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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 7 “recites” abstract ideas under the 2019 PEG:
Step 2A, Prong One
Claims recites: detecting brain waves of an operator (data acquisition), calculating an amplitude of the brain waves (data analysis), and determining a manner of notification based on the magnitude of the amplitude (evaluation/decision and output/notification). These limitations collectively recite collecting information, analyzing the information, and making a decision/communicating a result (i.e., a rule-based evaluation used to select a notification manner). This is a mental process/observation-evaluation-notification type concept that can be performed in the human mind as an abstract idea, even if implemented using sensors and a controller.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Claims 7 further recites additional elements including a work machine, an electroencephalograph, a notification unit, and a controller that receives the signal, calculates amplitude, and determines the notification manner. These additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely use the abstract idea in conjunction with generic components to perform the abstract steps of detecting, calculating, and determining a notification manner. The claim does not recite a specific improvement in computer functionality, a specific improvement to EEG sensing or signal processing, or a particular machine-control technique that improves operation of the work machine. Rather, the claim uses the result of analysis to select how to notify the operation, which amounts to presenting/communicating information based on evaluated data.
Step 2B: No Inventive Concept
The additional elements (work machine, electroencephalograph, notification unit, controller) amount of implementing the abstract idea using conventional components performing their expected functions. The claim does not recite additional limitations that impose a meaningful constraint on the abstract idea, such as particularized technical mechanism for improving EEG measurement reliability, a specific signal-processing pipeline, or a specific operational control of the work machine that improves safety/continuity beyond merely notifying. Therefore, the claims do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception and are directed to abstract idea.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbas (US 2017/0231546) in view of Panken et al (US 2009/0082829).
Per claim 1, Arbas teaches a system including a work machine, the system comprising (monitoring operators of heavy machines):
an electroencephalograph that detects brain waves of an operator who manipulates the work machine (0025 teaches a brainwave monitor that may be an electroencephalography monitor);
a notification unit that gives a notification to the operator (0022 teaches warning massage can be send out as an audio message); and
a controller, wherein the controller receives a signal indicating a detection result of the brain waves from the electroencephalograph (0019 teaches communicatively coupled to a processing device that receives that data steams), [calculates an amplitude of the brain waves], and determines a manner of the notification by the notification unit [based on a magnitude of the amplitude] (0020 teaches determine and generate an alarm signal and transmit. 0022 teaches convert in to an audio warning message).
But, Arbas does not explicitly teach calculates an amplitude of the brain waves and notification based on a magnitude of the amplitude.
However, Panken teaches using EEG amplitude (instantaneous/average) over time. 0116-0117 and 0159 teaches instantaneous or average amplitude of the EEG signal over a period of time may be compared to an amplitude threshold. 0133 teaches plurality of different modes of notification such as light/sound/vibration. Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Arbas’s operator warning system to calculate EEG amplitude and use the magnitude of the amplitude to inform when/how to warn the operator, because Panken provides an explicit, concrete EEG feature that can be computed from EEG signals and used as a reliable decision basis. Adding amplitude threshold evaluation provides a straightforward, consistently computable EEG metric that improves the robustness and responsiveness of Arbas’s operator state detection/warning pipeline for heavy machine operation, improving safety by supporting timely operator notification.
Per claim 2, Arbas in view of Panken teaches wherein the controller determines a manner of the notification based on a temporal change in the magnitude of the amplitude (0015 Arbas teaches monitoring the operator’s mental state and sending alarms in response to detected incapacity, consistent with evaluating changing conditions over time. Panken in 0117 expressly teaches determining based on temporal change of EEG amplitude, e.g., a slope of the amplitude of the EEG signal overtime may be compared to trend information and timing between inflection points…in the pattern of amplitude over time. Further, Panken in paragraph 00117 explains the processor may recognize an EEG trend and act based on whether the trend matches a trend template, which is determination based on temporal change in the amplitude waveform.
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Panken’s temporal change into Arbas’s operator warning system because Arbas aims to prevent accidents by monitoring operator mental state and issuing alarms. The rationale would be using temporal change features of EEG amplitude improves robustness compared to single point magnitude checks by capturing evolving patterns which supports more reliable and timely operator notification in a heavy-machine environment.
Per claim 3, Arbas in view of Panken teaches wherein a threshold value is set for the magnitude of the amplitude (Panken in paragraph 0116 expressly teaches an amplitude threshold for EEG amplitude “the instantaneous or average amplitude of the EEG signal over a period of time may be compared to an amplitude threshold”), and the controller determines the manner of the notification based on a state in which the magnitude of the amplitude does not exceed the threshold value for a prescribed time period (Arabs teaches issuing warnings/alarms in response to detected operator incapacity (i.e., determining when the operator needs to be warned, generating/transmitting an alarm signal, and providing a warning such as audio message, paragraph 0020-0022. But Arbas does not explicitly teach basing the notification decision on a state where EEG amplitude stays below a threshold for a prescribed time period. Panken, however, expressly teaches evaluating EEG amplitude over a period of time by comparing instantaneous or average amplitude over a period of time to an amplitude threshold, paragraph 0116. Thus, Panken teaches using an amplitude-threshold comparing over a time window; correspondingly, the system can determine notification manner based on whether EEG amplitude does not exceed the threshold over the prescribed period (i.e., remains below the threshold across the evaluated time period), which is a straightforward application of Panken’s threshold over time teaching as taught in paragraph 0116-0117). Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Arbas with threshold persistence condition of Panken, because Panken teaches comparing EEG amplitude over a period of time to an amplitude threshold as a concrete signal processing technique for determining EEG related states. The rationale would be that requiring the EEG amplitude to remain below a threshold for a time window improves stability/robustness of the operator state decision by filtering transient fluctuations and reducing nuisance warnings, thereby improving reliability of timely operator notification in Arbas’s machine safety context. Arabas paragraph 0003 and Panken paragraph 0116.
Per claim 4, Arabas in paragraph 0015 teaches continuous monitoring and issuing alarms in response to detecting operator incapacity. 0020-0022 teaches generating/transmitting alarm signal and providing a warning to the operator. Arbas does not explicitly teach wherein the controller determines the manner of the notification based on a state in which the magnitude of the amplitude has decreased by a prescribed amount or more since a previous detection of the brain waves.
However, Panken teaches wherein the controller determines the manner of the notification based on a state in which the magnitude of the amplitude has decreased by a prescribed amount or more since a previous detection of the brain waves (Panken teaches analyzing EEG amplitude over time and using temporal change features including a slope of amplitude of the EEG signal over time and timing between inflection points or other critical points in the pattern of the amplitude over time, paragraph 0017. 0017 further teaches comparing the EEG amplitude waveform critical points (inflection points) to determine whether the EEG includes a biosignal. Accordingly, Panken teaches evaluating changes in EEG amplitude over time using comparisons between points/features in the amplitude pattern. A decrease “by a prescribed amount or more since a previous detection” corresponds to comparing a current amplitude value (or critical point value) to a previous amplitude value (or previous critical point value) and applying a preset delta criterion, which is a straightforward quantitative form of Panken’s temporal change/critical point evaluation, paragraph 0117. Therefore, before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for Arbas to use amplitude determination of Panken. The rationale would be using a delta-form-previous criterion provides a direct way to detect abrupt attenuation/change in EEG amplitude, improving responsiveness and robustness of Arbas’s continuous operator monitoring and alarm generation (e.g., faster detection of raid degradation in alertness-related EEG activity), thereby improving safety in heavy-machine operation.
Per claim 5, Arbas teaches wherein the work machine includes a communication unit that communicates with an external base station (0021 teaches processing device output is coupled to an alarm transmitter that may be a broadcasting device that broadcasts the alarm to a network, including a wireless network that may transmit over the air to destination devices. 0022 further teaches broadcasting to different destination devices including a central monitor station 116).
Per claim 6, Arbas teaches wherein the controller determines whether or not the work machine is performing work (0043 teaches starting the analyzer in response to a machine operational condition: “the analyzer may be started in response to the machine operator turns on the ignition of the machine such as starting a vehicle”. Thus, Arbas teaches controller determining whether the machine is in an operating/working condition (e.g., ignition on/vehicle started) as a condition for initiating the monitoring/alertness determination which corresponds to determining whether or not the work machine is performing work).
Per claim 7-8, see rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Daimoto et al (US 2009/0312665), see abstract
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMEED ALIZADA whose telephone number is (571)270-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 am until 5:30 pm.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/OMEED ALIZADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686