Ex Parte Mathan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 14, 201713307580 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/307,580 11/30/2011 Santosh Mathan H0031760 (002.2647) 1012 89955 7590 02/16/2017 HONEYWELL/LKGlobal Patent Services 115 Tabor Road P.O.Box 377 MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950 EXAMINER NOLAN, PETER D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3661 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/16/2017 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): patentservices-us @ honey well, com DL-ACS-SM-IP@Honeywell.com docketing @LKGlobal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SANTOSH MATHAN, KEVIN J. CONNER, and DENIZ ERDOGMUS Appeal 2015-003163 Application 13/307,580 Technology Center 3600 Before JOHN C. KERINS, BRANDON J. WARNER, and SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Santosh Mathan et al. (Appellants)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—12, and 14—19.2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Honeywell International, Inc. App. Br. 2. 2 Claims 2 and 13 are canceled. December 23, 2013 Amendment. Appeal 2015-003163 Application 13/307,580 SUMMARY OF INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to “a system and method for thought-enabled, hands-free control of relatively complex, multiple degree- of-freedoms systems.” Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below (with emphasis added) from page 16 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus for controlling a multiple degree-of- freedom system, comprising: a user interface configured to generate a plurality of visual stimuli to a user, the user having a physical visual system; a plurality of bioelectric sensors configured to obtain and supply a plurality of steady state visual evoked response potential (SSVEP) signals from the user when the user is receiving the stimuli; a processor coupled to receive the plurality of SSVEP signals from the bioelectric sensors and configured, upon receipt thereof, to determine a system command and supply a system command signal representative thereof; and a system controller coupled to receive the command signal and configured, upon receipt thereof, to generate a plurality of component commands that cause the multiple degree-of-freedom system to implement the system command, wherein the processor implements a dynamic model of the physical visual system of the user as a communication channel, the dynamic model representative of the dynamic behavior of the response of the physical visual system to the visual stimuli. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting the claims on appeal: Flaherty US 2007/0032738 A1 Feb. 8,2007 2 Appeal 2015-003163 Application 13/307,580 Deon Garrett et al., Comparison of Linear, Nonlinear, and Feature Selection Methods for EEC Signal Classification, in Vol. 11, No. 2 IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, June 2003, 141 (hereinafter “Garrett”) Wouter Pasman & Charles Woodward, Implementation of an Augmented Reality System on a PDA, in Proceedings of the Second IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, 2003 (hereinafter “Pasman”) Diana Valbuena et al., Brain-Computer Interface for High-Level Control of Rehabilitation Robotic Systems, in Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE 10th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics, June 12—15, 2007, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 619 (hereinafter “Valbuena”) Kouji Takano et al., Towards Intelligent Environments: An Augmented Reality-Brain-Machine Interface Operated with a See-Through Head- Mount Display, in Vol. 5, Art. 60 frontiers in NEUROSCIENCE, April 2011, 1 (hereinafter “Takano”) REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3—5, 11, 12, 14—17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Valbuena. Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Valbuena and Garret. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Valbuena and Takano. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Valbuena, Takano, and Pasman. Claims 10 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Valbuena and Flaherty. 3 Appeal 2015-003163 Application 13/307,580 ANALYSIS Anticipation Rejection Appellants argue claims 1, 3—5, 11, 12, 14—17, and 19 together. App. Br. 10-14. We select claim 1 as representative, treating claims 3—5, 11, 12, 14—17, and 19 as standing or falling with representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds that Valbuena discloses all of the elements of claim 1, including a processor that implements a dynamic model of a user’s physical visual system as a communication channel, the dynamic model being representative of the dynamic behavior of the response of the physical visual system to the visual stimuli. Final Act. 4—5 (citing, in relevant part, Valbuena, p. 620). The Examiner explains that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, Valbuena discloses a dynamic model because it discloses analyzing the user’s steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP) signals to determine on which light source a person’s focus is directed. Id. at 3; see also Ans. 2—6.3 Appellants traverse, arguing: In Valbuena, SSVEP responses are detected via application of a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) to detect frequency peaks. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the SSVEPs is then determined, and the largest SNR is used to determine which light source the user is focusing on. Clearly, this methodology is not even remotely related to implementing a dynamic model of the physical visual system of the user as a communication channel. App. Br. 10-11. 3 References herein to the Examiner’s Answer are to the second Examiner’s Answer mailed on December 4, 2014. 4 Appeal 2015-003163 Application 13/307,580 During examination, claim terms are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art and taking into account whatever enlightenment may be had from the Specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Pursuant to that standard, the claim language should be read in light of the Specification, as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Here, the Specification defines “visual system” as the user’s “eyes, retina, visual cortex, etc.” Spec. 120. The Specification explains that “[t]he visual system dynamic model 122 represents the dynamic behavior of the visual system of the user 110 in response to stimuli presented to the user on the visual user interface 102 display (input) and SSVEP signals measured by the EEG sensors 104.” Id. The Specification further explains: One particular advantage of using the dynamic system model 122 is that it may also be thought of as a communication channel through which bits representative of possible commands are transmitted. This concept is illustrated in FIG. 3. As such, information theory and modem coding theory used in digital communications may be employed. In particular, different flickering patterns (or coding schemes) for each visual stimulus 112 may be developed in order to achieve relatively higher, error-free bandwidths that approach the theoretical Shannon capacity of the communication channel. Id. 123. We agree with the Examiner’s interpretation (see Final Act. 5; Ans. 3 4) that the “wherein” clause of claim 1 requires that the recited dynamic model measures the user’s neural response to the visual stimuli and transmits information representative of this response to the processor. 5 Appeal 2015-003163 Application 13/307,580 We further agree with the Examiner (see Final Act. 5; Ans. 5—6) that Valbuena discloses such a dynamic model. As correctly noted by the Examiner, Valbuena discloses measuring SSVEP signals, which are a dynamic “resonance in the neuronal firing in the visual cortex of the brain.” Valbuena, p. 620. Valbuena further discloses analyzing the signals to infer which light source the user is looking at, and using this analysis to control movement of a multiple degree-of-freedom system. Id. Although Appellants correctly note that Valbuena discloses using a Fast Fourier Transform to process the SSVEP data (see App. Br. 10), Appellants fail to explain how such processing precludes the existence of a dynamic model that communicates the SSVEP data from the user to the processor for processing. We further note that although Appellants baldly assert that Valbuena does not disclose a dynamic model, Appellants do not offer a definition for “dynamic model” or a reasoned explanation supporting their assertion. Appellants’ conclusory arguments fail to apprise us of error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as of claims 3—5, 11, 12, 14—17, and 19 that fall with claim 1. Obviousness Rejections Appellants do not make any substantive argument regarding the rejection of dependent claims 6—10 and 18, and instead rely on the arguments made regarding claim 1 and discussed above. App. Br. 12—14. Therefore, we likewise sustain the rejection of dependent claims 6—10 and 18 for the same reasons as set forth above. 6 Appeal 2015-003163 Application 13/307,580 DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3—12, and 14—19 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation