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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3, 6-11, and 14-19 are currently pending. Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, and 20 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 6, 11, and 14 have been amended. The cancellation of claim 20 has rendered the drawing objection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 11 May 2026 moot. Claim 1 has been amended to overcome the claim objection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites the limitation “a real-world object” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the same “real-world object” as mentioned in claim 1. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 6-11, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
STEP 1
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a series of structural elements, including an augmented reality module. Thus, the claim is directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The steps of:
an augmented reality module configured to recognize a control target comprising a real-world object through an augmented realty (AR) glasses;
detect a contour of the recognized control target;
dispose a virtual outline on the contour of the recognized control target;
dispose a steady-stead visual evoked potential (SSVEP)-based visual stimulus on the virtual outline; and
a visual stimulus detection module configured to analyze the measured electroencephalogram to detect a visual stimulus signal (VEP), and to process the detected visual stimulus signal to classify the visual stimulus and to identify the control target
set forth a judicial exception. The recognizing, detecting, disposing, analyzing, processing, and classifying steps describe a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea. The disposing steps could also describe a concept of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Thus, the claim is also drawn to Organizing Human Activity, which is also an Abstract Idea.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 1 recites a control module configured to control the identified control target, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The controlling of the identified control target through a network does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the method does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the controlled identified control target through a network, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
STEP 2B
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional step of:
an electroencephalogram measurement module configured to measure an electroencephalogram of a user gazing at the visual stimulus
The measurement step is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity for those in the field of medical diagnostics. Further, the measuring step is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the obtaining and comparing steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Regarding claim 1, the device recited in the claim is a generic device comprising generic components configured to perform the abstract idea. The recited electroencephalogram measurement module is a generic sensor configured to perform pre-solutional data gathering activity, the control module is configured to perform insignificant extra-solution activity, and the augmented reality module and visual stimulus detection module are configured to perform the Abstract Idea. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
The same rationale applies to claim 11.
The dependent claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims. Claims 2, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 17-19 recite steps that add to the Abstract Idea. Claims 3, 8, and 16 recite pre-solutional activity of data gathering. Claim 7 recites both pre-solutional activity of data gathering and Abstract Ideas. The steps recited in the independent claims maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, 11, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alcaide et al. ‘076 (US Pub No. 2020/0097076 – previously cited) in view of Kouider et al. ‘513 (US Pub No. 2023/0026513).
Regarding claim 1, Alcaide et al. ‘076 teaches an apparatus for presenting a visual stimulus by using augmented reality (Fig. 1 HCI system 100 and [0045]), comprising:
an augmented reality module configured to:
recognize a control target through an augmented reality (AR) glass, and to dispose the visual stimulus on the recognized control target (Fig. 1 eye-tracker 102 and [0049]);
detect a contour of the recognized control target (Fig. 2A “letter Q” and [0078]);
dispose a virtual outline on the contour of the recognized control target (Fig. 2A “flashed tags can be a target tag 285” and [0078]);
dispose a steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP)-based visual stimulus ([0055]) on the virtual outline([0115]; “P300 signals”)
an electroencephalogram measurement module configured to measure an electroencephalogram of a user gazing at the visual stimulus (Fig. 1 neural recording device 104 and [0054]);
a visual stimulus detection module configured to analyze the measured electroencephalogram to detect a visual stimulus signal (VEP) (Fig. 1 neural recording device 104 and [0055]), and to process the detected visual stimulus signal to classify the visual stimulus and to identify the control target (Fig. 1 processor 120 and [0067]; “…process the signals received and analyze the signals, and interpret the signals, etc.”); and
a control module configured to control the identified control target (Fig. 1 processor 120 and [0067]; “…interpret the signals, etc.”).
Alcaide et al. ‘076 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the control target comprises a real-world object.
Kouider et al. ‘513 teaches that a user with a similar AR apparatus can have suitable display devices such as television screens & computer monitors 302, projectors 310, virtual reality headsets 306, interactive whiteboards, and the display screen of tablets 304, smartphones, smart glasses 308, etc. (Fig. 3 and [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control target of Alcaide et al. ‘076 to include being a real-world object as Kouider et al. ‘513 teaches that a real-world object would be suitable display device.
Regarding claim 2, Alcaide et al. ‘076 teaches wherein the augmented reality module is configured to register an image of the control target received from database (Fig. 3 tags 379 and [0079]-[0083], [0086]).
Regarding claim 3, Alcaide et al. ‘076 teaches wherein the augmented reality module comprises a control target detector configured to detect a location of the control target comprising a real-world objection in a three-dimensional real-world space gazed at by the user through the AR glass and to dispose the virtual outline on the contour of the recognized control target (Fig. 2A and [0078]; “…eye-movement signals and neural signals associated with a user’s foveation or directing a point of focus at a target tag…”).
Regarding claim 6, Alcaide et al. ‘076 teaches wherein the visual stimulus arrangement unit is configured to dispose an additional visual stimulus that provides an interface for controlling the control target to a particular location that does not overlap the outline of the identified control target ([0072]; “action control feature”).
Regarding claim 7, Alcaide et al. ‘076 teaches wherein the visual stimulus detection module comprises:
an electroencephalogram signal receiver configured to receive an electroencephalogram signal ([0062]; “The processor can…receive and process the neural signals recorded and transmitted by the neural recording device 104…”);
a visual stimulus signal detector configured to analyze the received electroencephalogram signal to detect the visual stimulus signal corresponding to a particular frequency ([0115]; “The HCI device can receive and process a neural signals from the neural recording device, and detect a P300 signals in the neural signal (e.g., an EEG signal).”);
a feature extracting unit configured to extract a feature of the visual stimulus signal ([0084]; “The analysis can include…feature detection and feature extraction…”); and
a visual stimulus classifier configured to classify the visual stimulus based on the extracted feature and to identify the control target (Fig. 3 step 357 and [0085]).
Regarding claim 8, Alcaide et al. ‘076 teaches wherein:
the augmented reality module is configured to detect locations of a plurality of control targets through the AR glass, dispose virtual outlines to contours of the plurality of control targets (Fig. 2A and [0078]), respectively, and dispose VEP-based visual stimuli flickering at different frequencies on the virtual outlines, respectively ([0055], [0115]); and
the virtual outlines comprises 3-dimensional outlines ([0046]; “two or three dimensional space” [0112], [0118]).
Regarding claim 10, Alcaide et al. ‘076 teaches wherein the visual stimulus arrangement unit is configured to dispose an additional visual stimulus that provides an interface for an additional interaction after the control target is identified at a particular location that does not overlap the location of the control target ([0072]; “action control feature”).
Regarding claims 11, 14-17 and 19, Alcaide et al. ‘076, as modified by Kouider et al. ‘513, teaches a method for presenting a visual stimulus by using augmented reality, comprising the claimed steps as claims 11, 14-17 and 19 are analogous to claims 1-8 and 10.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alcaide et al. ‘076 in view of Kouider et al. ‘513 further in view of Zhang et al. ‘499 (US Pub No. 2020/0057499 – previously cited).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Alcaide et al. ‘076 in view of Kouider et al. ‘513 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the visual stimulus detect highestor is configured to analyze similarity between the visual stimulus signal detected from the electroencephalogram of the user gazing at the visual stimulus having a particular frequency and a reference signal according to a predefined frequency to detect a frequency having a highest similarity, and identify the control target gazed at by the user based on the detected frequency.
Zhang et al. ‘499 teaches to identify correlation coefficients, the stimulated EEG data (SSVEP EEG signals or stimulated EEG signals) 410 of Fig. 4 are compared to reference signals 412 using known CCA techniques as mentioned above step 414 ([0085]). According to step 622, the correlation coefficients are then normalised or flattened using the normalisation factors acquired at step 612. The flattened correlation coefficients of the stimulated EEG data are then compared (i.e. against each other) to identify the highest flattened correlation coefficient—voting step 624—before acquiring the control command corresponding to that correlation coefficient—step 626 (Fig. 6 and [0109]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the visual stimulus detector of Alcaide et al. ‘076 in view of Kouider et al. ‘513 to include being configured to analyze similarity between the visual stimulus signal detected from the electroencephalogram of the user gazing at the visual stimulus having a particular frequency and a reference signal according to a predefined frequency to detect a frequency having a highest similarity, and identify the control target gazed at by the user based on the detected frequency as Zhang et al. ‘499 teaches that this will aid in determining the frequency of the EEG signal that is most likely to correspond to a control command ([0091]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the recognizing step and newly added detecting and disposing steps in claim 1 are not abstract ideas. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the recognizing step could merely be a user looking through AR glasses and looking the control target, which could be a mental process and organizing human activity. The detecting step could merely be the user looking at the control target and detecting the contour edges of the control target. The disposing steps could be the user disposing the virtual outline and SSVEP-based visual stimulus via a computer. Furthermore, the AR module, EEG measurement module, visual stimulus detection module, and control module are generic computer components used to perform the Abstract Idea.
Applicant argues that the claimed combination shows technical effect of enabling AR-BCI interaction with real-world objects by providing visual stimuli tailored to the objects’ shapes. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as this is known in the art, as supported by [0004] and [0036] of Schiff ‘206 (US Pub No. 2011/0106206) and [0004] of Pearce et al. ‘771 (US Pub No. 2022/0326771).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AURELIE H TU whose telephone number is (571)272-8465. The examiner can normally be reached [M-F] 7:30-3:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AURELIE H TU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights