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 .
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 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 8 and 12 of U.S. Patent No 12,340,018. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they have similar scope.
Instant Application 19/183,696
US 12,340,018
Claim 1, A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving first neural signals from a user viewing visual stimuli having distinct temporal characteristics, the visual stimuli provided in a user interface;
processing, using a neural model, the neural signals to identify a focus of attention of the user;
providing real-time visual feedback to the user by modifying an appearance of an object of the user interface determined to be the focus of attention;
validating accuracy of the focus of attention based on second neural signals from a response of the user to the visual feedback;
performing a calibration by adjusting weights of the neural model and adjusting visual stimuli characteristics of the real-time visual feedback to optimize focus of attention identification; and
maintaining the calibration through a continuous closed-loop operation while providing the user interface.
Claim 1, A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving neural signals from a user while the user is exposed to sensory stimuli during use by the user of a Brain Computer Interface (BCI), the sensory stimuli including a display of a target object as a first graphical object with a varying first temporal characteristic distinct from a second temporal characteristic of a second graphical object of the sensory stimuli;
decoding the neural signals to identify a focus of attention of the user on the sensory stimuli target object using a neural response model;
modifying the sensory stimuli in real-time based on the focus of attention to provide real- time feedback to the user;
refining the neural response model using a response by the user to the real-time feedback; and
continuously repeating the receiving, decoding, modifying, and refining operations during use by the user of the BCI to continuously calibrate the neural response model.
Claim 5, The method of claim 1, wherein the neural response model includes weights applied to features of the neural signals, and refining the neural response model involves modifying the weights.
Claim 8. A machine, comprising:
one or more processors; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the machine to perform operations comprising:
receiving first neural signals from a user viewing visual stimuli having distinct temporal characteristics, the visual stimuli provided in a user interface;
processing, using a neural model, the neural signals to identify a focus of attention of the user;
providing real-time visual feedback to the user by modifying an appearance of an object of the user interface determined to be the focus of attention;
validating accuracy of the focus of attention based on second neural signals from a response of the user to the visual feedback;
performing a calibration by adjusting weights of the neural model and adjusting visual stimuli characteristics of the real-time visual feedback to optimize focus of attention identification; and
maintaining the calibration through a continuous closed-loop operation while providing the user interface.
Claim 8. A machine, comprising:
one or more processors; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the machine to perform operations comprising:
receiving neural signals from a user while the user is exposed to sensory stimuli during use by the user of a Brain Computer Interface (BCI), the sensory stimuli including a display of a target object as a first graphical object with a varying first temporal characteristic distinct from a second temporal characteristic of a second graphical object of the sensory stimuli;
decoding the neural signals to identify a focus of attention of the user on the sensory stimuli using a neural response model;
modifying the sensory stimuli in real-time based on the focus of attention to provide real- time feedback to the user;
refining the neural response model using a response by the user to the real-time feedback; and
continuously repeating the receiving, decoding, modifying, and refining operations during use by the user of the BCI to continuously calibrate the neural response model.
Claim 12. The machine of claim 8, wherein the neural response model includes weights applied to features of the neural signals, and refining the neural response model involves modifying the weights.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art Alcaide et al. (US Pub: 2020/0097076 A1) is cited to teach another type neural interface with eye-tracking method in the figures 1-3 embodiments. The prior art Schiff et al. (US Patent 10,921,888 B2) is cited to teach another type of brain computer interface with training capacity in figures 1-5 embodiments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALVIN C. MA whose telephone number is (571)270-1713. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-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, Benjamin C. Lee can be reached on 571-272-2963. 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.
/CALVIN C MA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 January 24, 2026