherein the subject suffers from paralysis-. (Examiner's Note: As the claim is a method, the current presentation of the claim reads such that the method could involve inflicting paralysis on a subject)
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 1-18 and 160-163 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 the limitation “processing the electrical signal data to obtain a sequence of predicted letter probabilities”, which fails to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim as it is unclear how “a sequence of predicted letter probabilities” are obtained from the electrical signal. For example, how is the electrical signal data converted from an electrical signal to a sequence of predicted letter probabilities? Is there a decoder that is present? Is there an algorithm that is used? How are the probabilities generated? As such, the claim is indefinite as the applicant has failed to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as an algorithm capable of the indicated function (Par. 157 of applicant’s spec.).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “electrical signal data from an electrode positioned in a brain region associated with an attempted spelling by the subject”, which fails to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim, as it is unclear as to what region of the brain the electrical signal data is coming from. Is the electrode in a specific region of the brain? Is the electrode positioned in the ventral sensorimotor cortex (Par. 151 of applicant’s spec.)? Is the electrode positioned in any region of the brain? Does the claim itself require an attempted spelling to be made? As such, the claim is indefinite as the applicant has failed to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as electrical signal data from an electrode positioned in the ventral sensorimotor cortex (Par. 151 of applicant’s spec.).
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the neural recording device comprises a brain-penetrating electrode array and the electrode is a part of the brain-penetrating electrode array”, which fails to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim as it is unclear as to the amount of electrodes present. Does the array include additional electrodes? Is the claimed “electrode” the only electrode that is transmits the signal for the “receiving” step of claim 1? For example, “array” is defined as “a group of elements forming a complete unit” (Merriam-Webster dictionary). As such, it is unclear whether those other electrodes in the array are also involved with sensing of the signals. The applicant’s spec. further states “The precise number of electrodes contained in an electrode array (e.g., for recording of neural activity associated with attempted speech) may vary. In certain aspects, an electrode array may include two or more electrodes…” (Par. 147 of applicant’s spec.). As such, the claim is indefinite as the applicant has failed to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as the other electrodes of the electrode array being involved with the “receiving” step of claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the neural recording device comprises an electrocorticography (ECoG) electrode array and the electrode is a part of the electrocorticography (ECoG) electrode array”, which fails to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim as it is unclear as to the amount of electrodes present. Does the array include additional electrodes? Is the claimed “electrode” the only electrode that is transmits the signal for the “receiving” step of claim 1? For example, “array” is defined as “a group of elements forming a complete unit” (Merriam-Webster dictionary). As such, it is unclear whether those other electrodes in the array are also involved with sensing of the signals. The applicant’s spec. further states “The precise number of electrodes contained in an electrode array (e.g., for recording of neural activity associated with attempted speech) may vary. In certain aspects, an electrode array may include two or more electrodes…” (Par. 147 of applicant’s spec.). As such, the claim is indefinite as the applicant has failed to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as the other electrodes of the electrode array being involved with the “receiving” step of claim 1.
The term “optimal” in claim 13 a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The applicant has failed to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim as it is unclear what makes a “location” an “optimal location” within the mapping process. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as without the word “optimal”.
Claim 160 recites “analyzing, using a language model, the one or more sentence candidates to decode a sentence from the electrical signal data”, which fails to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim as it is unclear as to the structure of the language model that performs the indicated analyzing step of the claim. For example, how are the sentence candidates decoded? Is there a decoder that is present in the language model? What is the structure of the language model? As such, the claim is indefinite as the applicant has failed to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as an algorithm capable of the indicated function (Par. 157 of applicant’s spec.).
Claim 160 recites “analyzing, using a language model, the one or more sentence candidates to decode a sentence from the electrical signal data”, which fails to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim, as it is unclear as to where the “analyzing” step occurs. For example, the claim indicates analyzing one or more sentence candidates to decode a sentence from the electrical signal data, where this is done with a language model. However, claim 1, which claim 160 is dependent on, recites “processing the electrical signal data to obtain a sequence of predicted letter probabilities; and constructing one or more sentence candidates based on the sequence of predicted letter probabilities”, which indicates that the sentence candidates are all obtained in the “constructing” step. As such, why is the language model directly decoding a sentence from the electrical signal data, when the electrical signal data is the raw data? As such, the claim is indefinite as the applicant has failed to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as - analyzing, using a language model, the one or more sentence candidates to decode a sentence based on the electrical signal data-.
Claim 161 recites “analyzing the second electrical signal data using a classification model that identifies patterns of electrical signals in the recorded electrical signal data associated with the attempted non-speech motor movement and calculates a probability that the subject attempted the non-speech motor movement”, which fails to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim as it is unclear as to the structure of the classification model that performs the analyzing and calculating steps. Is there a specific threshold that is used? Is there a decoder that is present in the classifier? What is the structure of the classifier? Is the classifier trained? As such, the claim is indefinite as the applicant has failed to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as an algorithm capable of the indicated function (Par. 157 of applicant’s spec.).
Claims 2-18 and 160-163 are dependent on claim 1, and as such are also rejected.
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.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 14-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein the interface comprises a percutaneous pedestal connector attached to a cranium region of the subject”, which is directed towards a human organism as it requires the existence of cranium as part of the claim language itself.
Claims 1-18 and 160-163 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards a judicial exception without significantly more. These claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test
Claim 1 is directed towards a method, which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test
Prong 1: Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of a mental process as follows: “receiving…” “… electrical signal data…”, “processing the electrical signal data to obtain a sequence of predicted letter probabilities”, and “constructing one or more sentence candidates based on the sequence of predicted letter probabilities”.
The receiving electrical signal data, processing the electrical signal data to obtain a sequence of predicted letter probabilities, and constructing one or more sentence candidates based on the sequence of predicted letter probabilities can be practically performed by the human mind, with the aid of a pen and paper, but for performance on a generic processor, in a computer environment, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the steps.
A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably receive electrical signal data by being handed a piece of paper with electrical signal data on it. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably process electrical signals to obtain a sequence of predicted letter probabilities mentally, with a pen and paper, or with a generic computer based on having electrical signal data. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably construct one or more sentence candidates mentally, with a pen and paper, or with a computer based on having a sequence of predicted letter probabilities. There is currently nothing to suggest an undue level of complexity in the receiving, processing, or constructing steps. Therefore, a person would be able to practically be able to perform the processing and constructing steps mentally or with the aid of pen and paper.
Prong Two: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the mental process into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are “directed to” the mental process. The additional elements merely:
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (the pre-solution activity of: using generic data-gathering components (e.g. “a neural recording device” and “an electrode positioned in a brain region associated with an attempted spelling by the subject”)
For claim 1. The additional elements merely serve to gather data to be used by the abstract idea. The neural recording device and electrode are merely used as a pre-solution step of necessary data gathering to be used by the abstract idea. The receiving of signals is used as additional types data gathering. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. The processing that is performed remains in the abstract realm, i.e. the gathered data is not used for a treatment or meaningful purpose. Additionally, there is no overall improvement to existing technology present. The mental process merely functions on generic computer elements that do not change the functionality of the device itself. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test for Claim 1
Per the Berkheimer requirement, the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. For example,
a neural recording device and electrical signal data from an electrode positioned in a brain region associated with an attempted spelling by the subject as disclosed by Kumar et al,(“Envisioned speech recognition using EEG sensors”, 2018) (Cited 99 times), hereinafter Kumar, “In EEG, small flat metal discs known as electrodes are placed on the scalp to record electrical activities inside the brain as a form of EEG signals. The acquisition of EEG signals could be done with the help of devices such as Emotiv EPOC+ or similar setup.” (Page 186, Par. 3) “Experiments have also been conducted to find the dominating EEG channels corresponding to different brain lobes for the recognition of imagined speech” (Par. 195, Par. 3) and as disclosed by Ramsey et al., (“Decoding spoken phonemes from sensorimotor cortex with high-density ECoG grids”, 2018) (Cited 102 times) hereinafter Ramsey, “The placement of the grids was targeted at the sensorimotor face area. Exact coverage and electrode grid depended on patient-specific surgical considerations, and is shown in Fig. 1.” (Page 303), “ECoG signal was collected from five intractable epilepsy patients (Table 1) who had grids implanted subdurally over the inferior sensori motor cortex on their right (subjects R1 and R2) or left (subjects L1, L2, and L3) hemisphere (depending on the probable location of the source of seizures). We refer to these grids as high density (HD) ECoG grids due to their high electrode density (3–4 mm center-to-center)” (Page 302).
are all well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Claims 2-18 and 160-163 do not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an inventive concept) as all of the elements are directed to the further describing of the abstract idea, pre-solution activities, and computer implementation.
The dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons: they merely further describe the abstract idea:
wherein the subject has anarthria stroke, a traumatic brain injury, a brain tumor, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Claim 2),
wherein the subject is paralyzed (Claim 3),
wherein the electrical signal data comprises high-gamma frequency content features (Claim 10),
wherein the electrical signal data comprises neural oscillations in a range from 70 Hz to 150 Hz (Claim 11),
mapping brain regions of the subject to identify an optimal location for positioning, wherein the mapping is performed before the receiving (Claim 13) (Examiner's Note: A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably map regions based on receiving electrical signal data),
perform the processing and the constructing based on identification of a neural activity pattern of electrical signals in the recorded electrical signal data associated with attempted spelling by the subject (Examiner's Note: A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably perform processing and constructing based on identification of an activity pattern) (Claim 18),
analyzing, using a language model, the one or more sentence candidates to decode a sentence from the electrical signal data (Examiner's Note: A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably analyze sentence candidates based on receiving electrical signal data with a generic computer) (Claim 160),
receiving second recorded electrical signal data associated with an attempted non-speech motor movement of the subject, wherein the subject performs the attempted non-speech motor movement: (i) to indicate an initiation or a termination of the attempted spelling (Claim 161),
analyzing the second electrical signal data using a classification model that identifies patterns of electrical signals in the recorded electrical signal data associated with the attempted non-speech motor movement and calculates a probability that the subject attempted the non-speech motor movement (Claim 161)(Examiner's Note: A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably analyze electrical signals with a generic computer and calculate a probability based on receiving electrical signal data),
wherein the attempted non-speech motor movement comprises an attempted head, arm, hand, foot, or leg movement (Claim 162),
wherein the attempted non-speech motor movement comprises an attempted hand movement comprising an imagined hand gesture, an imagined hand squeeze, or a combination thereof (Claim 163).
Further describe the pre-solution activity (or structure used for such activity):
The electrode is positioned in a ventral sensorimotor cortex region (Claim 4),
wherein the electrode is positioned on a surface of a sensorimotor cortex region or within a sensorimotor cortex region (Claim 5),
wherein the electrode is positioned on a surface of the sensorimotor cortex region in a subdural space (Claim 6),
wherein the neural recording device comprises a brain-penetrating electrode array and the electrode is a part of the brain-penetrating electrode array (Claim 7),
wherein the neural recording device comprises an electrocorticography (ECoG) electrode array (Claim 8),
the electrode is a part of the electrocorticography (ECoG) electrode array (Claim 8),
wherein the electrode is a depth electrode or a surface electrode (Claim 9)
wherein the electrode is positioned in a sensorimotor cortex region selected from the group consisting of a precentral gyrus, a postcentral gyrus, a posterior middle frontal gyrus, a posterior superior frontal gyrus, a posterior inferior frontal gyrus region, and combinations thereof (Claim 12)
the electrode for recording the electrical signals associated with the attempted spelling by the subject (Claim 13)
wherein an interface is in communication with a computing device, wherein the interface is connected to the neural recording device, wherein the interface comprises a percutaneous pedestal connector attached to a cranium region of the subject (Claim 14),
a headstage connected to the percutaneous pedestal connector (Claim 15),
a processor provided by a computer or a handheld device (Claim 16),
the handheld device is a cell phone or a tablet (Claim 17),
a processor (Claim 18).
Per the Berkheimer requirement, the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. For example,
An electrode in a sensorimotor cortex region, the electrode comprises a brain penetrating electrode array, electrode is positioned on a surface of the sensorimotor cortex region in a subdural space, wherein the neural recording device comprises a brain-penetrating electrode array and the electrode is a part of the brain-penetrating electrode array, wherein the neural recording device comprises an electrocorticography (ECoG) electrode array and the electrode is a part of the electrocorticography (ECoG) electrode array, a surface electrode, an electrode for recording signals as disclosed by Ramsey “The placement of the grids was targeted at the sensorimotor face area. Exact coverage and electrode grid depended on patient-specific surgical considerations, and is shown in Fig. 1.” (Page 303), “ECoG signal was collected from five intractable epilepsy patients (Table 1) who had grids implanted subdurally over the inferior sensori motor cortex on their right (subjects R1 and R2) or left (subjects L1, L2, and L3) hemisphere (depending on the probable location of the source of seizures). We refer to these grids as high density (HD) ECoG grids due to their high electrode density (3–4 mm center-to-center)” (Page 302),
A processor as indicated in the applicant’s disclosure, “The processor may be any well- known processor, such as processors from Intel Corporation” (Par. 193 of applicant’s spec.),
an interface is in communication with a computing device, wherein the interface is connected to the neural recording device as indicated in the applicant’s own disclosure “Brain-computer interfaces are commercially available, including the NeuroportTM system from Blackrock Microsystems (Salt Lake City, Utah), See also, e.g., Weiss et al. (2019) Brain-Computer Interfaces 6:106-117; herein incorporated by reference.” (Par. 197 of applicant’s spec.) (Examiner's Note: See also, Fig. 6) and as disclosed by Roussel et al, (“Observation and assessment of acoustic contamination of electrophysiological brain signals during speech production and sound perception” , 2020) (Cited 60 times) hereinafter Roussel “…An electrode of the strip was used as the reference and another as the ground. The transcutaneous pigtails of the ECoG grids were connected to PMT pigtail adaptors and then to two headboxes (64-Channel Splitter Box, Blackrock Microsystems, USA) through individual touch-proof connectors….” “…These data were recorded with Synamps2 amplifiers (Compumedics Neuroscan, USA) in parallel with clinical recording, sampled at 2 kHz (US1) or 1 kHz (US2 and US3). The data were exported from the amplifiers to the BCI2000 software environment on a separate laptop, using a TCP/IP protocol (Schalk et al 2004).” (Page 3-4, Col. 1-2 (subsection 2.1.2 Electrophysiological recordings)),
wherein the interface comprises a percutaneous pedestal connector attached to a cranium region of the subject and a headstage connected to the percutaneous pedestal connector as disclosed by Chhatbar et al. (“A bio-friendly and economical technique for chronic implantation of multiple microelectrode arrays”, 2010) hereinafter Chhatbar, “Thus the NP design can be changed according to the type of headpost used (small pinhead size headpost for rats, for example or different shape and diameter of headposts as commercially available by different companies.) and the physical properties of the connectors for a given MEA (e.g., ICS-96 connectors, Omnetics connectors etc. as well as custom made connectors….” (Page 193), “Fig. 2. (A) An array with Cereport connector; (B) an array with ICS-96 connector; (C) 6-FHP-2XF headpost; (D and E) front and back views of headpost with NP mounted; (F) scheme showing the use of appropriate screw holes on the NP to affix ICS-96 connectors. Connector outline in dotted line suggests connector location on the other side of the view. Also note the wire bundles passing through the channels created at the bottom of the NP.” (Fig. 2), and “The implanted monkey, 6 months post-implantation. A, while enjoying an apple; B, view from the back while seated; C, assembly with headstages plugged in.” (Page 192, Fig. 6) and as disclosed by Roussel “…An electrode of the strip was used as the reference and another as the ground. The transcutaneous pigtails of the ECoG grids were connected to PMT pigtail adaptors and then to two headboxes (64-Channel Splitter Box, Blackrock Microsystems, USA) through individual touch-proof connectors….” “…These data were recorded with Synamps2 amplifiers (Compumedics Neuroscan, USA) in parallel with clinical recording, sampled at 2 kHz (US1) or 1 kHz (US2 and US3). The data were exported from the amplifiers to the BCI2000 software environment on a separate laptop, using a TCP/IP protocol (Schalk et al 2004).” (Page 3-4, Col. 1-2 (subsection 2.1.2 Electrophysiological recordings)),
a handheld device or cell phone as disclosed by Steiner (US Pub. No. 20150338917) hereinafter Steiner “a suitable smartphone (e.g., Android smartphone, Apple iPhone, or the like)” (Par. 127) and Tansey (US Pub. No. US 20180228394) hereinafter Tansey “Examples of well-known computing systems, environments, and/or configurations that may be suitable for use include, but are not limited to, personal computers (“PCs”), server computers, handheld or laptop devices, multi-processor systems, microprocessor-based systems, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, cell phones, tablets, embedded systems, distributed computing environments that include any of the above systems or devices, and the like.” (Par. 50),
are all well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. The additional elements do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. The collective functions of the additional elements merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, data gathering, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a device, computer, mobile device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 claims are generally directed towards a method comprising receiving electrical signal data from an electrode, processing the electrical signal data to obtain a sequence of predicted letter probabilities, and constructing one or more sentence candidates based on the probabilities.
Claim(s) 1-13, 16-18, and 160 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner (US Pub. No. 20150338917) hereinafter Steiner, and further in view of Chang (US Pat. No. 9905239) hereinafter Chang.
Regarding claim 1, Steiner discloses A method of assisting a subject with communication (abstract, “A method of controlling an electronic device thought…”) (Par. 5, “present invention may include, for example, devices, systems, methods, computerized programs and computerized applications which may allow a user to control or command an electronic device via thought.”) (Par. 155, “Each one of modules 401-497, or some or all of such modules, may be implemented as part of any of modules 131, 132 and/or 133 which appear in FIG. 1 and/or in FIG. 3.”), the method comprising:
receiving, via a neural recording device, electrical signal data from an electrode positioned in a brain region (Par. 129, “In a demonstrative implementation, headset 102 may comprise a device having similar functions or properties to an Emotiv EPOC Neuroheadset, or other suitable headset or sensor(s) or electrode(s). In a demonstrative implementation, headset 102 may comprise electrodes or brainwave sensors 108, for example, 8 or 10 or 12 or 14 or 16 saline sensors or saline electrodes”) (Par. 140, “the system to capture and record the brainwave activity or EEG signals of those thoughts, and store them as reference signals; and in subsequent usage of the system, the system may capture brainwave activity signals and compare them to the reference signals…”) (Par. 223, “Some implementations may utilize a “Think to Dictate” module 449, allowing the user to dictate a text (e.g., an email message, an SMS message, an Instant Messaging (IM) message) by thinking the message. The user thinks of the text message, and by recognizing his thoughts only, the device autonomously writes (composes) the message…” “…This tagging and correlation procedure teaches the system of more and more words, whole phrases, sentences, and ideas that the user writes, and how his brain activity is recorded for each of them…”) (Par. 321, “Some embodiments may include a brainwave-based text auto-complete module 489; for example, the system tracks sensors inputs and user typing of email, documents, text messages; and builds probabilities to common words and phrases....”) (Fig. 2, Par. 142, “headset 102 may perform EEG readings (block 201), and may transfer the captured data (in raw format, or in down-sampled format, or in partially-analyzed format) over a wireless communication link (e.g., utilizing a wireless dongle, or a built-in or embedded wireless transceiver) to computer 103 (block 202) (or, in alternate embodiments, directly to smartphone 101)”);
processing the electrical signal data to obtain a sequence of predicted letter probabilities (Par. 160, “supervise or augment learning feedback, by using an autonomous feedback loop module 405. Matching between signals and meanings (e.g., matching between signals to patterns that have logical meanings) may be based on machine learning algorithms, which may require an initial calibration period…”) (Par. 321, “Some embodiments may include a brainwave-based text auto-complete module 489; for example, the system tracks sensors inputs and user typing of email, documents, text messages; and builds probabilities to common words and phrases that the user may often use in SMS text messages, as well as correlations between specific letters or words or uncompleted words, and brainwave signals that are obtained from the user during such composing time…”); and
constructing one or more sentence candidates based on the sequence of predicted letter probabilities (Par. 321, “Some embodiments may include a brainwave-based text auto-complete module 489; for example, the system tracks sensors inputs and user typing of email, documents, text messages; and builds probabilities to common words and phrases that the user may often use in SMS text messages, as well as correlations between specific letters or words or uncompleted words, and brainwave signals that are obtained from the user during such composing time…”) (Par. 322, “…the system may now estimate or predict what is the most probable remainder of the text that the user is probably going to type. The system may auto-complete a word or phrase or complete sentence, before the user completed it himself, based on current brainwave activity compared to previous reference brainwave activity. It may suggest auto-complete options, and allow the user to accept the suggestion or ignore it and keep typing.”).
Steiner fails to explicitly disclose electrode positioned in a brain region associated with an attempted spelling by the subject. (Examiner's Note: Interpreted as indicated in the 112b rejection above)
However, Chang teaches electrode positioned in a brain region associated with an attempted spelling by the subject (Col. 11, lines 1-28, “…Suitable locations for positioning or implanting the at least three electrodes may include, but are not limited to, one or more regions of the ventral sensorimotor cortex (vSMC), including the pre-central gyrus, the post-central gyrus, the guenon (the gyral area directly ventral to the termination of the central sulcus), and any combination thereof...”) and the use of EEG electrodes and ECOG arrays (Col. 12, lines 25-27, “also of interest are electrodes that may receive electroencephalography (EEG) data. One or more wet or dry EEG electrodes may be used in practicing the subject methods.”) (Col. 12, lines 1-24, “Electrodes may be arranged in no particular pattern or any convenient pattern to facilitate detection of speech production signals…” “…may be pre-arranged into an array, such that the array includes a plurality of electrodes that may be placed on or in a subject's brain. Such arrays may be miniature- or micro-arrays, a non-limiting example of which may be a miniature ECoG array”).
Steiner and Chang are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they are involved with measurement of neural signals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Steiner with that of Chang to include electrode positioned in a brain region associated with an attempted spelling by the subject through the combination of references as differing electrode positions are known (Chang (Col. 11, lines 1-28)), and it would have yielded the predictable result of decoding speech related signals from the brain of the subject (Chang (Col. 10, lines 20-31)).
Regarding claim 2, modified Steiner fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Chang further teaches wherein the subject has anarthria, a stroke, a traumatic brain injury, a brain tumor, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Chang (Col. 14, lines 58 – 63, “the subject has a speech impairment or inability to communicate. Subjects of interest include, but are not limited to, subjects suffering from paralysis, locked-in syndrome, Lou Gehrig's disease, aphasia, dysarthria, stuttering, laryngeal dysfunction/loss, vocal tract dysfunction, and the like.”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Steiner and Chang with that of Chang to include wherein the subject has anarthria, a stroke, a traumatic brain injury, a brain tumor, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of helping an individual with Lou Gehrig’s disease communicate (Chang (Col. 14, lines 58 – 63)).
Regarding claim 3, modified Steiner fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Chang further teaches wherein the subject is paralyzed (Chang (Col. 14, lines 58 – 63, “the subject has a speech impairment or inability to communicate. Subjects of interest include, but are not limited to, subjects suffering from paralysis, locked-in syndrome, Lou Gehrig's disease, aphasia, dysarthria, stuttering, laryngeal dysfunction/loss, vocal tract dysfunction, and the like.”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Steiner and Chang with that of Chang to include wherein the subject is paralyzed through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of helping an individual with paralysis communicate (Chang (Col. 14, lines 58 – 63)).
Regarding claim 4, modified Steiner fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Chang further teaches the electrode is positioned in a ventral sensorimotor cortex region (Chang (Col. 11, lines 1-28, “…Suitable locations for positioning or implanting the at least three electrodes may include, but are not limited to, one or more regions of the ventral sensorimotor cortex (vSMC), including the pre-central gyrus, the post-central gyrus, the guenon (the gyral area directly ventral to the termination of the central sulcus), and any combination thereof...”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Steiner and Chang with that of Chang to include the electrode is positioned in a ventral sensorimotor cortex region for the reasoning as indicated in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, modified Steiner fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Chang further teaches wherein the electrode is positioned on a surface of a sensorimotor cortex region or within a sensorimotor cortex region (Chang (Col. 11, lines 1-28, “…Suitable locations for positioning or implanting the at least three electrodes may include, but are not limited to, one or more regions of the ventral sensorimotor cortex (vSMC), including the pre-central gyrus, the post-central gyrus, the guenon (the gyral area directly ventral to the termination of the central sulcus), and any combination thereof...”) (Col. 10, lines 57-67, “According to one embodiment, the at least three electrodes are operably coupled to the speech motor cortex by implantation on the surface of the speech motor cortex. In one aspect, an array of electrocorticography electrodes (ECoG array) is disposed on the surface of the speech motor cortex (e.g., the vSMC) for detection of speech production signals (e.g., local field potentials) generated in the speech motor cortex. According to certain embodiments, the at least three electrodes are operably coupled to the speech motor cortex by insertion of the electrodes into the speech motor cortex (e.g., at a desired depth).”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Steiner and Chang with that of Chang to include wherein the electrode is positioned on a surface of a sensorimotor cortex region or within a sensorimotor cortex region for the reasoning as indicated in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, modified Steiner fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Chang further teaches wherein the electrode is positioned on a surface of the sensorimotor cortex region in a subdural space (Chang (Col. 11, lines 1-28, “…Suitable locations for positioning or implanting the at least three electrodes may include, but are not limited to, one or more regions of the ventral sensorimotor cortex (vSMC), including the pre-central gyrus, the post-central gyrus, the guenon (the gyral area directly ventral to the termination of the central sulcus), and any combination thereof...”) (Col. 10, lines 57-67, “According to one embodiment, the at least three electrodes are operably coupled to the speech motor cortex by implantation on the surface of the speech motor cortex…” “…According to certain embodiments, the at least three electrodes are operably coupled to the speech motor cortex by insertion of the electrodes into the speech motor cortex (e.g., at a desired depth).”) (Col. 18, lines 2-14, “To understand the functional organization of vSMC in articulatory sensorimotor control, neural activity was recorded directly from the cortical surface in three human subjects implanted with high-density multi-electrode arrays as part of their work-up for epilepsy surgery.sup.17 (FIG. 1, Panel A)...”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Steiner and Chang with that of Chang to include wherein the electrode is positioned on a surface of the sensorimotor cortex region in a subdural space for the reasoning as indicated in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, modified Steiner fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Chang further teaches wherein the neural recording device comprises a brain-penetrating electrode array and the electrode is a part of the brain-penetrating electrode array (Chang (Col. 11, lines 1-28, “…Suitable locations for positioning or implanting the at least three electrodes may include, but are not limited to, one or more regions of the ventral sensorimotor cortex (vSMC), including the pre-central gyrus, the post-central gyrus, the guenon (the gyral area directly ventral to the termination of the central sulcus), and any combination thereof...”) (Col. 10, lines 57-67, “According to one embodiment, the at least three electrodes are operably coupled to the speech motor cortex by implantation on the surface of the speech motor cortex. In one aspect, an array of electrocorticography electrodes (ECoG array) is disposed on the surface of the speech motor cortex (e.g., the vSMC) for detection of speech production signals (e.g., local field potentials) generated in the speech motor cortex. According to certain embodiments, the at least three electrodes are operably coupled to the speech motor cortex by insertion of the electrodes into the speech motor cortex (e.g., at a desired depth).”) (Col. 12, lines 15-24, “Electrodes may be pre-arranged into an array, such that the array includes a plurality of electrodes that may be placed on or in a subject's brain. Such arrays may be miniature- or micro-arrays, a non-limiting example of which may be a miniature ECoG array…”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Steiner and Chang with that of Chang to include wherein the neural recording device comprises a brain-penetrating electrode array and the electrode is a part of the brain-penetrating electrode array for the reasoning as indicated in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, modified Steiner fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Chang further teaches wherein the neural recording device comprises an electrocorticography (ECoG) electrode array and the electrode is a part of the electrocorticography (ECoG) electrode array (Chang (Col. 11, lines 1-28, “…Suitable locations for positioning or implanting the at least three electrodes may include, but are not limited to, one or more regions of the ventral sensorimotor cortex (vSMC), including the pre-central gyrus, the post-central gyrus, the guenon (the gyral area directly ventral to the termination of the central sulcus), and any combination thereof...”) (Col. 10, lines 57-67, “According to one embodiment, the at least three electrodes are operably coupled to the speech motor cortex by implantation on the surface of the speech motor cortex. In one aspect, an array of electrocorticography electrodes (ECoG array) is disposed on the surface of the speech motor cortex (e.g., the vSMC) for detection of speech production signals (e.g., local field potentials) generated in the speech motor cortex. According to certain embodiments, the at least three electrodes are operably coupled to the speech motor cortex by insertion of the electrodes into the speech motor cortex (e.g., at a desired depth).”) (Col. 12, lines 15-24, “Electrodes may be pre-arranged into an array, such that the array includes a plurality of electrodes that may be placed on or in a subject's brain. Such arrays may be miniature- or micro-arrays, a non-limiting example of which may be a miniature ECoG array…”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Steiner and Chang with that of Chang to include wherein the neural recording device comprises an electrocorticography (ECoG) electrode array and the electrode is a part of the electrocorticography (ECoG) electrode array for the reasoning as indicated in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, modified Steiner fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Chang further teaches wherein the electrode is a depth electrode or a surface electrode (Chang (Col. 11, lines 1-28, “…Suitable locations for positioning or implanting the at least three electrodes may include, but are not limited to, one or more regions of the ventral sensorimotor cortex (vSMC), including the pre-central gyrus, the post-central gyrus, the guenon (the gyral area directly ventral to the termination of the central sulcus), and any combination thereof...”) (Col. 10, lines 57-67, “According to one embodiment, the at least three electrodes are operably coupled to the speech motor cortex by implantation on the surface of the speech motor cortex. In one aspect, an array of electrocorticography electrodes (ECoG array) is disposed on the surface of the speech motor cortex (e.g., the vSMC) for detection of speech production signals (e.g., local field potentials) generated in the speech motor cortex. According to certain embodiments, the at least three electrodes are operably coupled to the speech motor cortex by insertion of the electrodes into the speech motor cortex (e.g., at a desired depth).”) (Col. 12, lines 15-24, “Electrodes may be pre-arranged into an array, such that the array includes a plurality of electrodes that may be placed on or in a subject's brain. Such arrays may be miniature- or micro-arrays, a non-limiting example of which may be a miniature ECoG array…”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Steiner and Chang with that of Chang to include wherein the electrode is a depth electrode or a surface electrode for the reasoning as indicated in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, modified Steiner fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Chang further teaches wherein the electrical signal data comprises high-gamma frequency content features (Chang (Col. 13, lines 33-37, “Example time-courses of speech production signals of individual electrodes are shown in FIG. 1 (panels D-I), where the high-gamma frequency component (85-175 Hz) of local field potentials of the vSMC are detected and aligned to acoustic onsets of consonant-to-vowel transitions (CVs).”) (Col. 40, lines 15-22, “The focus was on the high-gamma frequency component of cortical field potentials (70-150 Hz), which correlates well with multi-unit firing rates (see previous examples herein). For each electrode, the time-varying high-gamma amplitude was normalized to baseline statistics by transforming to z-scores. These direct cortical recordings yielded robust high-gamma activity that differed between the cardinal vowels”) (Col. 27, lines 25-28, “The focus was on the high-gamma frequency component of local field potentials (85-175 Hz), which correlates well with multi-unit firing rates”)(Col. 11, lines 1-28, “…Suitable locations for positioning or implanting the at least three electrodes may include, but are not limited to, one or more regions of the ventral sensorimotor cortex (vSMC), including the pre-central gyrus, the post-central gyrus, the guenon (the gyral area directly ventral to the termination of the central sulcus), and any combination thereof...”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Steiner and Chang with that of Chang to include wherein the electrical signal data comprises high-gamma frequency content features through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of focusing on signals that correlate well with multi-unit firing rates (Chang (Col. 40, lines 15-22)) and allow detection of consonant-to-vowel transitions (Chang (Col. 13, lines 33-37)).
Regarding claim 11, modified Steiner fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Chang further teaches wherein the electrical signal data comprises neural oscillations in a range from 70 Hz to 150 Hz (Chang (Col. 13, lines 33-37, “Example time-courses of speech production signals of individual electrodes are shown in FIG. 1 (panels D-I), where the high-gamma frequency component (85-175 Hz) of local field potentials of the vSMC are detected and aligned to acoustic onsets of consonant-to-vowel transitions (CVs).”) (Col. 40, lines 15-22, “The focus was on the high-gamma frequency component of cortical field potentials (70-150 Hz), which correlates well with multi-unit firing rates (see previous examples herein). For each electrode, the time-varying high-gamma amplitude was normalized to baseline statistics by transforming to z-scores. These direct cortical recordings yielded robust high-gamma activity that differed between the cardinal vowels”) (Col. 27, lines 25-28, “The focus was on the high-gamma frequency component of local field potentials (85-175 Hz), which correlates well with multi-unit firing rates”)(Col. 11, lines 1-28, “…Suitable locations for positioning or implanting the at least three electrodes may include, but are not limited to, one or more regions of the ventral sensorimotor cortex (vSMC), including the pre-central gyrus, the post-central gyrus, the guenon (the gyral area directly ventral to the termination of the central sulcus), and any combination thereof...”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Steiner and Chang with that of Chang to include wherein the electrical signal data comprises neural oscillations in a range from 70 Hz to 150 Hz for the reasoning as indicated in claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 12, modified Steiner fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Chang further teaches wherein the electrode is positioned in a sensorimotor cortex region selected from the group consisting of a precentral gyrus, a postcentral gyrus, a posterior middle frontal gyrus, a posterior superior frontal gyrus, a posterior inferior frontal gyrus region, and combinations thereof (Chang (Col. 11, lines 1-28, “…Suitable locations for positioning or implanting the at least three electrodes may include, but are not limited to, one or more regions of the ventral sensorimotor cortex (vSMC), including the pre-central gyrus, the post-central gyrus, the guenon (the gyral area directly ventral to the termination of the central sulcus), and any combination thereof...”) (Col. 10, lines 57-67, “According to one embodiment, the at least three electrodes are operably coupled to the speech motor cortex by implantation on the surface of the speech motor cortex. In one aspect, an array of electrocorticography electrodes (ECoG array) is disposed on the surface of the speech motor cortex (e.g., the vSMC) for detection of speech production signals (e.g., local field potentials) generated in the speech motor cortex. According to certain embodiments, the at least three electrodes are operably coupled to the speech motor cortex by insertion of the electrodes into the speech motor cortex (e.g., at a desired depth).”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Steiner and Chang with that of Chang to include wherein the electrode is positioned in a sensorimotor cortex region selected from the group consisting of a precentral gyrus, a postcentral gyrus, a posterior middle frontal gyrus, a posterior superior frontal gyrus, a posterior inferior frontal gyrus region, and combinations thereof for the reasoning as indicated in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 13, modified Steiner fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Chang further teaches further comprising mapping brain regions of the subject to identify an optimal location for positioning the electrode for recording the electrical signals associated with the attempted spelling by the subject, wherein the mapping is performed before the receiving (Chang (Col. 11, lines 1-28, “…Suitable locations for positioning or implanting the at least three electrodes may include, but are not limited to, one or more regions of the ventral sensorimotor cortex (vSMC), including the pre-central gyrus, the post-central gyrus, the guenon (the gyral area directly ventral to the termination of the central sulcus), and any combination thereof...”) (Col. 10, lines 57-67, “According to one embodiment, the at least three electrodes are operably coupled to the speech motor cortex by implantation on the surface of the speech motor cortex. In one aspect, an array of electrocorticography electrodes (ECoG array) is disposed on the surface of the speech motor cortex (e.g., the vSMC) for detection of speech production signals (e.g., local field potentials) generated in the speech motor cortex. According to certain embodiments, the at least three electrodes are operably coupled to the speech motor cortex by insertion of the electrodes into the speech motor cortex (e.g., at a desired depth).”) (Col. 12, lines 15-24, “Electrodes may be pre-arranged into an array, such that the array includes a plurality of electrodes that may be placed on or in a subject's brain. Such arrays may be miniature- or micro-arrays, a non-limiting example of which may be a miniature ECoG array…”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Steiner and Chang with that of Chang to include further comprising mapping brain regions of the subject to identify an optimal location for positioning the electrode for recording the electrical signals associated with the attempted spelling by the subject, wherein the mapping is performed before the receiving through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of ensuring that the electrode was in the proper location (Chang (Col. 11, lines 1-28)).
Regarding claim 16, modified Steiner further discloses wherein the processing and the constructing (Examiner's Note: as indicated in claim 1 above) are performed by a processor provided by a computer or a handheld device (Steiner (Par. 349, “Any one or more of the modules described above, may be implemented in software and/or in hardware; and may be comprised in smartphone 101 (or in another electronic device), and/or may be comprised in computer 103, and/or may be comprised in headset 102; and/or may be distributed, functionally and/or structurally, across multiple units (e.g., across one or more of: smartphone 101, headset 102, and/or computer 103).”) (Par. 132, “In some embodiments, headset 102 may not be capable of directly connecting to smartphone 101, and may only be able to connect to computer 103; and thus, headset 102 may be connected to computer 103 (using a wireless dongle or other wireless communication module 109), and computer 103 may transfer the commands to smartphone 101 over wireless link(s)…”)).
Regarding claim 17, modified Steiner further discloses wherein the handheld device is a cell phone (Steiner (Par. 349, “Any one or more of the modules described above, may be implemented in software and/or in hardware; and may be comprised in smartphone 101 (or in another electronic device), and/or may be comprised in computer 103, and/or may be comprised in headset 102; and/or may be distributed, functionally and/or structurally, across multiple units (e.g., across one or more of: smartphone 101, headset 102, and/or computer 103).”) (Par. 132, “In some embodiments, headset 102 may not be capable of directly connecting to smartphone 101, and may only be able to connect to computer 103; and thus, headset 102 may be connected to computer 103 (using a wireless dongle or other wireless communication module 109), and computer 103 may transfer the commands to smartphone 101 over wireless link(s)…”)) or a tablet.
Regarding claim 18, modified Steiner further discloses wherein the processor (Steiner (Par. 349, “Any one or more of the modules described above, may be implemented in software and/or in hardware; and may be comprised in smartphone 101 (or in another electronic device), and/or may be comprised in computer 103, and/or may be comprised in headset 102; and/or may be distributed, functionally and/or structurally, across multiple units (e.g., across one or more of: smartphone 101, headset 102, and/or computer 103).”) (Par. 132, “In some embodiments, headset 102 may not be capable of directly connecting to smartphone 101, and may only be able to connect to computer 103; and thus, headset 102 may be connected to computer 103 (using a wireless dongle or other wireless communication module 109), and computer 103 may transfer the commands to smartphone 101 over wireless link(s)…”)) is programmed to perform the processing and the constructing based on identification of a neural activity pattern of electrical signals in the recorded electrical signal data associated with attempted spelling by the subject (Steiner (Par. 321, “Some embodiments may include a brainwave-based text auto-complete module 489; for example, the system tracks sensors inputs and user typing of email, documents, text messages; and builds probabilities to common words and phrases that the user may often use in SMS text messages, as well as correlations between specific letters or words or uncompleted words, and brainwave signals that are obtained from the user during such composing time…”) (Par. 322, “…the system may now estimate or predict what is the most probable remainder of the text that the user is probably going to type. The system may auto-complete a word or phrase or complete sentence, before the user completed it himself, based on current brainwave activity compared to previous reference brainwave activity. It may suggest auto-complete options, and allow the user to accept the suggestion or ignore it and keep typing.”)).
Regarding claim 160, modified Steiner further discloses further comprising analyzing, using a language model, the one or more sentence candidates to decode a sentence from the electrical signal data (Steiner (Par. 321, “Some embodiments may include a brainwave-based text auto-complete module 489; for example, the system tracks sensors inputs and user typing of email, documents, text messages; and builds probabilities to common words and phrases that the user may often use in SMS text messages, as well as correlations between specific letters or words or uncompleted words, and brainwave signals that are obtained from the user during such composing time…”) (Par. 322, “…the system may now estimate or predict what is the most probable remainder of the text that the user is probably going to type. The system may auto-complete a word or phrase or complete sentence, before the user completed it himself, based on current brainwave activity compared to previous reference brainwave activity. It may suggest auto-complete options, and allow the user to accept the suggestion or ignore it and keep typing.”) (Par. 324, “It is noted that the auto-complete of text being composed, based on the intended text that the user is intending to compose, may be user-specific…”)(Par. 160, “supervise or augment learning feedback, by using an autonomous feedback loop module 405. Matching between signals and meanings (e.g., matching between signals to patterns that have logical meanings) may be based on machine learning algorithms, which may require an initial calibration period…”)).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner in view of Chang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sorenson (US Pub. No. 20120123289) hereinafter Sorenson.
Steiner and Chang teach the method of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 14, Modified Steiner fails to explicitly disclose wherein an interface is in communication with a computing device, wherein the interface is connected to the neural recording device, wherein the interface comprises a percutaneous pedestal connector attached to a cranium region of the subject.
(Examiner's Note: interface interpreted in light of the applicant’s specification as indicated in Par. 155 of the applicant’s spec.)
However, Sorenson teaches wherein an interface (Par. 47, “the subsystem 300A includes a wire bundle 308 and a pedestal 310. The wire bundle 308 is coupled between the electrodes 302 and the headstage 304A…”) is in communication with a computing device (Par. 45, “The subsystem 300A may correspond to the subsystems 106, 200 of FIGS. 1 and 2.”) (Par. 70, “The wireless module 500 may correspond to one or more of the wireless modules 206, 306A, 306B of FIGS. 2-3B and/or may include a bio-compatible housing such as described with respect to FIGS. 4A-4B.”) (Par. 71, “As shown in FIG. 5, the wireless module 500 includes a processor 502 or other control module such as a microprocessor, controller, microcontroller, or the like…”) (Par. 47, “The wireless module 306A is electrically coupled and mounted to the headstage 304A.”) (Par. 49, “the interface between the headstage 304A and wireless module 306A may include fewer electrical connections implemented in complementary connectors of the headstage 304A and wireless module 306A…”), wherein the interface is connected to the neural recording device (Par. 45, “The subsystem 300A may correspond to the subsystems 106, 200 of FIGS. 1 and 2.”) (Par. 47, “The wireless module 306A is electrically coupled and mounted to the headstage 304A.”) (Par. 49, “the interface between the headstage 304A and wireless module 306A may include fewer electrical connections implemented in complementary connectors of the headstage 304A and wireless module 306A…”) (Par. 58, “FIG. 3A where the incision (not labeled) through which the pedestal 310 extends necessarily remains open to accommodate the direct physical connection (e.g., the wire bundle 308) between the electrodes 302 and externally mounted headstage 304A.”) (Par. 38, “The headstage 204 is electrically coupled to the electrodes 202 and is generally configured to receive and convert the analog neural signals 208 to digital output 210.”) (Par. 37, “The electrodes 202 may include multiple implantable individual stiff-wire electrodes, an implantable microelectrode or microwire array, planar silicon probes, a subdural electrocorticography ("ECoG") grid, epidural electroencephalography ("EEG") electrodes, or other suitable implantable electrodes or electrode arrangement.”), wherein the interface comprises a percutaneous pedestal connector attached to a cranium region of the subject (Par. 46, “subsystem 300A includes a wire bundle 308 and a pedestal 310. The wire bundle 308 is coupled between the electrodes 302 and the headstage 304A. The pedestal 310 is secured, e.g., by screws, to the patient's 312 cranium 316, and extends outside the patient's 312 skin 318 through an incision (not labeled) in the skin 318. The wire bundle 308 is fed through the pedestal 310 to the headstage 304A mounted to the pedestal 310. The wireless module 306A is electrically coupled and mounted to the headstage 304A.”) (Par. 47) (Par. 37, “The electrodes 202 may include multiple implantable individual stiff-wire electrodes, an implantable microelectrode or microwire array, planar silicon probes, a subdural electrocorticography ("ECoG") grid, epidural electroencephalography ("EEG") electrodes, or other suitable implantable electrodes or electrode arrangement.”) (Par. 34, “Thus, if the patient 102 is unable to speak, neural signals generated by the patient's 102 brain that are indicative of words can be acquired by the subsystem 106 and transmitted to the voice synthesizer, whereupon the voice synthesizer may synthesize speech corresponding to the words.”).
Steiner, Chang, and Sorenson are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they are involved with neural signals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Steiner and Chang with that of Sorenson to include wherein an interface is in communication with a computing device, wherein the interface is connected to the neural recording device, wherein the interface comprises a percutaneous pedestal connector attached to a cranium region of the subject through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of providing a direct physical connection between the components (Sorenson (Par. 58)) and condition the neural signals (Sorenson (Par. 38)).
Regarding claim 15, modified Steiner fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Sorenson further teaches wherein the interface further comprises a headstage connected to the percutaneous pedestal connector (Sorenson (Fig. 3A)(Par. 47, “The pedestal 310 is secured, e.g., by screws, to the patient's 312 cranium 316, and extends outside the patient's 312 skin 318 through an incision (not labeled) in the skin 318. The wire bundle 308 is fed through the pedestal 310 to the headstage 304A mounted to the pedestal 310. The wireless module 306A is electrically coupled and mounted to the headstage 304A.”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Steiner, Chang, and Sorenson with that of Sorenson to include wherein the interface further comprises a headstage connected to the percutaneous pedestal connector for the reasoning as indicated in claim 14 above.
Claim(s) 161-163 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner in view of Chang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (US Pub. No. 20230054751) hereinafter Liu.
Steiner and Chang teach the method of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 161, modified Steiner fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Steiner does disclose control an external device (Steiner (Par. 162, “the device may be controlled based on thoughts of a user, the thoughts corresponding to concrete or specific commands that may be common in the context of usage; and a context determining module 408 may be used to determine the particular context in which the user-thought should be acted on, or, context determining module 408 may determine which interpretation of an otherwise-ambiguous user-thought (which may be translated into two or more possible commands) should be selected and acted upon.”) (Par. 154, “the following description demonstrates such features and functionalities of the present invention, described as discrete “use cases” or “implementations” or “embodiments”; which may optionally be combined together or may be used in concert, in some implementations.”) (Par. 155, “Each one of modules 401-497, or some or all of such modules, may be implemented as part of any of modules 131, 132 and/or 133 which appear in FIG. 1 and/or in FIG. 3.”)).
However, Liu teaches receiving second recorded electrical signal data associated with an attempted non-speech motor movement of the subject (Fig. 4, step 401 (receiving a signal)) (Par. 80, “electroencephalogram electrodes and three electrooculogram electrodes (configured to record electrodes of eye activities) are attached to a head of a subject, a signal sampling rate is 250 Hz, and electroencephalogram signals of four motor imagery types (a left hand, a right hand, feet, and a tongue) are acquired. The quantities of the electroencephalogram electrodes and the electrooculogram electrodes are an exemplary description and may have different values in different embodiments”), wherein the subject performs the attempted non-speech motor movement: (i) to indicate an initiation or a termination of the attempted spelling, or (ii) to control an external device (Par. 51, “When receiving the electroencephalogram signal 11 of the user, the electroencephalogram signal classification model 10 extracts a signal feature 12 of the electroencephalogram signal…” “…The motor imagery type 16 includes at least one of forward movement, backward movement, lying prone, squatting, shooting, throwing, or driving a virtual carrier.”)(Par. 52, “The server 120 generates a control instruction according to the motor imagery type 16 and sends the control instruction to the terminal 110. The terminal 110 controls, according to the control instruction, the virtual role 111 to perform an activity corresponding to the motor imagery type 16.”) (Par. 53, “user wears an electroencephalogram signal acquisition helmet and the user imagines controlling a virtual role 111 to run forward…”) (Par. 78, “FIG. 4 is a flowchart of a method for classifying an electroencephalogram signal according to another example embodiment of the disclosure. In this embodiment, a description is made by using an example in which the method is applicable to the server 120 in the computer system 100 shown in FIG. 1.”); and
analyzing the second electrical signal data using a classification model that identifies patterns of electrical signals in the recorded electrical signal data associated with the attempted non-speech motor movement and calculates a probability that the subject attempted the non-speech motor movement (Par. 75, “The classifier 15 is configured to classify the signal feature 12 of the electroencephalogram signal and comprehensively output a prediction probability 18 of a motor imagery type…” “… a common motor imagery type includes at least one of movement of hands, movement of feet, or movement of a tongue (swallowing).”) (Par. 121, “invoke a classifier to process the aligned signal feature, to obtain a prediction probability of the motor imagery type corresponding to the electroencephalogram signal, the motor imagery type including at least one of movement of hands…”) (Par. 122, “…the signal feature corresponding to the electroencephalogram signal outputted by the feature extraction model 21 is respectively inputted into the classifier 15…” “…a prediction probability of left hand movement outputted by the classifier 15 is 0.2, a prediction probability of right hand movement is 0.7”).
Steiner, Chang, and Liu are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they are involved with neural signals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Steiner and Chang with that of Liu to include receiving second recorded electrical signal data of Steiner and Chang associated with an attempted non-speech motor movement of the subject, wherein the subject performs the attempted non-speech motor movement: (i) to indicate an initiation or a termination of the attempted spelling, or (ii) to control an external device; and analyzing the second electrical signal data using a classification model that identifies patterns of electrical signals in the recorded electrical signal data associated with the attempted non-speech motor movement and calculates a probability that the subject attempted the non-speech motor movement through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of enabling a user to control the movement of a virtual avatar with thoughts (Liu (Par. 31, 52)).
Regarding claim 162, modified Steiner fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Liu further teaches wherein the attempted non-speech motor movement comprises an attempted head, arm, hand, foot, or leg movement (Liu (Par. 51, “When receiving the electroencephalogram signal 11 of the user, the electroencephalogram signal classification model 10 extracts a signal feature 12 of the electroencephalogram signal…” “…The motor imagery type 16 includes at least one of forward movement, backward movement, lying prone, squatting, shooting, throwing, or driving a virtual carrier.”)(Par. 52, “The server 120 generates a control instruction according to the motor imagery type 16 and sends the control instruction to the terminal 110. The terminal 110 controls, according to the control instruction, the virtual role 111 to perform an activity corresponding to the motor imagery type 16.”) (Par. 53, “user wears an electroencephalogram signal acquisition helmet and the user imagines controlling a virtual role 111 to run forward…”) (Par. 78, “FIG. 4 is a flowchart of a method for classifying an electroencephalogram signal according to another example embodiment of the disclosure. In this embodiment, a description is made by using an example in which the method is applicable to the server 120 in the computer system 100 shown in FIG. 1.”) (Par. 75, “The classifier 15 is configured to classify the signal feature 12 of the electroencephalogram signal and comprehensively output a prediction probability 18 of a motor imagery type…” “… a common motor imagery type includes at least one of movement of hands, movement of feet, or movement of a tongue (swallowing).”) (Par. 121, “invoke a classifier to process the aligned signal feature, to obtain a prediction probability of the motor imagery type corresponding to the electroencephalogram signal, the motor imagery type including at least one of movement of hands…”) (Par. 122, “…the signal feature corresponding to the electroencephalogram signal outputted by the feature extraction model 21 is respectively inputted into the classifier 15…” “…a prediction probability of left hand movement outputted by the classifier 15 is 0.2, a prediction probability of right hand movement is 0.7”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Steiner, Chang, and Liu with that of Liu to include wherein the attempted non-speech motor movement comprises an attempted head, arm, hand, foot, or leg movement for the reasoning as indicated in claim 161 above.
Regarding claim 163, modified Steiner fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Liu further teaches wherein the attempted non-speech motor movement comprises an attempted hand movement comprising an imagined hand gesture, an imagined hand squeeze, or a combination thereof (Liu (Par. 51, “When receiving the electroencephalogram signal 11 of the user, the electroencephalogram signal classification model 10 extracts a signal feature 12 of the electroencephalogram signal…” “…The motor imagery type 16 includes at least one of forward movement, backward movement, lying prone, squatting, shooting, throwing, or driving a virtual carrier.”)(Par. 52, “The server 120 generates a control instruction according to the motor imagery type 16 and sends the control instruction to the terminal 110. The terminal 110 controls, according to the control instruction, the virtual role 111 to perform an activity corresponding to the motor imagery type 16.”) (Par. 53, “user wears an electroencephalogram signal acquisition helmet and the user imagines controlling a virtual role 111 to run forward…”) (Par. 78, “FIG. 4 is a flowchart of a method for classifying an electroencephalogram signal according to another example embodiment of the disclosure. In this embodiment, a description is made by using an example in which the method is applicable to the server 120 in the computer system 100 shown in FIG. 1.”) (Par. 75, “The classifier 15 is configured to classify the signal feature 12 of the electroencephalogram signal and comprehensively output a prediction probability 18 of a motor imagery type…” “… a common motor imagery type includes at least one of movement of hands, movement of feet, or movement of a tongue (swallowing).”) (Par. 121, “invoke a classifier to process the aligned signal feature, to obtain a prediction probability of the motor imagery type corresponding to the electroencephalogram signal, the motor imagery type including at least one of movement of hands…”) (Par. 122, “…the signal feature corresponding to the electroencephalogram signal outputted by the feature extraction model 21 is respectively inputted into the classifier 15…” “…a prediction probability of left hand movement outputted by the classifier 15 is 0.2, a prediction probability of right hand movement is 0.7”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Steiner, Chang, and Liu with that of Liu to include wherein the attempted non-speech motor movement comprises an attempted hand movement comprising an imagined hand gesture, an imagined hand squeeze, or a combination thereof for the reasoning as indicated in claim 161 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARI SINGH KANE PADDA whose telephone number is (571)272-7228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/ARI S PADDA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JASON M SIMS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights