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 1-20 are pending in this application.
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 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,147,514. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other(see table below).
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,147,514
Claim 1: A method for presenting content based on user-specific calibration of user input with a brain computer interface comprising: training, in a first time window, a calibration model comprising: providing, via the brain computer interface, a series of stimuli to the user; measuring, via the brain computer interface, a first set of neural signals of the user including responses to the first series of stimuli; extracting a first set of features from the first set of neural signals that temporally align with the series of stimuli; and training the calibration model with the first set of features and the first series of stimuli; measuring, with the brain computer interface in a second time window, a second set of neural signals associated with the user intending an input to the brain computer interface; extracting a second set of features from the second set of neural signals; applying the calibration model to the second set of features to detect the input intended by the user via the brain computer interface; and presenting digital content based on the detected input.
Claim 1: A method for authenticating a user with a brain computer interface comprising:
training, in a first time window, a calibration model comprising:
providing a first series of stimuli to the user from the brain computer interface; measuring a first set of neural signals of the user including responses to the first series of stimuli; extracting features from the first set of neural signals that temporally align with the first series of stimuli; and training the calibration model with the features and the first series of stimuli; receiving, in a second time window, an input from the user to perform an action with the brain computer interface; in response to the input, performing a verification session comprising:
providing a second series of stimuli to the user from the brain computer interface, wherein the first second series of stimuli includes at least one stimulus that is different from the first series of stimuli; measuring a second set of neural signals of the user during the second time window, wherein the second set of neural signals includes responses to the second series of stimuli and a response to at least one free-form event of an imagined stimulus not part of the second series of stimuli; and applying the calibration model to the second set of neural signals to authenticate the user; and in response to authenticating the user, performing the action in the input from the user.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed to user-specific calibration of user input with a brain computer interface training, in a first time window, a calibration model and is substantively-similar independent claim 11, said claims are merely a broader version of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,147,514 contains at least all of the limitations (or obvious equivalents) recited in claim 1 of the instant application.
With regard to claims of the 2-10,12-20, each depending from one of independent claims 1 and 11, said claims are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12,147,514 in view the foregoing nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claim 1.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,216,548. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other(see table below).
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 11,216,548
Claim 1: A method for presenting content based on user-specific calibration of user input with a brain computer interface comprising: training, in a first time window, a calibration model comprising: providing, via the brain computer interface, a series of stimuli to the user; measuring, via the brain computer interface, a first set of neural signals of the user including responses to the first series of stimuli; extracting a first set of features from the first set of neural signals that temporally align with the series of stimuli; and training the calibration model with the first set of features and the first series of stimuli; measuring, with the brain computer interface in a second time window, a second set of neural signals associated with the user intending an input to the brain computer interface; extracting a second set of features from the second set of neural signals; applying the calibration model to the second set of features to detect the input intended by the user via the brain computer interface; and presenting digital content based on the detected input.
Claim 1: A method for providing a brain computer interface comprising: within a first time window, detecting a first neural signal of a user in response to a calibration session having at least one of a first time-locked component and a first spontaneous component, wherein the first time-locked component comprises a first randomized factor associated with an unexpected modification to a first percentage of a first stimulus of the calibration session, the first stimulus not preselected by the user; generating a user-specific calibration model based on a response of the user to the unexpected modification to the first stimulus captured in the first neural signal; prompting the user to undergo a verification session within a second time window; detecting a second neural signal contemporaneously with delivery of the verification session; generating an output of the user-specific calibration model from the second neural signal; determining an authentication status of the user based upon the output; and based upon the authentication status, performing an authenticated action.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed to providing a brain computer interface; and only differing in that the claims of the '548 patent explicitly recite determining an authentication status of the user based upon the output; and based upon the authentication status, performing an authenticated action. Thus, the claims of the ‘548 patent are rendered as obvious variants of the instant claims.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,706,134. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other(see table below).
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 10,706,134
Claim 1: A method for presenting content based on user-specific calibration of user input with a brain computer interface comprising: training, in a first time window, a calibration model comprising: providing, via the brain computer interface, a series of stimuli to the user; measuring, via the brain computer interface, a first set of neural signals of the user including responses to the first series of stimuli; extracting a first set of features from the first set of neural signals that temporally align with the series of stimuli; and training the calibration model with the first set of features and the first series of stimuli; measuring, with the brain computer interface in a second time window, a second set of neural signals associated with the user intending an input to the brain computer interface; extracting a second set of features from the second set of neural signals; applying the calibration model to the second set of features to detect the input intended by the user via the brain computer interface; and presenting digital content based on the detected input.
Claim 1: A method for providing a brain computer interface comprising: within a first time window, detecting a first neural signal of a user in response to a calibration session having at least one of a first time-locked component and a first spontaneous component, wherein the first time-locked component comprises a first randomized factor associated with an unexpected modification to a first percentage of a first stimulus of the calibration session, the first stimulus not pre-selected by the user; generating a user-specific calibration model based on a response of the user to the unexpected modification to the first stimulus captured in the first neural signal; prompting the user to undergo a verification session within a second time window, the verification session having at least one of a second time-locked component and a second spontaneous component, wherein the second time locked component comprises a second randomized factor occupying a second percentage of a second stimulus of the verification session, the second stimulus not pre-selected by the user; detecting a second neural signal contemporaneously with delivery of the verification session; generating an output of the user-specific calibration model from the second neural signal; based upon a comparison operation between processed outputs of the second neural signal with the output of the user-specific calibration model, determining an authentication status of the user; and based upon the authentication status, performing an authenticated action.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed to a method for providing a brain computer interface comprising a first time window and is substantively-similar independent claim 11, said claims are merely a broader version of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,706,134 contains at least all of the limitations (or obvious equivalents) recited in claim 1 of the instant application.
With regard to claims of the 2-10,12-20, each depending from one of independent claims 1 and 11, said claims are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,706,134 in view the foregoing nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Claims 1,11 recites the limitation "the first series of stimuli". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10,12-20, dependent on one of claims 1 or 11.
USPTO Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSUK SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3857. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Joseph Hirl can be reached at 571-272-3685. 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.
/HOSUK SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435