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 and examined below.
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 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20050131311 A1 (“Leuthardt ‘311”) in view of US 20110224569 A1 (“Isenhart”).
As per Claim 1, Leuthardt ‘311 discloses a method of controlling an apparatus of a user in communication with a brain machine interface, the method comprising:
recording one or more neural signals in a neural area using the brain machine interface, wherein the one or more neural signals is associated with an intent to control the apparatus, wherein the brain machine interface comprises an electrode (¶ 48—“ECoG signal can be acquired using an electrode array that is either under the dura mater (subdural) or over the dura mater (epidural), although in an exemplary embodiment the electrode array is subdural”);
filtering the one or more neural signals (¶ 49—“The signal is passed through an amplifier and a band pass filter”);
obtaining features of interest relating to the one or more neural signals (¶ 63—“ computes the spectral amplitude in a defined frequency range for all locations”; ¶ 49—“ configured to extract features of the signal, apply a translation algorithm to the signal features as they vary under varying behavioral conditions of the user, and then generate a device command”); and
delivering one or more control signals derived from the one or more neural signals to the apparatus (¶ 49—“ the device command is communicated to a user screen on a computer monitor, and controls the position of a cursor on the screen”).
Isenhart teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Leuthardt ‘311, including namely removing artifacts from the one or more neural signals (Claim 1—“analyzing the signal to determine if temporal segments of the signal include artifacts due to of any of eye movements, cable or electrode movements, impulse artifacts, and muscle activity, and if any segment does include artifacts identifying the segment as including artifacts; and editing the signal to remove segments that include artifacts.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Leuthardt ‘311 to include the limitations as taught by Isenhart to provide improved methods for automatically identifying EEG artifacts and editing EEGs to remove segments affected by artifacts (Isenhart: ¶ 3).
As per Claim 2, Leuthardt ‘311 further discloses wherein the features of interest are power in frequency bands (¶ 63—“computes the spectral amplitude in a defined frequency range for all locations”).
As per Claim 3, Leuthardt ‘311 further discloses wherein the frequency bands comprise ranges of 4 Hz to 12 Hz, 13 Hz to 28 Hz, 29 Hz to 45 Hz, 55 Hz to 80 Hz, 81 Hz to 120 Hz, and 121 Hz to 180 Hz (¶ 9—“The mu rhythms (8-12 Hz) and beta rhythms (18-26 Hz)… The gamma band (>30 Hz)”; ¶ 78—“They encompassed a broad range of alpha, beta, and high and low gamma frequencies”; ¶ 71—“The spectra (0-220 Hz) of all the electrodes were initially evaluated”).
As per Claim 5, Leuthardt ‘311 further discloses wherein the apparatus is a mouse cursor (¶ 35—“In the examples, the device is a cursor on a video monitor”).
As per Claim 6, Leuthardt ‘311 further discloses controlling functionality of the mouse cursor via the one or more control signals (¶ 64—“The cursor's vertical movement is controlled by the control signal calculated by the signal processing component”).
As per Claim 8, Leuthardt ‘311 further discloses wherein the brain machine interface is controlled by a processor comprising an algorithm (¶ 48—“A computer is further configured to analyze the ECoG signal to determine the intent of the user.”; ¶ 49—“The signal is then provided as an input to a computer running software configured to extract features of the signal, apply a translation algorithm to the signal features as they vary under varying behavioral conditions of the user, and then generate a device command”).
As per Claim 10, Leuthardt ‘311 further discloses wherein the algorithm processes sensed neural activity from the neural area to determine whether the user intends to act (¶ 7—“A major goal of brain-computer interfaces (BCI) is to decode intent from the brain activity of an individual”).
As per Claim 19, Leuthardt ‘311 further discloses transmitting one or more control signals to the apparatus via a processor to actuate the apparatus (¶ 49—“ the device command is communicated to a user screen on a computer monitor, and controls the position of a cursor on the screen”).
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leuthardt ‘311 in view of Isenhart and further in view of US 20140058528 A1 (“Contreras-Vidal”).
As per Claim 4, Contreras-Vidal teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Leuthardt ‘311, including namely applying a linear regression model to data derived from the one or more neural signals (¶¶ 89-90—“To continuously decode cursor velocity from the EEG signals, a linear decoding model was employed… the a and b variables are weights obtained through multiple linear regression”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Leuthardt ‘311 to include the limitations as taught by Contreras-Vidal to accomplish two-dimensional control of a cursor with performance levels comparable to those of invasive BCI systems (Contreras-Vidal: ¶ 18).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leuthardt ‘311 in view of Isenhart and further in view of US 20120176302 A1 (“Mangoubi”).
As per Claim 7, Mangoubi teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Leuthardt ‘311, including namely moving the mouse cursor on a display to form letter and word selections on the display (¶ 15—“control of an on-screen keyboard, and in turn a computer system, in response to brain activity input”; ¶ 8—“Such activities include pressing the currently highlighted key, moving between keys within a key block, moving between key blocks and directly entering full, pre-customized words in response to brain activity input”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Leuthardt ‘311 to include the limitations as taught by Mangoubi to provide an affordable system allowing control of a computer, even for those suffering from full paralysis or locked-in syndrome (Mangoubi: ¶ 5).
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leuthardt ‘311 in view of Isenhart and further in view of US 20110238685 A1 (“Garcia”).
As per Claim 12, Garcia teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Leuthardt ‘311, including namely determining a neural goal for the user based on the one or more neural signals and a database of previous neural signals (¶ 9—“creating a user profile comprising the user's brain signals mapped to the mental task descriptions”; ¶ 15—“The measured brain signals are mapped onto mental task descriptions, and stored in a database”; ¶ 13—“a system for creating a brain computer interface for a user for an application comprising a database arranged to store a user profile comprising the user's brain signals mapped to mental task descriptions”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Leuthardt ‘311 to include the limitations as taught by Garcia to make improvements to a tedious and time-consuming training process is usually needed for learning the specific characteristic of the brain signals (Garcia: ¶¶ 7-8).
As per Claim 13, Garcia teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Leuthardt ‘311, including namely wherein the database of previous neural signals is specific to the user (¶ 9—“creating a user profile comprising the user's brain signals mapped to the mental task descriptions”; ¶ 15—“The measured brain signals are mapped onto mental task descriptions, and stored in a database”; ¶ 13—“a system for creating a brain computer interface for a user for an application comprising a database arranged to store a user profile comprising the user's brain signals mapped to mental task descriptions”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Leuthardt ‘311 to include the limitations as taught by Garcia to make improvements to a tedious and time-consuming training process is usually needed for learning the specific characteristic of the brain signals (Garcia: ¶¶ 7-8).
As per Claim 14, Garcia teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Leuthardt ‘311, including namely wherein the database of previous neural signals is based on other users (¶ 9—“creating a user profile comprising the user's brain signals mapped to the mental task descriptions”; ¶ 15—“The measured brain signals are mapped onto mental task descriptions, and stored in a database”; ¶ 13—“a system for creating a brain computer interface for a user for an application comprising a database arranged to store a user profile comprising the user's brain signals mapped to mental task descriptions”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Leuthardt ‘311 to include the limitations as taught by Garcia to make improvements to a tedious and time-consuming training process is usually needed for learning the specific characteristic of the brain signals (Garcia: ¶¶ 7-8).
As per Claim 15, Garcia teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Leuthardt ‘311, including namely comprising relaying the one or more neural signals to a processing unit, wherein the processing unit comprises a database of previously determined activity to generate the one or more control signals to control the apparatus (¶ 15—“The measured brain signals are mapped onto mental task descriptions, and stored in a database”; ¶ 13—“a database arranged to store a user profile comprising the user's brain signals mapped to mental task descriptions”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Leuthardt ‘311 to include the limitations as taught by Garcia to make improvements to a tedious and time-consuming training process is usually needed for learning the specific characteristic of the brain signals (Garcia: ¶¶ 7-8).
As per Claim 16, Leuthardt ‘311 further discloses wherein the one or more neural signals are relayed wirelessly to a processing unit (¶ 48—“The signal is routed to the acquisition computer either directly through lead wires or indirectly through a wirelessly transmitted signal”).
As per Claim 17, Leuthardt ‘311 further discloses wherein the one or more neural signals are relayed via wire to a processing unit (¶ 48—“directly through lead wires”).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leuthardt ‘311 in view of Isenhart and further in view of US 20120022391 A1 (“Leuthardt ‘391”).
As per Claim 18, Leuthardt ‘391 teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Leuthardt ‘311, including namely determining the intent by processing the one or more neural signals from a single area without associating or comparing the one or more neural signals to signals from other neural areas (¶ 43—“ Electrode array 104 acquires brain signals via a plurality of electrodes 202 (shown in FIG. 2) at a single portion of the brain or at multiple portions of the brain simultaneously”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Leuthardt ‘311 to include the limitations as taught by Leuthardt ‘391 to use a plurality of cognitive processes and their associated physiologic signatures concurrently, to achieve brain computer device control (Leuthardt ‘391: ¶ 2).
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leuthardt ‘311 in view of Garcia.
As per Claim 20, Leuthardt ‘311 discloses a method of controlling an apparatus of a user in communication with a brain machine interface, the method comprising:
recording one or more neural signals in a neural area using the brain machine interface, wherein the one or more neural signals is associated with an intent to control the apparatus, wherein the brain machine interface comprises an electrode (¶ 48—“ECoG signal can be acquired using an electrode array that is either under the dura mater (subdural) or over the dura mater (epidural), although in an exemplary embodiment the electrode array is subdural”);
relaying the one or more neural signals to a processing unit (¶ 48—“The signal is routed to the acquisition computer either directly through lead wires or indirectly through a wirelessly transmitted signal”; ¶ 50—“Raw ECoG signals from the ECoG electrodes are passed to a data acquisition computer configured for collecting and storing the raw ECoG signal”); and
delivering the one or more control signals derived from the one or more neural signals to the apparatus (¶ 49—“the device command is communicated to a user screen on a computer monitor”; ¶ 48—“The intent of the user is then communicated to a device, such as a screen cursor, or a wheelchair or prosthetic device to control the device accordingly”).
Garcia teaches additional limitations not expressly disclosed by Leuthardt ‘311, including namely wherein the processing unit comprises a database of previously determined activity to generate one or more control signals to control the apparatus (¶ 9—“creating a user profile comprising the user's brain signals mapped to the mental task descriptions”; ¶ 13—“a database arranged to store a user profile comprising the user's brain signals mapped to mental task descriptions”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Leuthardt ‘311 to include the limitations as taught by Garcia to make improvements to a tedious and time-consuming training process is usually needed for learning the specific characteristic of the brain signals (Garcia: ¶¶ 7-8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BASIL T JOS whose telephone number is (571)270-5915. The examiner can normally be reached 11:00 - 8:00 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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/Basil T. Jos/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights