DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 filed July 18th 2024 are pending in the current 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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 12th 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aimone et al. (US2020/0337625) in view of Le et al. (US2007/0173733).
The applicant assert that Aimone in view of Le do not teach “determine if there is a temporal correlation between a detected change of the external stimulus and the detected brain activity of the user,” “if the temporal correlation is present, refrain from controlling the controllable device according to the control command,” the Examiner must respectfully disagree. Elaborating on the “ignoring aberrant data concept” in previously cited Aimone ¶94, Aimone ¶283-286 teaches “Then, using a specific brain model, activity or environment of a user may be identified, and the brain model adapted, for example by ignoring movement artifacts in the case of an activity that involves movement, or reducing the frequency of audio or visual feedback if the user is working.” Thus, if the user is moving it would be desirable to suppress commands that involve an external movement stimulus. Alternatively, if the user is working and there is a visual or audible stimulus, the command may be ignored to reduce distractions. The aberrant data collected by Aimone would have been processed for artifact removal as taught by Le ¶50 via independent component analysis.
The applicant asserts that Aimone “fails to teach determining if there is a temporal correlation between a detected change of “external stimulus” and “detected brain activity of the user” contrary to the recited claim language, the Examiner must respectfully disagree. Aimone ¶188-189 states that “a brain model is generated to learn a relationship between an external/internal stimulus event and a brain response. Data representing a brain response can be represented as a function of a stimulus event, whereby the function is a brain model.” Those of ordinary skill in the art will recognize events as detected changes. After all, no change would represent a non-event. The previously cited data collector is part of the method recited in Aimone’s summary where ¶6 recites “the method comprising: receiving time-coded bio-signal data associated with a user; receiving time-coded stimulus event data; projecting the time-coded bio-signal data into a lower dimensioned feature space; extracting features from the lower dimensioned feature space that correspond to time codes of the time-coded stimulus event data to identify a brain response; generating a training data set for the brain response using the features; training a brain model using the training set using a processor that modifies parameters of the brain model stored on the memory.” Thus, the stimuli are correlated with the detected brain response.
With regards towards the applicant’s arguments pertaining to Le, the Examiner must respectfully disagree. Specific stimuli would be removed at the artifact removal step 304 in Fig 3 and ¶50 of Le.
Thus, for the reasons above, the 103 rejection remains.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aimone et al. (US2020/0337625) in view of Le et al. (US2007/0173733)
Consider claim 1, where Aimone teaches a brain control interface system for controlling a controllable device located in an environment, (See Aimone ¶270 where sharing brainwave data with other applications running on client devices or other devices in the trusted network to provide for the user's brainwave data to control or effect other devices) the brain control interface system comprising: a brain control interface configured to detect brain activity of a user indicative of a control command for controlling the controllable device, and to derive the control command from the brain activity, (See Aimone ¶95 where EEG data is used to transform the user’s brainwaves into usable control signals) a sensor configured to detect changes of an external stimulus in the environment, (See Aimone ¶6, 116, 188-189, where data collector 402 can receive environmental data such as date, time and location information and a brain model is generated to learn a relationship between an external/internal stimulus event and a brain response) a processor configured to: determine if there is a temporal correlation between a detected change of the external stimulus and the detected brain activity of the user, (See Aimone ¶178-179, 188-189 where the significant that the feature events occur together usually in a point in time or occur together at a place and a brain model is generated to learn a relationship between an external/internal stimulus event and a brain response) and determining whether the temporal correlation is not present, determining the temporal correlation is present, control the controllable device according to the control command, and refrain from controlling the controllable device according to the control command. (See Aimone ¶135, 178-179, 94, 192 where information about a user's context can be collected, such as: the user's goal or intention; the goals or intention of another human they are influenced by; sounds in the environment; changes in scenery or lighting; time of day, electromagnetic waves; ambient temperature; actions or behaviors elicited by the user. Such factors may have an influence on the user's state and the significant that the feature events occur together usually in a point in time or occur together at a place and identify and ignore aberrant data. Aimone ¶283-286 teaches “Then, using a specific brain model, activity or environment of a user may be identified, and the brain model adapted, for example by ignoring movement artifacts in the case of an activity that involves movement, or reducing the frequency of audio or visual feedback if the user is working)
Aimone teaches determining whether the temporal correlation is not present, determining the temporal correlation is present, control the controllable device according to the control command, and refrain from controlling the controllable device according to the control command. However, Aimone does not explicitly teach if the temporal correlation is not present, controlling the controllable device according to the control command, if the temporal correlation is present, refraining from controlling the controllable device according to the control command. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Le teaches if the temporal correlation is not present, controlling the controllable device according to the control command, if the temporal correlation is present, refraining from controlling the controllable device according to the control command. (See Le ¶50, 92-94, 7 where a non-deliberative mental state such as an emotion, preference, sensation, physiological state, or condition is detected. The detected emotional response may be happiness, fear, sadness or any other non-consciously selected emotional response. This non-conscious response is separate from premeditated and conscious commands) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art the user’s goals and intentions of Aimone would be classified into conscious (premeditated command) and non-conscious responses (emotional response to environment) as taught by Le. Additionally, external stimuli from a particular source interfering with the activity would be classified as an artifact and removed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ motivation of identifying known aberrant data in the prior art and ignoring it accordingly.
Consider claim 2, where Aimone in view of Le teaches the brain control interface system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine if the detected change of the external stimulus exceeds a threshold, and to refrain from controlling the controllable device according to the control command only if the external stimulus exceeds the threshold. (See Aimone ¶364 where the environmental predictor is calibrated by setting thresholds to achieve the desired stimulus + response.)
Consider claim 3, where Aimone in view of Le teaches the brain control interface system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine the presence of the temporal correlation between the detected change of the external stimulus and the detected brain activity of the user by determining if the detected change of the external stimulus and the detected brain activity of the user occur within a predetermined time window. (See Aimone ¶147 where bio-signal data may be associated with a stimulus event with high-precision timing (10 ms or better))
Consider claim 4, where Aimone in view of Le teaches the brain control interface of claim 3, wherein the predetermined time window is less than 1 second. (See Aimone ¶147 where bio-signal data may be associated with a stimulus event with high-precision timing (10 ms or better))
Consider claim 5, where Aimone in view of Le teaches the brain control interface system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine a presence of a second correlation between the type of external stimulus and the control command, and, if the temporal correlation is not present and the second correlation is present, control the controllable device according to the control command, if the second correlation is not present and the temporal correlation is present, control the controllable device according to the control command, if the temporal correlation and the second correlation are not present, control the controllable device according to the control command, if the temporal correlation and the second correlation are present, refrain from controlling the controllable device according to the control command. (See Le ¶92-94, 7 where a non-deliberative mental state such as an emotion, preference, sensation, physiological state, or condition is detected. The detected emotional response may be happiness, fear, sadness or any other non-consciously selected emotional response. This non-conscious response is separate from premeditated and conscious commands) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art the user’s goals and intentions of Aimone would be classified into conscious (premeditated command) and non-conscious responses (emotional response to environment) as taught by Le. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ motivation of identifying known aberrant data in the prior art and ignoring it accordingly.
Consider claim 6, where Aimone in view of Le teaches the brain control interface system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: when the processor has refrained from controlling the controllable device according to the control command, request a user operating the brain control interface system to control the controllable device based on the control command, and when the user has approved the request via a user interface, control the controllable device according to the control command, and when the user has disapproved the request via the user interface, again refrain from controlling the controllable device according to the control command. (See Aimone ¶94 where there is a feedback mechanism where a user of the client device may be asked whether a particular analysis corresponds with a particular emotion or physical movement experienced at the time the bio-signal and non-bio-signal data was collected. Any aberrant data is identified and ignored.)
Consider claim 7, where Aimone in view of Le teaches the brain control interface system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to control a further device when the temporal correlation is present, wherein the control of the further device is based on the brain activity as a response to the detected change of the external stimulus. (See Le ¶9 where in an embodiment there is a target emotion and an alteration to an environmental variable that is expected to alter an emotional response of a subject toward the target emotion may be determined by the processor, and the alteration of the environmental variable may be caused.) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the commands of Aimone in the manner described by Le. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using known teachings in the art to yield predictable results.
Consider claim 8, where Aimone in view of Le teaches the brain control interface system of claim 1, wherein the sensor is a light sensor, and wherein the external stimulus is the environmental light level. (See Aimone ¶135 where changes in scenery or lighting can be collected)
Consider claim 9, where Aimone in view of Le teaches the brain control interface system of claim 1, wherein the sensor is a temperature sensor, and wherein the external stimulus is the environmental temperature. (See Aimone ¶135 where ambient temperature can be collected)
Consider claim 10, where Aimone in view of Le teaches the brain control interface system of claim 1, wherein the brain control interface and the sensor are comprised in a brain control interface device. (See Aimone Fig. 1 and ¶138, 128 where EEG sensors are worn on the users’ head)
Consider claim 11, where Aimone in view of Le teaches the brain control interface system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain first data indicative of the location of the change of the external stimulus, obtain second data indicative of the location of the user, determine, based on the location of the change of the external stimulus and the location of the user, if the change of the external stimulus occurred within a predefined proximity of the user, and, if the change of the external stimulus has occurred outside the predefined proximity and if the temporal correlation is present, control the controllable device according to the control command. (See Aimone ¶116, 196 where data collector 402 can receive environmental data such as date, time and location information and geographical location may be used as condition for the environmental factor)
Consider claim 13, where Aimone in view of Le teaches the brain control interface system of claim 1, wherein the controllable device is a lighting device. (See Le ¶97 where changing the lighting levels in the room is a selectable action) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art that the other devices that could be affected may include lighting levels as taught by Le. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using compatible controllable devices to yield predictable results.
Consider claim 14, where Aimone teaches a method of controlling a controllable device located in an environment, (See Aimone ¶270 where sharing brainwave data with other applications running on client devices or other devices in the trusted network to provide for the user's brainwave data to control or effect other devices) the method comprising: detecting, by a brain control interface, brain activity of a user indicative of a control command for controlling the controllable device, (See Aimone ¶95 where EEG data is used to transform the user’s brainwaves into usable control signals) deriving the control command from the brain activity, detecting, by a sensor, (See Aimone ¶116 where data collector 402 can receive environmental data such as date, time and location information) changes of an external stimulus in the environment, (See Aimone ¶178-179 where the significant that the feature events occur together usually in a point in time or occur together at a place) determining, by a processor, whether the temporal correlation is not present, determining the temporal correlation is present, control the controllable device according to the control command, and refrain from controlling the controllable device according to the control command. (See Aimone ¶135, 178-179, 94, 192 where information about a user's context can be collected, such as: the user's goal or intention; the goals or intention of another human they are influenced by; sounds in the environment; changes in scenery or lighting; time of day, electromagnetic waves; ambient temperature; actions or behaviors elicited by the user. Such factors may have an influence on the user's state and the significant that the feature events occur together usually in a point in time or occur together at a place and identify and ignore aberrant data. Aimone ¶283-286 teaches “Then, using a specific brain model, activity or environment of a user may be identified, and the brain model adapted, for example by ignoring movement artifacts in the case of an activity that involves movement, or reducing the frequency of audio or visual feedback if the user is working)
Aimone teaches determining whether the temporal correlation is not present, determining the temporal correlation is present, control the controllable device according to the control command, and refrain from controlling the controllable device according to the control command. However, Aimone does not explicitly teach if the temporal correlation is not present, controlling the controllable device according to the control command, if the temporal correlation is present, refraining from controlling the controllable device according to the control command. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Le teaches if the temporal correlation is not present, controlling the controllable device according to the control command, if the temporal correlation is present, refraining from controlling the controllable device according to the control command. (See Le ¶50, 92-94, 7 where a non-deliberative mental state such as an emotion, preference, sensation, physiological state, or condition is detected. The detected emotional response may be happiness, fear, sadness or any other non-consciously selected emotional response. This non-conscious response is separate from premeditated and conscious commands) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art the user’s goals and intentions of Aimone would be classified into conscious (premeditated command) and non-conscious responses (emotional response to environment) as taught by Le. Additionally, external stimuli from a particular source interfering with the activity would be classified as an artifact and removed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ motivation of identifying known aberrant data in the prior art and ignoring it accordingly.
Consider claim 15, where Aimone in view of Le teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer executable instructions that when executed perform at least the method of claim 14 (See rejection of claim 14 above) when run on a processor. (See Aimone Fig. 1)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aimone in view of Le as applied to claim 11 above, in further view of Ritchey et al. (US2013/006355)
Consider claim 12, where Aimone in view of Le teaches the brain control interface system of claim 11, wherein the second data is further indicative of an orientation of the user, and wherein the processor is further configured to: determine, based on the location of the change of the external stimulus and the orientation of the user, (See Aimone ¶194 where orientation data using a gyroscope can be used as captured bio-signal data)
However, Aimone does not explicitly teach if the change of the external stimulus occurred within a field of view of the user, and, if the change of the external stimulus has occurred outside the field of view of the user and if the temporal correlation is present, control the controllable device according to the control command. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Ritchey teaches if the change of the external stimulus occurred within a field of view of the user, and, if the change of the external stimulus has occurred outside the field of view of the user and if the temporal correlation is present, control the controllable device according to the control command. (See Ritchey ¶218 where Because the system is panoramic, it can look for things in or outside the users FOV if the user chooses to activate such a capability within the system. And/or still alternatively when a certain threshold of sensory activity is met an injection of allergy medicine may be automatically injected into the users body by an adhesively worn medicine pack located on the users body that is in communication with system 1 when the users brain activity meets a certain threshold or certain areas are active in the brain) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Aimone to account for external stimulus outside the user’s field of view as taught by Ritchey. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using known teachings in the art to account for other use cases and yield predictable results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WILLIAM LU whose telephone number is (571)270-1809. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached on 571-270-7230. 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.
WILLIAM LU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2624
/WILLIAM LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624