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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 and 21-30 are pending.
This communication is in response to the communication filed 7/16/2026.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10 and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (IDS reference) in view of Coleman (IDS reference).
As per claim 1, Kim teaches
a method of processing electroencephalography (EEG) data, the method comprising: (Kim abstract teaches processing EEG information; par. 35, 36 teaches user device is connected to receive data, measures EEG generated from a user or an EEG generator and transmits measured EEG information to the cloud server, device can also receive a processing result of the EEG information by the cloud server)
analyzing the EEG data, wherein the EEG data is compared against control data; and (Kim par. 60, 106 teaches EEG processing unit may statistically analyze a plurality of elements of EEG information through statistic means, which are well known in the art, the cloud server compares the EEG information pattern of the user with the EEG information pattern defined in the EEG information pattern field; specification p. 12 states that control data may include activity, employment, medical, user profile, and other information associated with the user or determined for other users. Here, a pattern information may include information determined for other users)
generating a service response for one or more systems in communication with the one or more EEG devices to control the one or more systems in response to the EEG data (Kim par. 39, 40, 106 teaches the cloud server analyzes EEG information and generated a command or information corresponding to an analysis result, the determined recognition command is transmitted to a user device as a processing result of the EEG information pattern so that the user device performs an operation according to the recognition command).
Kim does not specifically teach the following limitations met by Coleman, capturing EEG data from a user utilizing one or more EEG devices worn by the user, the one or more EEG devices sense EEG data and biometrics of the user; (Coleman par. 12, 49, 65 teaches collecting bio-signal data from wearable sensors including EEG data headset; here, EEG data and biometric data may both be types of bio-signal data collected for a single user from a single device and the device may be used for multiple users); determining a user activity and a status of the user associated with the EEG data; (Coleman par. 12, 49, 65 teaches aggregated data, which may be interpreted as characterized data, might be analyzed to determine, interpreted as categorizing the characterized data, if a user is outside of a desired mental state; here, processing, analysis, and categorization of signals is done by a system platform, which resonates with applicant’s specification on page 11 reciting that data may be categorized to indicate mental or physical state of the user)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kim to use worn EEG sensor devices capturing data and determining user activities as taught by Coleman with the motivation that intelligent bio-signal processing can improve the operation of biofeedback computer systems and improve control of a user’s brain state (Coleman abstract and par. 7).
As per claim 2, Kim and Coleman teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach wherein the one or more EEG devices include at least a helmet or a headset worn by the user (Coleman par. 49 teaches wearable sensors for collecting biological data including an EEG headset).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kim to use a headset as taught by Coleman with the motivation that intelligent bio-signal processing can improve the operation of biofeedback computer systems and improve control of a user’s brain state (Coleman abstract and par. 7).
As per claim 3, Kim and Coleman teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach wherein one or more processing devices are integrated with the one or more EEG devices for analyzing the EEG data (Coleman par. 44, 69, 239 teaches devices and software as a service platform operating at one or more computer servers where features are input with EEG data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kim to use processing devices integrated with EEG input devices as taught by Coleman with the motivation that intelligent bio-signal processing can improve the operation of biofeedback computer systems and improve control of a user’s brain state (Coleman abstract and par. 7).
As per claim 4, Kim and Coleman teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach determining whether the user is a danger to himself/herself or others (Kim par. 16, 46, 143; Coleman 207 teaches various insights on behaviors, where an insight may be dangerous).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kim to determine whether a user is a danger as taught by Coleman with the motivation that intelligent bio-signal processing can improve the operation of biofeedback computer systems and improve control of a user’s brain state (Coleman abstract and par. 7).
As per claim 5, Kim and Coleman teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach wherein the service response includes one or more stimuli applied to the user utilizing at least the one or more EEG devices in response to the EEG exceeding one or more thresholds (Coleman par. 74, 130, 135).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kim to use stimuli applied to the user utilizing at least the one or more EEG devices in response to the EEG exceeding one or more thresholds as taught by Coleman with the motivation that intelligent bio-signal processing can improve the operation of biofeedback computer systems and improve control of a user’s brain state (Coleman abstract and par. 7).
As per claim 6, Kim and Coleman teach all the limitations of claim 5 and further teach wherein the generating a service response further comprises: sending one or more alerts to designated users in response to the EEG data exceeding one or more thresholds (Coleman par. 52 teaches providing feedback with vibration, sound, or visual indication).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kim to use various stimuli as taught by Coleman with the motivation that intelligent bio-signal processing can improve the operation of biofeedback computer systems and improve control of a user’s brain state (Coleman abstract and par. 7).
As per claim 7, Kim and Coleman teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach wherein the control data includes baseline data or historical data for the user (Coleman par. 349 teaches EEG control signals and collected data, the baseline and historical data is derived from only user data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kim to use baseline and historical data as taught by Coleman with the motivation that intelligent bio-signal processing can improve the operation of biofeedback computer systems and improve control of a user’s brain state (Coleman abstract and par. 7).
As per claim 8, Kim and Coleman teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach communicating the EEG data wirelessly to the one or more processing devices utilizing a transceiver of the one or more EEG devices (Kim par. 53-55 teaches wireless network communications, where data directing operating of the terminal device, may display images or video, or may make a sound).
As per claim 9, Kim and Coleman teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach wherein the analyzing further comprises: characterizing the EEG data; and categorizing the EEG data (Kim par. 12, 59, 140 teaches analyzing a mental state of the user from the received EEG information, information processing unit may read a mental state of a user from and generate information indicating the read mental condition or generate a command corresponding to the read mental state).
As per claim 10, Kim and Coleman teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teach providing a stimulus through the one or more EEG devices as part of the service response (Coleman par. 52 teaches providing feedback with vibration, sound, or visual indication).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Kim to use various stimuli as taught by Coleman with the motivation that intelligent bio-signal processing can improve the operation of biofeedback computer systems and improve control of a user’s brain state (Coleman abstract and par. 7).
As per claim 21-30, see claims 1-10 rejections.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 and 21-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,020,787. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims recite substantially similar claims as the patented claims.
Claims 1-10 and 21-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,803,145. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims recite substantially similar claims as the patented claims.
Pending claim 1
Patent ‘787 claim 1
Patent ‘145 claim 1
A method of processing electroencephalography (EEG) data, the method comprising:
A method of processing electroencephalography (EEG) data, the method comprising:
A method of processing electroencephalography (EEG) data, the method comprising:
capturing EEG data from a user utilizing one or more EEG devices worn by the user, the one or more EEG devices sense EEG data and biometrics of the user;
reading the EEG data from a user utilizing one or more EEG input devices worn by the user, the one or more EEG input devices sense EEG data and biometrics of the plurality of users;
receiving the EEG data for a user at a server from one or more EEG input devices, the one or more EEG input devices are worn by the user and capture the EEG data directly, one or more sensors capture measurements including biometric data of the user, historical activities, orientation, location, and speed of the user;
determining a user activity and a status of the user associated with the EEG data;
categorizing the characterized data utilizing the one or more processing devices to determine a user activity and status of the user associated with the EEG data;
categorizing the characterized data utilizing the server including at least automatically determining a specified field-of-use and a mental or physical state of the user applicable to the user associated with the EEG data;
analyzing the EEG data, wherein the EEG data is compared against control data;
analyzing the characterized data to generate analyzed data, wherein during analysis the characterized data is compared against control data corresponding to the characterized data and associated with the user and stored by the one or more processing devices
analyzing the characterized data to generate analyzed data utilizing the server, wherein the analyzing includes at least comparing the analyzed data against control data for at least the user stored by the server for analyzing the characterized data; and
and generating a service response for one or more systems in communication with the one or more EEG devices to control the one or more systems in response to the EEG data.
generating a service response for one or more systems in communication with the one or more EEG devices to control ignition, locks, and operations of the one or more systems in response to the analyzed data and the biometrics.
generating a service response adapted to the specified field-of-use and the mental or physical state of the user utilizing the server to assist the user, the service response allows or denies the user access to vehicles, systems, equipment, devices, scenarios, operations, jobs or tasks utilizing the analyzed data generated based on the EEG data and the measurements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY M. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6793 and email is jay.patel2@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM.
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, Peter H. Choi can be reached on (469)295-9171. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAY M. PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights