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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/14/2026 has been entered.
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.
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 of this title, 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, 4, 5, 6 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wired, “This is a computer on your brain” 7/12/2006, https://www.wired.com/2006/07/this-is-a-computer-on-your-brain/ in view of Yehzkel et al. US2014/0093187 in view of Weiss et al. US11826011
Regarding claim 1, Wired teaches: acquire any one of visual information and auditory information, and acquires the detected brain activation information; (Wired see page 1 and 3, analyzing EEG neural signatures or brain signals based on images and examine information brain deemed as important where EEG neural signatures and information read on brain activation information)
generate a tag in which any one of the visual information and the auditory information, the acquired brain activation information, and identified from the visual information; and (Wired see page 3 tagging images based on brain emitting signal detected by EEG)
determine whether a reproduction recollection signal of the object is present from the acquired brain activation information (Wired see page 3 brain emits a signal as soon as it sees something an “aha” signal to be detected tagging images that elicit a signal)
search of the object based on the acquired brain activation information when it is determined that there is the reproduction recollection signal of the object
output any one of the visual information and the auditory information recorded in the searched tag (Wired see page 1 and 3 user to examine information and perform search based on tagged images when user is sifting through video and images)
determine that recall is occurring and that the reproduction recollection signal of the object is present, (Wired see page 3 brain emits a signal as soon as it sees something an “aha” signal to be detected tagging images that elicit a signal)
Wired does not distinctly disclose: At least one processor configured to:
a keyword are associated with an object
store the tag
Search from the tag
Wherein the at least one processor is further configured to
when a change amount between the acquired brain activation information and stored brain activation information that recall is not occurring exceeds a pre-set determination value
However, Yehzkel teaches: At least one processor configured to: (Yehezkel see paragraph 0019 processor)
a keyword are associated with an object (Yehezkel see paragraph 0002 0003 0025 textual tagging of images)
store the tag. (Yehezkel see paragraph 0026 tag stored in index)
Search from the tag (Yehezkel see paragraph 0028 searching using text retrieving images tagged with matching text)
Wherein the at least one processor is further configured to (Yehezkel see paragraph 0019 processor)
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 a method of analyzing brain signal data as taught by Wired to include tagging as taught by Yehzkel for the predictable result of more efficiently organize and manage data
Wired does not distinctly disclose: when a change amount between the acquired brain activation information and stored brain activation information that recall is not occurring exceeds a pre-set determination value
However, Weiss teaches: when a change amount between the acquired brain activation information and stored brain activation information that recall is not occurring exceeds a pre-set determination value (Weisee see col. 2 lines 33-47 col. 9 lines 55-59 col. 15 lines 9-28 human memory recall based on spike or ripple oscillation properties of measured brain signals comparing oscillation properties with prior performance and oscillations of past performance and when magnitude does not meet threshold it is denoted as a null event)
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 a method of analyzing brain signal data as taught by Wired to include determining recall being present or not present as taught by Weiss for the predictable result of determining whether or not user brain activity is being used.
Regarding claim 4, Wired as modified further teaches: wherein the at least one processor further configured to generate the tag associating a priority based on the acquired brain activation information. (Wired see page 3 tagging images from brain signals based on rank in order of strength of brain signatures indicating importance)
Regarding claim 5, see rejection of claim 1
Regarding claim 6, see rejection of claim 1
Claim(s) 3 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wired, “This is a computer on your brain” 7/12/2006, https://www.wired.com/2006/07/this-is-a-computer-on-your-brain/ in view of Yehzkel et al. US2014/0093187 in view of Weiss et al. US11826011 in view of Erera et al. US2016/0321363
Regarding claim 3, Wired as modified further teaches: wherein the at least once processor further configured to when detecting the tag based on the acquired brain activation information. (Wired see page 3 tagging images based on brain emitting signal detected by EEG)
Wired does not teach: changes set number of the keyword used
Errera teaches: changes set number of the keyword used (Erera see paragraph 0017 initial query with query terms and adding additional keyword is concatenated to initial query term to create additional query terms)
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 a method of analyzing brain signal data as taught by Wired to include additional query terms as taught by Erera for the predictable result of more efficiently organize and manage data
Response to arguments
Applicant’s argument: Prior art of references does not teach newly amended claims
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s argument is considered but is moot as newly amended subject matter is responded to in the above rejection
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN S LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0612. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571)272-8352. 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.
/ALLEN S LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights