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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because, in Fig. 1, reference character “200” has been used to designate both “external devices” and "SSVEP generator As best understood, “external devices” should be marked with “300” as described on page 9, line 21 of the Specification.
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. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“visual guide unit” in claim 1. The term “unit” as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function (“to dispose a visual guide having a particular form on the visual stimulus”). The term “unit” is modified by functional language (see citation above). The term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure of a “visual guide unit” is not defined in the Specification.
“visual feedback reflector” in claim 1. The term “reflector” as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function (“to reflect the generated visual feedback to the visual guide”). The term “reflector” is modified by functional language (see citation above). The term “reflector” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure of a “visual feedback reflector” is not defined in the Specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 and 12 and dependent claims thereof 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.
Re. Claim 1: Claim 1 recites multiple issues of indefiniteness:
Claim 1 recites “The apparatus for detecting a visual stimulus...” The term “apparatus” is not provide with antecedent basis. It is recommended to amend the claim to instead begin with “An apparatus…” Additionally, Examiner notes that a “visual stimulus” is the stimulus provided to a user, whereas a “visual stimulus signal” is the signal extracted through EEG analysis with respect to a user gazing at a visual stimulus. As best understood, the claim should instead begin with “An apparatus for detecting a visual stimulus signal…”
Claim 1 further recites “the visual stimulus of a particular frequency.” This phrase does not possess sufficient antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, the relevant portion of claim 1 will be interpreted as: “with respect to a user gazing at a visual stimulus of a particular frequency.”
Claim 1 further recites “a visual guide unit” and “visual feedback reflector.” These claim limitations invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The most detail regarding possible structure for a “visual guide unit” is shown at Fig. 2, whereby the visual guide unit 120 is part of a non-descript apparatus; however, placement within another device does not define its structure. Examiner requests clarification as to what the scope of a visual guide unit entails, and if the term is directed to 1) software logic altering what is viewed on a display screen, or 2) if it is a hardware component projecting light onto a visual area, or 3) another alternative to the above interpretations.
The most detail regarding a “visual feedback reflector” is identical to a “visual guide unit” above, and presents the same ambiguity as to whether the structure of such a claimed component is directed to software, hardware, or another alternative.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to dependency to rejected claim 1.
Re. Claim 12: Claim 12 also recites “the visual stimulus of a particular frequency,” which lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claims. For purposes of examination, the relevant portion of claim 12 will be interpreted as: “with respect to a user gazing at a visual stimulus of a particular frequency.”
Dependent claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to dependency to rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 11, 12, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by:
Kouider et al. (US 20230032492 A1) (hereinafter – Kouider).
Re. Claims 1 and 12: Kouider teaches an apparatus for detecting a visual stimulus based on steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP) (Paragraph 0042: “The detected neural responses (e.g. electrical potentials) are then converted into digital signals and transferred to a processing device 208 for decoding. Examples of neural responses include visual evoked potentials (VEPs), which are commonly used in neuroscience research. The term VEPs encompasses conventional SSVEPs, as mentioned above…”),
comprising:
a visual stimulus signal receiver configured to receive a visual stimulus signal extracted through an electroencephalogram (EEG) analysis with respect to a user gazing at the visual stimulus of a particular frequency (Fig. 1: microcontroller 106 receiving signals from active electrode 108 of EEG device 100; Fig. 2: BCI system incorporating neural response device, including EEG device 100; Paragraph 0016: “… an interfacing device operatively coupled to the neural signal capture device and the stimulus generator, the interfacing device being configured to: receive the neural signals from the neural signal capture device…;” Fig. 6: characteristic frequency modulations applied to differing visual stimuli);
a visual guide unit configured to dispose a visual guide having a particular form on the visual stimulus (Figs. 7A-9: display devices 710, 910 displaying feedback elements over stimulus tick and check patterns as described in the following citations: Paragraph 0067: “Although not shown here, the exploration currently focusing on display object 704 may optionally be shown (i.e. first validation) by displaying a feedback element such as a “crosshair” symbol at or near the display object 704. In certain embodiments, visual properties of the feedback element - e.g. scale - can be mapped to the real-time attention-level estimates of the neural decoder in order to close the neurofeedback loop.” Fig. 9: dual-pattern overlay and cross-hair pattern displayed, as described in Paragraph 0086: “Optionally, a further feedback element may be displayed to confirm the valid selection of the display object - represented, in FIG. 9, by the cross-hairs over the object in the field of view 906;” Paragraph 0093: “The feedback stimulus presents the user with a convenient guide to their attention (i.e. an “attention grabber”) at a specific location in the display screen, helping them remain focused on the object”);
a visual stimulus signal processor configured to classify the visual stimulus based on the received visual stimulus signal and generate a visual feedback (Paragraph 0043: “The processing device 208 executes instructions that interpret the received neural signals to determine feedback indicating the target object having the current focus of (visual) attention in real-time. Decoding the information in the neural response signals relies upon a correspondence between that information and one or more aspect of the temporal profile of the target object (i.e. the stimulus);” Fig. 10: step 1004-1008: determining which stimuli is associated with which object of focus based on components of neural signals associated with characteristic modulations to produce compound visual stimulus); and
a visual feedback reflector configured to reflect the generated visual feedback to the visual guide (Figs. 7A-9: display devices 710, 910),
wherein the visual guide unit is configured to vary a shape of the visual guide based on the reflected visual feedback (Paragraph 0058: “As noted above, the present disclosure is not limited to color differentiated stimulus portions but may extend to any distinctive visual features. Instead of using green and red overlapping stimulus portions, one can use… stimulus portions with different… shapes (for instance, one or more small circles vs. one or more small triangle overlapping at a center or over an object). Different distinctive visual properties may, naturally, be used in combination. In addition, in certain embodiments, respective stimulus portions may adopt different modes of visual differentiation from one another: thus, the visual property in a first stimulus portion may be said to be ‘orthogonal’ to another visual property in a second stimulus portion in that each property is perceived and decodable independently of the other;” Paragraph 0064: “The feedback could be a modification of the stimulus itself (for instance, visually highlighting or enlarging etc. a display object itself or the visual stimulus overlaying the display object)…” see previous citation of Paragraph 0067).
Claim 12 recites limitations of claim 1 mutatis mutandis as a method claim, and is rejected analogously as claim 1 above.
Re. Claims 5 and 15: Kouider teaches the invention according to claims 1 and 12, and further teaches the invention wherein the visual stimulus signal processor comprises:
a visual stimulus classifier configured to extract a feature of the visual stimulus signal and classify the visual stimulus based on the extracted feature (Fig. 10); and
a visual feedback generator configured to generate the visual feedback including feedback information related to classification of the visual stimulus (Paragraph 0067: “…In certain embodiments, visual properties of the feedback element - e.g. scale - can be mapped to the real-time attention-level estimates of the neural decoder in order to close the neurofeedback loop;” Paragraph 0069: “Optionally, a further feedback element may be displayed to confirm the valid selection of the display object 704 - here, represented by the emphasized appearance of that object in (d);” Paragraph 0070: “In each of the embodiments above, the modulation may be applied preferentially or exclusively to a high spatial frequency component of the projected overlay image (i.e. the background and/or feedback element). Preferential modulation of HSF components of overlay objects, target objects and/or visual feedback elements may be used to improve the accuracy of determinations of objects of focus (and to reduce distraction effects)”).
Re. Claims 11 and 20: Kouider teaches the invention according to claims 1 and 12, and further teaches the invention wherein:
the visual guide unit is configured to dispose the visual guide at a center of the visual stimulus (Paragraph 0067: “Although not shown here, the exploration currently focusing on display object 704 may optionally be shown (i.e. first validation) by displaying a feedback element such as a “crosshair” symbol at or near the display object 704;” Fig. 9: feedback element of a cross-hair disposed in the center of multi-pattern display object).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Kouider et al. (US 20230032492 A1) (hereinafter – Kouider) in view of
Regini (US 20120277622 A1 ) (hereinafter – Regini).
Re. Claim 4: Kouider teaches the invention according to claim 1. Kouider teaches the use of feedback elements (i.e., visual guides) which appear to overly the stimulus itself (see previous citations of Paragraphs 0064, 0067; Figs. 7A-9). However, Kouider teaches that the stimulus is a frequency-modulated (Fig. 6; Paragraph 0042: “… stimuli oscillate at a specific frequency…”) pattern of tick and checks (Figs. 7A, 7B). Thus, Kouider does not teach that the visual stimulus includes a checkerboard-based visual stimulus that is inversed according to the particular frequency.
The use of an alternating/inverting checkboard pattern is known from Regini, who teaches analogous art in the technology of monitoring visual evoked potentials (VEP). Regini further teaches the invention wherein the visual stimulus includes a checkerboard-based visual stimulus that is inversed according to the particular frequency (Paragraph 0021: “Said patterns suitable for simultaneously stimulating two different zones of the retina of the subject consist for example of horizontal or vertical bars, checkerboard, triangles, hexagons or other geometrical elements, where light and dark elements invert their contrast periodically over time”).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Kouider to include the use of a periodically inverted checkerboard pattern as taught by Regini, the motivation being that such a pattern is suitable for stimulating different zones of the retina by which VEPs may be detected (Paragraph 0021). Examiner notes that Kouider’s use of a feedback element overlaying the incorporated visual stimulus as taught by Regini teaches the claim requirement of a visual guide appearing on a checkerboard at an inversion time point of the checkerboard.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 6-10, 13, 14, and 16-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and also overcoming each rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 2 and 13 recite “wherein the visual guide has the same frequency as the particular frequency of the visual stimulus.” The primary reference of Kouider teaches an operation which is the opposite of what is claimed (Paragraph 0045: “In certain embodiments, the display device 202 displays an overlay object as a graphical object with a varying temporal characteristic distinct from the temporal characteristic of other displayed objects and/or the background in the display;” Paragraph 0070: “In each of the embodiments above, the modulation may be applied preferentially or exclusively to a high spatial frequency component of the projected overlay image (i.e. the background and/or feedback element)”).
Claims 3 and 14 are dependent upon claims 2 and 13.
Claims 6 and 16 recite a method of processing disclosed in Applicant’s cited research in the IDS (“Adaptive Window Method Based on FBCCA for Optimal SSVEP Recognition); however, claims 6 and 16 depend upon a visual feedback generation step configured to generate feedback based on classification of a visual stimulus recited in claims 5 and 15; this step is not performed in Applicant’s research. Instead, Applicant appears to utilize benchmark datasets and calculate correlation between reference signals having different stimulus frequencies and an EEG signal of a user for a reference time, then performing ANCOVA on those correlation coefficients for each stimulus frequency to calculate a slope of regression for each stimulus and then performing classification thereafter based on such calculated slopes.
Claims 7-10 and 17-19 are dependent upon claims 6 and 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN XU whose telephone number is (571)272-6617. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUSTIN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights