DETAILED ACTION
This Final action is in response to an amendment filed 5/26/2026. Currently claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 10-15 and 17-37 are pending.
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 .
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, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 22-28, 30-35 and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller in US 2019/0073605 (hereinafter Keller) in view of Braun et al. in US 2009/0289779 (hereinafter Braun).
Regarding claim 1, Keller disclose a brain-computer interface system (Keller’s Fig. 1 and par. 2) for use by an individual having a neural interface (Keller’s Fig. 1 and par. 47: headset) configured to measure a neural-related signal (Keller’s par. 47, 51: biosignal) associated with a thought of the individual (Keller’s par. 47: thought), the brain-computer interface system comprising: one or more end applications (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair) associated with an external device (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119, Bluetooth-controlled lock, mobile device) and in communication with a processing unit comprising a processor (Keller’s par. 72: computer 309), the one or more end applications (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair) having one or more input commands (Keller’s par. 117: navigation to predetermined webpage, physically move a wheelchair closer toward a lock) that control the external device (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119, lock, mobile device); and the processing unit (Keller’s par. 72: computer 309) in communication with the neural interface (Keller’s Fig. 1 and par. 47: headset 300) and configured to: receive the neural-related signal (Keller’s par. 47, 51: biosignal) while the individual thinks about the thought (Keller’s par. 47, 51: thought); associate the thought with an input command (Keller’s par. 49-50, 112: map biosignal to a brain switch and to a command); and transmit the input command associated with the thought to the external device (Keller’s par. 116-119: e.g. navigation or moving a wheelchair closer) to allow the individual to independently control the one or more end applications (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair), wherein the thought of the individual comprises a task-irrelevant thought (Keller’s Fig. 1 and par. 47, 51: e.g. move left block upward on the screen is irrelevant to moving a thought or lifting a right toe) of a real or imagined movement of one or more body parts (Keller’s par. 47: thought of moving a tongue, lifting right toe).
Keller fails to disclose wherein the one or more end applications are configurable between an active state and an inactive state, and wherein the processing unit is further configured to transmit the input command associated with the thought to one or more end applications in the active state and to one or more end applications in the inactive state.
However, in the same field of endeavor of input devices and input to different applications, Braun discloses one or more end applications configurable between an active state and an inactive state (Braun’s par. 81: the applications can be active or inactive), and transmitting an input to one or more end applications in the active state (Braun’s par. 81: the active applications receive input from the user) and to one or more end applications in the inactive state (Braun’s par. 81: the inactive applications receive input as data for storage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Keller’s end applications can be active or inactive (Braun’s par. 81), and that the input command associate with the thought (Keller’s par. 47, 51, 111: brain switch), is transmitted to both the active and inactive applications (Braun’s par. 81), in order to obtain the benefit of using Keller’s invention with an operating system that provides multitasking or pseudo-multitasking (Braun’s par. 81).
By doing such combination, Keller in view of Braun disclose:
A brain-computer interface system (Keller’s Fig. 1 and par. 2) for use by an individual having a neural interface (Keller’s Fig. 1 and par. 47: headset) configured to measure a neural-related signal (Keller’s par. 47, 51: biosignal) associated with a thought of the individual (Keller’s par. 47: thought), the brain-computer interface system comprising:
one or more end applications (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair) associated with an external device (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119, Bluetooth-controlled lock, mobile device) and in communication with a processing unit comprising a processor (Keller’s par. 52-54, 72: computer 309 or 200), the one or more end applications (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair) having one or more input commands (Keller’s par. 117: navigation to predetermined webpage, physically move a wheelchair closer toward a lock) that control the external device (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119, lock, mobile device); and
the processing unit (Keller’s par. 52-54, 72: computer 309 or 200) in communication with the neural interface (Keller’s Fig. 1 and par. 47: headset 300) and configured to:
receive the neural-related signal (Keller’s par. 47, 51: biosignal) while the individual thinks about the thought (Keller’s par. 47, 51: thought);
associate the thought with an input command (Keller’s par. 49-50, 112: map biosignal to a brain switch and to a command); and
transmit the input command associated with the thought to the external device (Keller’s par. 116-119: e.g. navigation or moving a wheelchair closer) to allow the individual to independently control the one or more end applications (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair), wherein the thought of the individual comprises a task-irrelevant thought (Keller’s Fig. 1 and par. 47, 51: e.g. move left block upward on the screen is irrelevant to moving a thought or lifting a right toe) of a real or imagined movement of one or more body parts (Keller’s par. 47: thought of moving a tongue, lifting right toe), wherein the one or more end applications are configurable between an active state and an inactive state (upon combination, the applications can be active or inactive per Braun’s par. 81), and wherein the processing unit (Keller’s par. 52-54, 72: computer 309 or 200) is further configured to transmit the input command associated with the thought (Keller’s par. 47, 51, 111: command or set of instructions associated with brain switch) to one or more end applications in the active state (upon combination with Braun’s par. 81: the active applications receive input from the user) and to one or more end applications in the inactive state (upon combination with Braun’s par. 81: the inactive applications receive input as data for storage).
Regarding claim 31, Keller discloses a method of controlling one or more end applications (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair) using a brain-computer interface (Keller’s Fig. 1 and par. 2), the method comprising: measuring, via a neural interface (Keller’s Fig. 1 and par. 47: headset), a neural-related signal (Keller’s par. 47, 51: biosignal) associated with a thought of an individual (Keller’s par. 47: thought), wherein the thought comprises a task-irrelevant thought (Keller’s Fig. 1 and par. 47, 51: e.g. move left block upward on the screen is irrelevant to moving a thought or lifting a right toe) of a real or imagined movement of one or more body parts (Keller’s par. 47: thought of moving a tongue, lifting right toe); receiving the neural-related signal (Keller’s par. 47, 51: biosignal) while the individual thinks about the thought (Keller’s par. 47, 51: thought); associating the thought with an input command (Keller’s par. 49-50, 112: map biosignal to a brain switch and to a command) of one or more end applications (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair), the one or more end applications associated with an external device (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119, Bluetooth-controlled lock, mobile device); and transmitting, by a processing unit comprising a processor (Keller’s par. 52-54, 72: computer 309 or 200), the input command associated with the thought to the external device(Keller’s par. 116-119: e.g. navigation or moving a wheelchair closer) to allow the individual to independently control the one or more end applications (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair).
Keller fails to disclose wherein the one or more end applications are configurable between an active state and an inactive state, and transmitting the input command associated with the thought to one or more end applications in the active state and to one or more end applications in the inactive state.
However, in the same field of endeavor of input devices and input to different applications, Braun discloses one or more end applications configurable between an active state and an inactive state (Braun’s par. 81: the applications can be active or inactive), and transmitting an input to one or more end applications in the active state (Braun’s par. 81: the active applications receive input from the user) and to one or more end applications in the inactive state (Braun’s par. 81: the inactive applications receive input as data for storage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Keller’s end applications can be active or inactive (Braun’s par. 81), and that the input command associate with the thought (Keller’s par. 47, 51, 111: brain switch), is transmitted to both the active and inactive applications (Braun’s par. 81), in order to obtain the benefit of using Keller’s invention with an operating system that provides multitasking or pseudo-multitasking (Braun’s par. 81).
By doing such combination, Keller in view of Braun disclose:
A method of controlling one or more end applications (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair) using a brain-computer interface (Keller’s Fig. 1 and par. 2), the method comprising:
measuring, via a neural interface (Keller’s Fig. 1 and par. 47: headset), a neural-related signal (Keller’s par. 47, 51: biosignal) associated with a thought of an individual (Keller’s par. 47: thought), wherein the thought comprises a task-irrelevant thought (Keller’s Fig. 1 and par. 47, 51: e.g. move left block upward on the screen is irrelevant to moving a thought or lifting a right toe) of a real or imagined movement of one or more body parts (Keller’s par. 47: thought of moving a tongue, lifting right toe);
receiving the neural-related signal (Keller’s par. 47, 51: biosignal) while the individual thinks about the thought (Keller’s par. 47, 51: thought);
associating the thought with an input command (Keller’s par. 49-50, 112: map biosignal to a brain switch and to a command) of one or more end applications (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair), the one or more end applications associated with an external device (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119, Bluetooth-controlled lock, mobile device); and
transmitting, by a processing unit comprising a processor (Keller’s par. 52-54, 72: computer 309 or 200), the input command associated with the thought to the external device(Keller’s par. 116-119: e.g. navigation or moving a wheelchair closer) to allow the individual to independently control the one or more end applications (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair),
wherein the one or more end applications are configurable between an active state and an inactive state (upon combination, the applications can be active or inactive per Braun’s par. 81), and
wherein transmitting the input command comprises transmitting the input command associated with the thought (Keller’s par. 47, 51, 111: command or set of instructions associated with brain switch) to one or more end applications in the active state (upon combination with Braun’s par. 81: the active applications receive input from the user) and to one or more end applications in the inactive state (upon combination with Braun’s par. 81: the inactive applications receive input as data for storage).
Regarding claim 2, Keller in view of Braun disclose further comprising a telemetry unit (Keller’s Figs. 3 and par. 64: connector 312) adapted for facilitating the communication between the neural interface and the processing unit (Keller’s Figs. 3 and par. 62: connection between computer 309 ad biosignal acquisition 314).
Regarding claim 5, Keller in view of Braun disclose wherein the processing unit is located within a host device (Keller’s par. 62: computer 309 in headset 300, or computing device 200 of par. 52-54 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Keller in view of Braun disclose wherein the processing unit comprises a wired connection or a wireless connection to the neural interface (Keller’s Fig. 3B and par. 62: computer 309 connected to biosignal acquisition 314 through wires 313).
Regarding claim 8, Keller in view of Braun disclose wherein the processing unit (Keller’s par. 52-54, 72: computer 309 or 200) is configured to transmit the input command (Keller’s par. 47, 51, 111: command or set of instructions associated with brain switch) to the one or more end applications (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair) through a wired connection or a wireless connection (Keller’s par. 54: wireless interface).
Regarding claim 10, Keller in view of Braun disclose where the processing unit is further configured to identify a time-domain signal (Keller’s par. 66, 75: sample of digital representation sampled at the same point in time) from the neural-related signal (Keller’s par. 66: biosensor value).
Regarding claim 11, Keller in view of Braun disclose wherein the processing unit is further configured to extract one or more features from the neural-related signal (Keller’s par. 80: remove noise, filter according to frequency or range).
Regarding claim 12, Keller in view of Braun disclose wherein the one or more features comprises a pattern of voltage fluctuations (Keller’s par. 124: voltage variance), a fluctuation in a power in a specific band of frequencies embedded within the neural-related signal (Keller’s par. 80, 102: band-pass filtering for frequencies), or both.
Regarding claim 14, Keller in view of Braun disclose wherein the processing unit (Keller’s Figs. 1, 3: computer 309) comprises a portable computing device (Keller’s Fig. 1: computer 309 in headset) comprising a memory (Keller’s par. 48: memory in headset) and configured to communicate with the neural interface (Keller’s par. 48-49: to load classifiers).
Regarding claims 15 and 37, Keller in view of Braun disclose wherein the processing unit (Keller’s par. 52-54, 72: computer 309 or 200) is further configured to re-associate the thought with a second input command (Keller’s par. 112: brain switch is reassigned according to context) different from the input command (Keller’s par. 112: e.g. different context).
Regarding claim 17, Keller in view of Braun disclose where the one or more end applications comprise at least one of a mouse cursor, a mobility device, a prosthetic limb, a smart phone, a smart household appliance, and a smart household system (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair). For the purpose of examination, the term “comprise at least one of” was interpreted as requiring one of the list, and not one of each listed item (Schulhauser). This interpretation is consistent with the instant specification par. 20 where there are exemplary end applications, and not all are required for functioning of the invention.
Regarding claim 19, Keller in view of Braun disclose wherein the one or more end applications (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair) are configured to provide visual feedback, auditory feedback, haptic feedback, or a combination thereof when the input command is transmitted to the one or more end applications (Keller’s par. 112: paused playback of video [visual feedback] in mobile device application when command to pause is transmitted).
Regarding claim 22, Keller in view of Braun disclose wherein the processing unit (Keller’s par. 52-54, 72: computer 309 or 200) is further configured to transmit the input command associated with the thought (Keller’s par. 47, 51, 111: command or set of instructions associated with brain switch) to one or more end applications chosen by the individual (Keller’s par. 118: additional context maps added by user, context maps are applications per par. 112).
Regarding claim 23, Keller in view of Braun disclose wherein a function of the one or more input commands is definable by the one or more end applications (Keller’s par. 112: context maps set by applications, e.g. close right hand to increase volume in a mobile device).
Regarding claim 24, Keller in view of Braun disclose further comprising an application programming interface (Keller’s par. 115: additional context maps loaded from remote computing devices, thus implying the use of an API for communication with the remote computing device) accessible by third parties (Keller’s par. 47: e.g. Netflix®, Gmail®, Wall Street Journal Online®) and which allows the thought to be assigned and reassigned to various input commands (Keller’s par. 112: brain switch is reassigned according to context).
Regarding claims 25 and 32, Keller in view of Braun disclose wherein the one or more end applications comprise multiple end applications (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair), and wherein the processing unit (Keller’s par. 52-54, 72: computer 309 or 200) is further configured to transmit the input command associated with the thought (Keller’s par. 47, 51, 111: command or set of instructions associated with brain switch) to one or more first end applications of the multiple end applications in the active state (upon combination with Braun’s par. 81: the active applications receive input from the user, such as the mobile device of Keller’s par. 116-119) and to one or more second end applications of the multiple end applications in the inactive state (upon combination with Braun’s par. 81: the inactive applications receive input as data for storage, such as the Bluetooth-controlled lock of Keller’s par. 116-119).
Regarding claims 26 and 33, Keller in view of Braun disclose wherein the processing unit (Keller’s par. 52-54, 72: computer 309 or 200) is further configured to train a mathematical model or algorithm (Keller’s par. 73: classifier training) by repeatedly detecting the neural-related signal (Keller’s par. 79, 94, 134: iterations of sampling).
Regarding claims 27 and 34, Keller in view of Braun disclose wherein the mathematical model or algorithm comprises parameters or hyperparameters optimized (Keller’s par. 109: new weights optimized through iterative estimation) to distinguish the thought from other neural-related signals of the individual (Keller’s par. 89: classifiers that determine whether is one of two thought types).
Regarding claims 28 and 35, Keller in view of Braun disclose wherein the processing unit (Keller’s par. 52-54, 72: computer 309 or 200) is further configured to provide visual or auditory feedback to the individual during the training (Keller’s Figs. 11 and par. 97-98: visual feedback as display of probability), the visual or auditory feedback comprising indicating whether the neural-related signal detected matches the thought (Keller’s Figs. 11A-11B and par. 98: probability of identifying the brain switch).
Regarding claims 30 and 38, Keller in view of Braun disclose wherein the processing unit (Keller’s par. 52-54, 72: computer 309 or 200) is further configured to:
store the thought and the neural-related signal in a reference library (Keller’s par. 49-50, 136: thought, classifiers and actions stored in database); and
receive another neural-related signal (Keller’s par. 49-50, 136: what an individual may be focused on [biosignal]) and determine the thought (Keller’s par. 49-50, 136: probable thought) from the reference library (Keller’s par. 49-50, 136: database) based on the neural-related signal (Keller’s par. 49-50, 136: biosignal).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller in view of Braun as applied above, in further view of Segal et al. in US 2015/0091791 (hereinafter Segal).
Keller in view of Braun fail to disclose wherein the one or more end applications comprise a user interface that shows the one or more input commands for a plurality of additional end user devices.
However, in the same field of endeavor of BCIs, Segal disclose an end application (Segal’s par. 59-61: operating system with CUI) comprising a user interface (Segal’s Fig. 8 and par. 64, 104: CUI) showing the one or more input commands (Segal’s Fig. 8: thought-to-speech, computer applications, appliances and devices), for a plurality of additional end user devices (Segal’s Fig. 8 and par. 104: computer applications or appliances).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Keller in view of Braun’s one or more end applications (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair) comprises a user interface (per Segal’s Fig. 8 and par. 64, 104: CUI) showing the one or more input commands (Segal’s Fig. 8: thought-to-speech, computer applications, appliances and devices), for a plurality of additional end user devices (Segal’s Fig. 8 and par. 104: computer applications or appliances),
in order to obtain the benefit of presenting the user with universal commands and visual and audible output (Segal’s par. 61).
Claims 13, 29 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller in view of Braun as applied above, in further view of John et al. in US 2019/0038438 (hereinafter John).
Regarding claim 13, Keller in view of Braun fail to disclose an internal telemetry unit.
However, in the same field of endeavor of sensing brain signals, John discloses
an internal telemetry unit (John’s Figs 2-5: and par. 161-162: telemetry unit 12 with chip deposited within a vessel) adapted for facilitating the communication between the neural interface and the processing unit (John’s par. 160).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Keller includes an internal telemetry unit as disclosed by John, in order to obtain the benefit of using a device with a much better signal to noise ratios than scalp electrodes (John’s par. 5).
Regarding claim 29, Keller in view of Braun fail to disclose wherein the neural interface comprises an implanted endovascular device.
However, in the same field of endeavor of sensing brain signals, John discloses
an implanted endovascular device (John’s par. 5, 116).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Keller uses an implanted endovascular device to measure the biosignals (John’s par. 5, 116), in order to obtain the benefit of using a device with a much better signal to noise ratios than scalp electrodes (John’s par. 5).
Regarding claim 36, Keller in view of Braun fail to disclose wherein measuring the neural-related signal comprises measuring the neural-related signal with an implanted endovascular device. However, in the same field of endeavor of sensing brain signals, John discloses measuring the neural-related signal with an implanted endovascular device (John’s par. 5, 116).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Keller uses an implanted endovascular device to measure the biosignals (John’s par. 5, 116), in order to obtain the benefit of using a device with a much better signal to noise ratios than scalp electrodes (John’s par. 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 21 was previously indicated as allowable and has been placed in independent form including all limitations of previously presented claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Please note that the scope of claim 1 has been widened due to the removal of multiple limitations, and therefore, the addition of previously presented claim 21 does not result in the claim being allowed. Amended claim 1 is rejected in view of newly cited art as explained above.
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 Liliana Cerullo whose telephone number is (571)270-5882. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM to 3PM MT.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/LILIANA CERULLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights