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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 4, the Applicant argues:
“Even if combined, Gupta + Petley still fails to teach or suggest the full amended decoder architecture (input -> FFT -> Riemannian geometry-based wave-band analysis) or its integration into the claimed mobility system. Petley requires user concentration on imagined movements (motor imagery), whereas the claimed system is more user-friendly, requiring minimal training and no such concentration-relying instead on SSVEP + pure cognitive thoughts”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., specific use of FFT and Riemannian geometry within the decoder.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 4 and 5 discloses coupling a input module to a fast fourier transform module which is operably coupled to a wave band analysis module that that employs Riemannian geometry- based signal classification generates a command. As the claims do not provide specific use of various modules, the term coupling merely refers to being used in some form during processing.
GUPTA discloses a fourier transform coupled to a wave band analysis module that that employs Riemannian geometry- based signal classification generates a command (see paragraph [0135] wherein An LTI model for SSVEPs can then be used in the Fourier domain and paragraph [0129] wherein [27] utilized SSVEP signals to complement P300 signal detection and classification accuracy, [28] used the characteristics of SSVEP signals to gauge the power of other ERP signals. Similar to BCIs in general, ErrPs have also been traditionally detected using spatial filtering techniques where accuracy ranges between 60-65% [29]. More recently, Reimannian-geometry-based methods have been very successful and have improved accuracy to about 75%). PETLEY discloses the use of fast-fourier transforms within wave analysis, and therefore, the combination of GUPTA and PETLEY discloses the invention as claimed.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3,6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NASER et al (US 2024/0335311) in view of PORIKLI et al (US 2008/0063285).
Regarding claim 1, NASER discloses A brain computer interface (BCI) configured to translate asynchronous event related potentials (ERP) in electroencephalograph (EEG) wave forms into commands executable by an assistance device(s) or system(s) comprising a user interface coupled to an electroencephalograph (EEG) decoder that is configured to receive and analyze combined visually-evoked steady-state visually-evoked potential (SSVEP) and pure cognitive EPRERP in EEG wave forms and producing a command signal using classifiers (paragraph 56-59). However, NASER does not expressly disclose wherein the classifiers are Riemannian manifold classifiers. In a similar field of endeavor, PORIKLI discloses signal using Riemannian manifold classifiers (paragraph 24-27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify NASER to include the teachings of PORIKLI, since PORIKLI states that such a modification would allow defining various notions such as the length of curves, angles, areas or volumes, curvature, gradients of functions and divergence of vector fields. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional classification means based on those disclosed by PORIKLI.
Regarding claim 2, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. NASER further discloses wherein the ERP is a visually evoked ERP in combination with a cognitive ERP (paragraph 56).
Regarding claim 3, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. The combination of NASER and PORIKLI further discloses wherein the ERP comprises a steady state visually evoked potential (SSVEP) using Riemannian manifold classifiers (NASER - paragraph 56-59; PORIKLI - paragraph 24-27).
Claim(s) 4,5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUPTA et al (US 2024/0264670) in view of PETLEY et al (US 2019/0166434).
Regarding claim 4, GUPTA discloses an electroencephalograph (EEG) decoder comprising (i) an input module coupled to (ii) Fourier transform (FT) module which is operably coupled to (iii) a wave band analysis module that employs Riemannian geometry- based signal classification generates a command to be sent to one or more device or system (paragraph 48, 85, 129, 135-138, 147; see paragraph [0135] wherein An LTI model for SSVEPs can then be used in the Fourier domain and paragraph [0129] wherein [27] utilized SSVEP signals to complement P300 signal detection and classification accuracy, [28] used the characteristics of SSVEP signals to gauge the power of other ERP signals. Similar to BCIs in general, ErrPs have also been traditionally detected using spatial filtering techniques where accuracy ranges between 60-65% [29]. More recently, Reimannian-geometry-based methods have been very successful and have improved accuracy to about 75%). However, GUPTA does not expressly disclose a fast Fourier transform. In a similar field of endeavor, PETLEY discloses an input module coupled to (ii) a fast Fourier transform (FFT) module which is operably coupled to (iii) a wave band analysis module that employs Riemannian geometry- based signal classification (paragraph 34, 70). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify GUPTA to include the teachings of PETLEY, since the use of fast Fourier transforms is well known and conventional in the art and would allow calculations based on known algorithms. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional calculation methods based on those disclosed by PETLEY.
Regarding claim 5, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. The combination of GUPTA and PETLEY further discloses wherein the wave band analysis uses Riemannian geometry based signal classification system to generate commands that are sent to one or more devices or systems (GUPTA - paragraph 8, 11-13, 59-60, 129; PETLEY – paragraph 34).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NASER et al (US 2024/0335311) in view of PORIKLI et al (US 2008/0063285) and RUS et al (US 2020/0225053).
Regarding claim 6, NASER discloses a mobility system (abstract) comprising: a brain computer interface (BCI) configured to receive electroencephalograph (EEG) waveforms, analyze asynchronous event related potentials (ERP) EEG wave forms in a plurality of predetermined frequency ranges or band types forming a signal, and generate a command based on the signal generated by ERP analysis using classifiers (paragraph 56-59). However, NASER does not expressly disclose wherein the classifiers are Riemannian manifold classifiers. In a similar field of endeavor, PORIKLI discloses signal using Riemannian manifold classifiers (paragraph 24-27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify NASER to include the teachings of PORIKLI, since PORIKLI states that such a modification would allow defining various notions such as the length of curves, angles, areas or volumes, curvature, gradients of functions and divergence of vector fields. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional classification means based on those disclosed by PORIKLI. However, the combination of NASER and PORIKLI does not expressly disclose one or more environmental sensors comprising LiDAR and stereo camera sensors configured to receive active and passive information regarding an environment; a mobility platform comprising an intelligent powered wheelchair configured to receive input from the brain computer interface and the one or more environmental sensors via an embedded robot operating system (ROS) on a low-power GPU-enabled wireless hardware platform to regulate the function of the mobility platform through sensor fusion for autonomous navigation and obstacle avoidance. In a similar field of endeavor, RUS discloses one or more environmental sensors comprising LiDAR and stereo camera sensors 110 configured to receive active and passive information regarding an environment (paragraph 25-27,29); a mobility platform comprising an intelligent powered wheelchair configured to receive input from the brain computer interface and the one or more environmental sensors via an embedded robot operating system (ROS) on a low-power GPU-enabled wireless hardware platform to regulate the function of the mobility platform through sensor fusion for autonomous navigation and obstacle avoidance (paragraph 25-27,58; low-power GPU enabled wireless hardware platform are seen as a generic hardware components relating to processor and circuitry).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL A BALAOING whose telephone number is (571)272-7317. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4AM M-F.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at (571) 270-7230. 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.
/ARIEL A BALAOING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights