DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12346500 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as shown below which shows the pending claims are merely broader versions of the patented claims. Only claim mapping of claim 1 will be shown as the other two claims are similarly rejected.
Claim 1 of pending application
Claim 1 of Patent US 12346500 B1
A method comprising: collecting, by an electromyograph (EMG) communication device, a first set of EMG signals over a first time interval;
A method comprising: collecting, by an electromyograph (EMG) communication device used by a user, a first set of EMG signals over a first time interval;
generating a first plurality of features based on the first set of EMG signals;
generating a first plurality of features based on the first set of EMG signals;
generating a first probability associated with presence of inner speech by processing the first plurality of features with a machine learning (ML) model;
generating a first probability associated with presence of inner speech by processing the first plurality of features with a machine learning (ML) model;
comparing the first probability generated by the ML model to a specified threshold;
and detecting presence of the inner speech based on the first probability generated by the ML model.
and detecting presence of the inner speech of the user in response to determining that the first probability generated by the ML model transgresses the specified threshold.
Claims 2-20 of underlying application are similarly rejected over claims 2-20 of Patent 12346500 B1 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kothari et al. (US 20240221741 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kothari teaches a method comprising: collecting, by an electromyograph (EMG) communication device used by a user, a first set of EMG signals over a first time interval; (Para 7, 66. Fig. 3 wherein the plurality of sensors comprises: a plurality of EMG electrodes configured to record signals at a check of the user associated with movement of facial muscles of the user)
generating a first plurality of features based on the first set of EMG signals; (Para 56, 116: the first plurality of features are the signal used to determined presence of the silent speech which is partly based on EMG signals .)
generating a first probability associated with presence of inner speech by processing the first plurality of features with a machine learning (ML) model; (Para 116-117: In the standby 2 state, the machine learning model may also output a probability distribution of the likelihood the user is speaking words or phrases or has performed a speech related action.)
and detecting presence of the inner speech of the user based on the first probability generated by the ML model. (Para 116-117. In the standby 2 state, the machine learning model may also output a probability distribution of the likelihood the user is speaking words or phrases or has performed a speech related action.)
Regarding claim 19 and 20, refer to rejection for claim 1 as they are apparatus and product claim version of method claim 1 respectively. (Para 58 and 120 of Kothari discloses processor and memory).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kothari et al. (US 20240221741 A1), further in view of Pan et al. (US 20230309864 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kothari already teaches the method of claim 1,
However Kothari does not teach further comprising: filtering the first set of EMG signals to reduce interference noise and to remove low frequency components of the first set of EMG signals.
However Pan teaches further comprising: filtering the first set of EMG signals to reduce interference noise and to remove low frequency components of the first set of EMG signals. (Para 61-63)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kothari with Pan to teach filtering the first set of EMG signals to reduce interference noise and to remove low frequency components of the first set of EMG signals in order to enhance the silent speech accuracy by filtering out undesirable signals.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kothari et al. (US 20240221741 A1, provisionally filed 1/4/2023), further in view of Pan et al. (US 20230309864 A1), further in view of Caparso et al. (US 20240165411 A1, provisionally filed 11/23/2022 and 1/4/2023).
Regarding claim 6, Kothari and Pan already teach the method of claim 5,
However Kothari and Pan do not teach further comprising: generating the first plurality of features by extracting at least one of temporal or spectral features from the first set of EMG signals that have been filtered.
However Caparso teaches generating the first plurality of features by extracting at least one of temporal or spectral features from the first set of EMG signals that have been filtered. (Para 46)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kothari and Pan with Caparso to each generating the first plurality of features by extracting at least one of temporal or spectral features from the first set of EMG signals that have been filtered in order to analyze the change of EMG signals over time to detect silent speech occurrence.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kothari et al. (US 20240221741 A1, provisionally filed 1/4/2023), further in view of Garg et al. (US 20240221738 A1, provisionally filed 01/04/2023)
Regarding claim 12, Kothari already teaches the method of claim 1,
However Kothari does not teach further comprising controlling an extended reality (XR) experience based on the detected inner speech.
However Garg teaches controlling an extended reality (XR) experience based on the detected inner speech. (Para 61, 69, 97-99)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kothari with Garg to teach comprising controlling an extended reality (XR) experience based on the detected inner speech in order further enhance the XR experience with silent speech input function.
Regarding claim 13, Kothari already teaches the method of claim 1,
However Kothari does not teach further comprising presenting an indication that inner speech has been detected in response to detecting presence of the inner speech.
However Garg teaches comprising presenting an indication that inner speech has been detected in response to detecting presence of the inner speech. (Para 67. The activation of the applications are the indication)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kothari with Garg to teach comprising presenting an indication that inner speech has been detected in response to detecting presence of the inner speech in order to further enhance the functionality of the device with voice activated functions.
Regarding claim 14,Kothari already teaches the method of claim 1, However Kothari does not teach further comprising activating a function of an interaction client in response to detecting the inner speech.
However Garg teaches activating a function of an interaction client in response to detecting the inner speech. (Para 61, 69, 97-99)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kothari with Garg to teach activating a function of an interaction client in response to detecting the inner speech in order further enhance the XR experience with silent speech input function.
Regarding claim 15, Kothari and Garg already teach the method of claim 14, and Garg further teaches wherein the function comprises capturing an image or video by a camera of a user system coupled to the EMG communication device. (Para 67. This means that the voice can be used to activate camera to take picture.)
Regarding claim 16, Kothari and Garg already teach the method of claim 15, and Garg further teaches wherein the user system comprises extended reality (XR) glasses. (Para 44)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANG LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached on 571-272-3017. 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.
/HANG LIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights