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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10 January 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: A comma should be placed after the term “a memory” in line 6 of claim 18. Claim 18 recites the phrase “on the current epoch” in the sixth to last line. An epoch is a segment of time. It is unclear how a selection would be “on” a segment of time. The Examiner suggests amending the phrase to read “during the current epoch”. It is noted that the phrase “during the current epoch” is used elsewhere throughout the claim set.
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 18-21, 23-29, 31, 32, and 34-36 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. Regarding claim 18, the phrase “obtains at least two divided bio-signals” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by “divided bio-signals”. As best understood, the phrase is being interpreted such that multiplexed bio-signals are demultiplexed. Further regarding the limitation, it is unclear how bio-signals would be “divided” by frequency filtering. Clarification is requested. Claim 18 recites that the computing unit updates a reference covariance matrix during a current epoch t if it is determined that a multichannel bio-signal during the current epoch t does not comprise artifacts. It is unclear how the computing unit would update a reference covariance matrix during a current epoch t if it is determined that a multichannel bio-signal during the current epoch t does not comprise artifacts. In order to determine that a multichannel bio-signal does not comprise artifacts, time would need to pass between when the multichannel bio-signal is received (current epoch t) and when the actual determination is made. It is unclear how the reference covariance matrix would be updated based on an artifact determination during the same time period in which the artifact determination is being made. Claim 18 recites the phrase “for each of at least two selected bio-signals”. It is unclear if the at least two selected bio-signals are somehow related to the at least two divided bio-signals recited earlier in the claim. As there is no previous recitation of selecting bio-signals, the phrase lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 18 recites that the memory comprises a sequence of at least one reference covariance matrix, and mean values and standard deviation values of Riemannian distances obtained during previous epochs. It is unclear what a “sequence” of at least one reference covariance matrix, and mean values and standard deviation values is. Claim 18 recites that the computing unit “selects at least two selected bio-signals, during at least one selection, among said at least two divided bio-signals”. It is unclear if “at least two selected bio-signals” is referring back to the “for each of at least two selected bio-signals” recited earlier in the claim. The phrase “selects at least two selected bio-signals” is also indefinite in that it is unclear if a bio-signal is being selected twice. The phrase “selected bio-signals” implies that bio-signals have already been selected. Claim 18 recites that the computing unit selects the at least two selected bio-signals by “selecting at least two subsets of channels from said multichannel bio-signal”. This phrase renders the claim indefinite in that the claim previously recites obtaining at least two divided bio-signals “either by selecting a subset of channels from the multichannel bio-signal or by frequency filtering the multichannel bio-signal”. It is unclear how/if these two limitations are connected. Is the selecting step performed by the computing unit the same as or different than the dividing step recited earlier in the claim? If, according to the earlier limitation, the multichannel bio-signal is divided into at least two divided bio-signals based on frequency filtering, does the computing unit still select the at least two selected-bio-signals by selecting at least two subsets of channels from said multichannel bio-signal? Clarification is requested. Claim 18 recites that a current Riemannian distance is calculated between a current covariance matrix and “the at least one reference covariance matrix”. A difference is calculated between two values. If more than one reference covariance matrix is present, how is the Riemannian distance calculated? A distance can be computed between one current covariance matrix and one reference covariance matrix, but not between one current covariant matrix and two, three, four, etc., reference covariance matrices. Regarding the “computes an intermediary index” limitation, it remains unclear what is meant by “of said Riemannian distances obtained during the previous epochs from said memory for which the computed intermediary index was lower than the first threshold during said previous epochs”. Claim 18 finally recites that the multichannel bio-signal comprises artifacts if “said computed intermediary index” is not lower than “the first threshold”, or “said computed current signal quality index” is lower than “the second threshold”. Based on amendments to the claim, there are multiple computed intermediary indices, multiple first thresholds, multiple computed current signal quality indices, and multiple second thresholds. It is unclear to which of the plurality of indices/thresholds the singular recitations in the claim are referring. It is noted that claim 32 includes many of the same indefiniteness issues as those discussed with regard to claim 18 above. Claim 23 recites the phrase “the lastly updated reference covariance matrix”. This phrase lacks proper antecedent basis. It is suggested that the phrase be amended to read “a lastly updated reference covariance matrix”. Claim 23 recites the phrase “the updated reference covariance matrix corresponding to the epoch t+1. This phrase lacks proper antecedent basis as there is no previous positive recitation of an updated reference covariance matrix at epoch t+1. Claim 31 recites “the current signal quality index associated with the current epoch t” (singular). This phrase lacks proper antecedent basis as claim 18 results in multiple “current signal quality index” values associated with the current epoch t.
Claims not explicitly rejected above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 December 2024 been fully considered and they are not fully persuasive. Amendments made to the claims have overcome some of the indefiniteness issues within the claims, but several indefiniteness issues remain. The remaining indefiniteness issues are discussed in paragraph 5 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Similowski et al.’745 (US Pub No. 2015/0119745 – previously cited) teaches calculating the Riemannian distance between two matrices in order to detect a physiological state of a patient. Barachant et al.’780 (US Pub No. 2012/0071780 – previously cited) teaches a method of EEG signal analysis wherein neural signal acquisition electrodes (EEG electrodes) are selected based on the Riemann geometry of covariance matrices of EEG signals. Boudet et al.’078 (WO 2011/004078 – previously cited) teaches analyzing multichannel EEG signals by calculating the covariance matrices of the multichannel signals over two time-frequency windows. Silva et al. (Feature Extraction Improvements… – previously cited) teaches improving the classification of EEG signals by using Riemannian distances between correlation matrices. Barachant et al. (Channel Selection Procedure… – previously cited) teaches selecting a subset of EEG electrodes based on the Riemannian distance between spatial covariance matrices. Yger et al. (Riemannian Approaches in Brain-Computer Interfaces… – previously cited) provides an overview of different Riemannian geometry approaches in Brain-Computer Interfaces up to the year 2017. As noted on page 2 of the Applicant’s specification, Barachant et al. (The Riemannian potato:… – previously cited) teaches computing the Riemannian distance between a current covariance matrix and an reference covariance metric mean, and computing a z-score (signal quality index) of the distance, wherein if the z-score is lower than a given threshold, the signal is considered normal (free from artifact) and if the z-score is higher than the threshold, the signal is considered to contain artifact. Mayaud et al. (Robust Brain-computer Interface… – previously cited) teaches determining whether an EEG signal belongs to an artifact free state or not by determining a distance between covariance matrices and taking into account a mean and standard deviation of distances between matrices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETSUB D BERHANU whose telephone number is (571)270-5410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:30pm EST.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/ETSUB D BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights