DETAILED ACTION
This Final action is in response to an amendment filed 6/12/2026. Currently claims 15-26 are pending.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the user interface is configured to present, via the host device, activated end applications and deactivated end applications from among the plurality of end applications”. It is unclear from the claim language whether the user interface or the host device are presenting the activated end application and deactivated end applications. For the purpose of examination, the “user interface” was not given patentable weight such that the presentation is via the host device.
Dependent claim 23 inherit the issues of parent claim 22.
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 15, 20-21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller in US 2019/0073605 (hereinafter Keller) in view of John et al. in US 2019/0038438 (hereinafter John).
Regarding claim 15, Keller disclose a method of controlling a plurality of end applications (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair) using a universal switch module (Keller’s par. 47: see headset 300) comprising a brain-computer interface (Keller’s par. 47: see 300) and a host device (Keller’s Figs. 1-2 and par. 52), the method comprising: recording (Keller’s par. 51: biosignal captured), with a neural interface of the brain-computer interface (Keller’s par. 51: headset), neural signals when the individual generates a thought of moving a body part (Keller’s par. 47: thought of moving a tongue, lifting right toe), wherein the thought (Keller’s par. 47: thought of moving a tongue, lifting right toe) is task-irrelevant to at least one task (Keller’s Fig. 1 and par. 47, 51, e.g. move left block upward on the screen) performed by the plurality of end applications (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair),
transmitting (Keller’s par. 72), from the brain-computer interface (Keller’s Fig. 1 and par. 72: transmitted from 314 in 300) to the host device (Keller’s par. 72: computer 309), data representing the neural signals (Keller’s par. 72: digital signals from analog biosignals); determining, by a processor of the host device (Keller’s par. 72: computer 309), that the neural signals (Keller’s par. 71-72: biosignals) match a stored (Keller’s par. 47: classifiers stored in database) calibrated signature (Keller’s par. 71: calibrated thought as brain switch) for the thought (Keller’s par. 71: identifying biosignals [the neural signals] with a specific brain switch [ calibrated signature]); and accessing, by the processor (Keller’s par. 49: computer 309), an electronic database (Keller’s Fig. 1 and par. 49: database 102) storing a mapping (Keller’s par. 50: storing classifiers) that maps the stored calibrated signature as a universal switch (Keller’s par. 49-50: map biosignal to a brain switch) to both: a first input command (Keller’s par. 117: navigate to a predetermined webpage) of a first end application (Keller’s par. 117: web browser); and a second input command (Keller’s par. 117: physically move a wheelchair closer toward a lock) of a second end application (Keller’s par. 117: Bluetooth-controlled lock), wherein the first end application (Keller’s par. 117: web browser) and the second end application (Keller’s par. 117: Bluetooth-controlled lock) are independently operable end applications of the plurality of end applications (Keller’s par. 117: the Bluetooth-controlled lock is independent from web browsing), and wherein the mapping is assignable and reassignable (Keller’s par. 112: brain switch is reassigned according to context) so that the stored calibrated signature for the thought (Keller’s par. 112: brain switch) is assignable to any input command of any end application (Keller’s par. 112-116: assignment of different contexts) of the plurality of end applications (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair), including input commands of third-party end applications (Keller’s par. 47: e.g. Netflix®, Gmail®, Wall Street Journal Online®).
Keller fails to disclose the BCI implanted in an individual, the recording of the neural signals with an implanted neural interface, the mapping assigning and reassigning through a user interface or an application programming interface.
However, Keller does disclose the individual using the method being able to add context maps (Keller’s par. 118), the computer interacting with the user through a user interface (Keller’s Figs. 11 and par. 98: providing feedback on a GUI to the user), remoted devices loading additional context maps (Keller’s par. 115). Furthermore, the office takes official notice that it is well-known in the art that APIs are used for communication with remote devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that the mapping assigning and reassigning is performed through a user interface or an API, in order to obtain the intended result of enabling the user to add context maps (Keller’s par. 118) by an already disclosed technology of interacting wit the user (Keller’s Figs. 11 and par. 98: GUI), and the predictable result of known methods of communication with remote devices (common knowledge of API use for remote devices of Keller’s par. 105).
Still, Keller fails to disclose the BCI implanted in an individual, the recording of the neural signals with an implanted neural interface.
Nevertheless, in the same field of endeavor of BCIs, John discloses that as alternative to a wearable, the BCI is implanted (John’s par. 5) and the recording of the neural signals with an implanted neural interface (John’s par. 5).
Thus, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Keller’s method is used with an implanted BCI (as taught by John’s par. 5), in order to obtain the benefit of using the method with a device with much better signal to noise rations than scalp electrodes (John’s par. 5).
By doing such combination, Keller in view of John disclose:
A method of controlling a plurality of end applications (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair) using a universal switch module (Keller’s par. 47: see headset 300) comprising a brain-computer interface (Keller’s par. 47: see 300) implanted in an individual and a host device (Keller’s Figs. 1-2 and par. 52: headset which upon combination includes implanted electrodes per John’s par. 5), the method comprising:
recording (Keller’s par. 51: biosignal captured), with an implanted neural interface of the brain-computer interface (Keller’s par. 51: headset which upon combination includes implanted electrodes per John’s par. 5), neural signals when the individual generates a thought of moving a body part (Keller’s par. 47: thought of moving a tongue, lifting right toe),
wherein the thought (Keller’s par. 47: thought of moving a tongue, lifting right toe) is task-irrelevant to at least one task (Keller’s Fig. 1 and par. 47, 51, e.g. move left block upward on the screen) performed by the plurality of end applications (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair),
transmitting (Keller’s par. 72), from the brain-computer interface (Keller’s Fig. 1 and par. 72: transmitted from 314 in 300) to the host device (Keller’s par. 72: computer 309), data representing the neural signals (Keller’s par. 72: digital signals from analog biosignals);
determining, by a processor of the host device (Keller’s par. 72: computer 309), that the neural signals (Keller’s par. 71-72: biosignals) match a stored (Keller’s par. 47: classifiers stored in database) calibrated signature (Keller’s par. 71: calibrated thought as brain switch) for the thought (Keller’s par. 71: identifying biosignals [the neural signals] with a specific brain switch [ calibrated signature]); and
accessing, by the processor (Keller’s par. 49: computer 309), an electronic database (Keller’s Fig. 1 and par. 49: database 102) storing a mapping (Keller’s par. 50: storing classifiers) that maps the stored calibrated signature as a universal switch (Keller’s par. 49-50: map biosignal to a brain switch) to both:
a first input command (Keller’s par. 117: navigate to a predetermined webpage) of a first end application (Keller’s par. 117: web browser); and
a second input command (Keller’s par. 117: physically move a wheelchair closer toward a lock) of a second end application (Keller’s par. 117: Bluetooth-controlled lock), wherein the first end application (Keller’s par. 117: web browser) and the second end application (Keller’s par. 117: Bluetooth-controlled lock) are independently operable end applications of the plurality of end applications (Keller’s par. 117: the Bluetooth-controlled lock is independent from web browsing), and
wherein the mapping is assignable and reassignable (Keller’s par. 112: brain switch is reassigned according to context) through a user interface (Keller’s par. 118: additional context maps added by user which upon combination is using the already available user interface of Keller’s Figs. 11 and par. 98) or an application programming interface (Keller’s par. 115: additional context maps loaded from remote computing devices, thus implying the use of an API for communication with the remove computing device) so that the stored calibrated signature for the thought (Keller’s par. 112: brain switch) is assignable to any input command of any end application (Keller’s par. 112-116: assignment of different contexts) of the plurality of end applications (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair), including input commands of third-party end applications (Keller’s par. 47: e.g. Netflix®, Gmail®, Wall Street Journal Online®).
Regarding claim 21, Keller in view of John disclose a brain-computer interface system (Keller’s par. 47: see 300) configured to control a plurality of end applications (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair) using a universal switch module (Keller’s par. 47: see headset 300), the brain-computer interface system comprising: a neural interface of a brain-computer interface (Keller’s par. 51: headset) configured to record neural signals (Keller’s par. 51: biosignal captured) when an individual generates a thought of moving a body part (Keller’s par. 47: thought of moving a tongue, lifting right toe), wherein the thought (Keller’s par. 47: thought of moving a tongue, lifting right toe) is task-irrelevant to at least one task (Keller’s Fig. 1 and par. 47, 51, e.g. move left block upward on the screen) performed by the plurality of end applications (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair), the brain-computer interface configured to transmit (Keller’s Fig. 1 and par. 72: transmitted from 314 in 300), to a host device (Keller’s par. 72: computer 309) comprising a processor (Keller’s par. 72: computer 309), data representing the neural signals (Keller’s par. 72: digital signals from analog biosignals); an electronic database (Keller’s Fig. 1 and par. 49: database 102) storing a mapping (Keller’s par. 50: storing classifiers) that maps a stored calibrated signature for the thought as a universal switch (Keller’s par. 49-50: map biosignal to a brain switch) to both: a first input command (Keller’s par. 117: navigate to a predetermined webpage) of a first end application (Keller’s par. 117: web browser), and a second input command (Keller’s par. 117: physically move a wheelchair closer toward a lock) of a second end application (Keller’s par. 117: Bluetooth-controlled lock); and the processor (Keller’s par. 49: computer 309) configured to determine that the neural signals (Keller’s par. 71-72: biosignals) match the stored (Keller’s par. 47: classifiers stored in database) calibrated signature (Keller’s par. 71: calibrated thought as brain switch) for the thought (Keller’s par. 71: identifying biosignals [the neural signals] with a specific brain switch [ calibrated signature]), wherein the first end application (Keller’s par. 117: web browser) and the second end application (Keller’s par. 117: Bluetooth-controlled lock) are independently operable end applications of the plurality of end applications (Keller’s par. 117: the Bluetooth-controlled lock is independent from web browsing), and wherein the mapping is assignable and reassignable (Keller’s par. 112: brain switch is reassigned according to context) so that the stored calibrated signature for the thought (Keller’s par. 112: brain switch) is assignable to any input command of any end application (Keller’s par. 112-116: assignment of different contexts) of the plurality of end applications (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair), including input commands of third-party end applications (Keller’s par. 47: e.g. Netflix®, Gmail®, Wall Street Journal Online®).
Keller fails to disclose an implanted neural interface of a BCI, the mapping assigning and reassigning through a user interface or an application programming interface.
However, Keller does disclose the individual using the method being able to add context maps (Keller’s par. 118), the computer interacting with the user through a user interface (Keller’s Figs. 11 and par. 98: providing feedback on a GUI to the user), remoted devices loading additional context maps (Keller’s par. 115). Furthermore, the office takes official notice that it is well-known in the art that APIs are used for communication with remote devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that the mapping assigning and reassigning is performed through a user interface or an API, in order to obtain the intended result of enabling the user to add context maps (Keller’s par. 118) by an already disclosed technology of interacting wit the user (Keller’s Figs. 11 and par. 98: GUI), and the predictable result of known methods of communication with remote devices (common knowledge of API use for remote devices of Keller’s par. 105).
Still, Keller fails to disclose an implanted neural interface of a BCI.
Nevertheless, in the same field of endeavor of BCIs, John discloses that as alternative to a wearable, the BCI is implanted (John’s par. 5).
Thus, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Keller’s method is used with an implanted BCI (as taught by John’s par. 5), in order to obtain the benefit of using the method with a device with much better signal to noise rations than scalp electrodes (John’s par. 5).
By doing such combination, Keller in view of John disclose:
A brain-computer interface system (Keller’s par. 47: see 300) configured to control a plurality of end applications (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair) using a universal switch module (Keller’s par. 47: see headset 300), the brain-computer interface system comprising:
an implanted neural interface of a brain-computer interface (Keller’s par. 51: headset which upon combination includes implanted electrodes per John’s par. 5) configured to record neural signals (Keller’s par. 51: biosignal captured) when an individual generates a thought of moving a body part (Keller’s par. 47: thought of moving a tongue, lifting right toe),
wherein the thought (Keller’s par. 47: thought of moving a tongue, lifting right toe) is task-irrelevant to at least one task (Keller’s Fig. 1 and par. 47, 51, e.g. move left block upward on the screen) performed by the plurality of end applications (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair),
the brain-computer interface configured to transmit (Keller’s Fig. 1 and par. 72: transmitted from 314 in 300), to a host device (Keller’s par. 72: computer 309) comprising a processor (Keller’s par. 72: computer 309), data representing the neural signals (Keller’s par. 72: digital signals from analog biosignals);
an electronic database (Keller’s Fig. 1 and par. 49: database 102) storing a mapping (Keller’s par. 50: storing classifiers) that maps a stored calibrated signature for the thought as a universal switch (Keller’s par. 49-50: map biosignal to a brain switch) to both:
a first input command (Keller’s par. 117: navigate to a predetermined webpage) of a first end application (Keller’s par. 117: web browser), and
a second input command (Keller’s par. 117: physically move a wheelchair closer toward a lock) of a second end application (Keller’s par. 117: Bluetooth-controlled lock); and
the processor (Keller’s par. 49: computer 309) configured to determine that the neural signals (Keller’s par. 71-72: biosignals) match the stored (Keller’s par. 47: classifiers stored in database) calibrated signature (Keller’s par. 71: calibrated thought as brain switch) for the thought (Keller’s par. 71: identifying biosignals [the neural signals] with a specific brain switch [ calibrated signature]),
wherein the first end application (Keller’s par. 117: web browser) and the second end application (Keller’s par. 117: Bluetooth-controlled lock) are independently operable end applications of the plurality of end applications (Keller’s par. 117: the Bluetooth-controlled lock is independent from web browsing), and
wherein the mapping is assignable and reassignable (Keller’s par. 112: brain switch is reassigned according to context) through a user interface (Keller’s par. 118: additional context maps added by user which upon combination is using the already available user interface of Keller’s Figs. 11 and par. 98) or an application programming interface (Keller’s par. 115: additional context maps loaded from remote computing devices, thus implying the use of an API for communication with the remove computing device) so that the stored calibrated signature for the thought (Keller’s par. 112: brain switch) is assignable to any input command of any end application (Keller’s par. 112-116: assignment of different contexts) of the plurality of end applications (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair), including input commands of third-party end applications (Keller’s par. 47: e.g. Netflix®, Gmail®, Wall Street Journal Online®).
Regarding claims 20 and 26, Keller in view of John wherein the implanted neural interface (John’s par. 5) comprises one or more electrodes implanted through a vascular tissue of a brain of the individual (John’s par. 116: electrodes 131 in contact with vessel) proximate to a motor cortex or a sensory cortex of the individual (John’s par. 93, 195: adjacent to motor cortex).
Claims 16-18 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller in view of John as applied above, in further view of Durland et al. in US 2003/0021405 (hereinafter Durland).
Regarding claims 16 and 22, Keller in view of John fail to disclose presenting, via the host device, activated end applications and deactivated end applications from among the plurality of end applications. [the user interface of claim 22 was not given patentable weight for examination, please see above 112b rejection for further details].
However, in the related field of transmitting information through a network, Durland discloses presenting, via a host device, activated end applications and deactivated end applications from among a plurality of end applications (Durland’s par. 41: content relay system [presented by host device] is informed whether a recipient device [end applications] is in working order [activated] or inactive [deactivated] for content transmission of Fig. 3 step 276).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Keller’s method includes presenting, via the host device (Keller’s par. 72: computer 309), activated end applications and deactivated end applications (Keller’s par. 72: computer 309 presents information regarding whether a recipient device is in working order or inactive upon combination with Durland’s par. 41) from among the plurality of end applications (Keller’s par. 54, 116-119: applications, e.g. browsers, camera, Bluetooth-controlled lock by wheelchair);
in order to obtain the benefit of skipping transmission of content to inactive recipient devices (Durland’s par. 41).
Regarding claims 17 and 23, Keller in view of John and Durland disclose wherein the deactivated end applications (Durland’s par. 41: inactive) are delinked from the host device (Durland’s par. 41: content relay system [host device] skips them during transmission of a content system) so that the processor does not associate neural signals with thoughts assigned to the deactivated end applications (intended use, as a result of delinking)(Durland’s par. 41: skipping transmission of a content item which results in the application not receiving the context commands of Keller’s par. 112).
Regarding claims 18 and 24, Keller in view of John fail to disclose determining, by the processor, that the first end application and the second end application are activated end applications.
However, in the related field of transmitting information through a network, Durland discloses determining by a processor whether an end application is active (Durland’s par. 41: whether a recipient device is in working order for content transmission of Fig. 3 step 276).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Keller in view of John’s processor (Keller’s par. 72: computer 309) to determine whether the end applications are active (Durland’s par. 41: in working order for content transmission of Fig. 3 step 276), in order to obtain the benefit of skipping transmission of content to inactive recipient devices (Durland’s par. 41).
By doing such combination Keller in view of John and Durland disclose:
determining, by the processor (Keller’s par. 72: computer 309), that the first end application (Keller’s par. 112: control of mobile device) and the second end application (Keller’s par. 113: internet browser) are activated end applications (upon combination with Durland’s par. 41: whether the end applications are active for content transmission, such as whether the mobile device is active to control the volume, or whether the internet browser is active for playback vide of Keller’s par. 112-113) and that the first input command (Keller’s par. 112: volume control) and the second input command (Keller’s par. 112-113: playback video in browser) have both been triggered by a match between one or more features of the neural signals (Keller’s par. 112: through of closing their right hand) and the stored calibrated signature (Keller’s par. 112: first brain switch of closing their right hand).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 25 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to disclose the limitations of claims 19 and 25, in addition to their corresponding independent claims.
The closest prior art to Keller does not disclose the limitations of claims 19 and 25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 15 and 21 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.
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 Liliana Cerullo whose telephone number is (571)270-5882. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM to 3PM MT.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/LILIANA CERULLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights