DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed 21 November 2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 21, 23-24, 29-31, 34, 39 and 41 is/are currently amended. Claim(s) 1-20, 22, 25-28, 32-33 and 35-38 has/have been canceled. Claim(s) 21, 23-24, 29-31, 34 and 39-41 is/are pending.
Rejections Withdrawn
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph) and/or under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph) not reproduced below has/have been withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendments to the claims and/or submitted remarks.
Claim Interpretation
In view of Applicant's amendments to the claims, none of the limitations of the pending claims have been interpreted to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 21, 23-24, 27, 29-31, 34, 37 and 39-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 21, claim 31 and claims dependent thereon, Applicant discloses initially presenting EEG data in a "truncated version" shows only selected portions of the EEG data with the remaining (i.e., unselected) portions being hidden from view, wherein a truncation bar may be displayed between two selected portions. Specifically, Applicant discloses, "FIG. 23 shows an illustrative display screen (e.g., display 412 (FIG. 4)) featuring a truncated display of EEG data. For example, in some embodiments, in order to facilitate review of select EEG data, the guidance application may present the EEG data in a truncated version. The truncated version may show only selected portions of EEG data with the remaining portions being hidden from view. Accordingly, the guidance application provides an interface through which a practitioner can easily review only the most relevant portions of the EEG data. The guidance application may generate for display truncation bar 2302 on region 2300, which indicates the order between two selected portions." (¶¶ [0097]-[0098]). Accordingly, the limitations "receiving an initial user selection of at least a portion of the displayed EEG data in at least one of the separate channels, wherein the initial user selected EEG data identifies a portion of the EEG data in the at least one of the separate channels to be subjected to a truncated display relative to a remaining portion of the EEG data in the at least one of the separate channels; displaying on the display device the initial user selected EEG data in a first region of the graphical user interface and displaying in a second region of the graphical user interface, the remaining portion of the EEG data; displaying a truncation bar at a first position relative to the EEG data, wherein the truncation bar visually indicates a border between the first region and the second region" of claim 21, and the comparable limitations of claim 31, lack sufficient support in the application as filed. Specifically, Applicant does not disclose an initial truncated display in which user selected EEG data is displayed in a first region of a GUI and "the remaining portion of the EEG data" (i.e., EEG data that was not selected) is displayed in a second region of the GUI. Rather, as noted above, Applicant discloses the truncated display only shows selected portions of the EEG data. Alternatively stated, as noted in the prior Office action (e.g., pg. 4), Fig. 23, and the remainder of Applicant's originally-filed disclosure, lacks a "second region" as recited in the present claims (i.e., no region of the display of Fig. 23 is described as displaying "remaining portions of the EEG data," but expressly discloses the unselected or remaining portions are not displayed, or "hidden from view").
The limitations "receiving a user input for sliding the truncation bar horizontally on the display device, wherein said sliding causes the truncation bar to move to a second position relative to the EEG data and wherein the second position is different than the first position; and in response to said movement of the truncation bar to the second position, triggering adjustment to the truncated display of EEG data, comprising (a) revealing EEG data that was not included in the initial user selected EEG data and modifying an amount of EEG data displayed in the first region and (b) modifying an amount of the remaining portion of EEG data displayed in the second region" of claim 21 and the comparable limitations of claim 31 further lack support in the application as filed.
With respect to Figure 24, Applicant discloses, "The guidance application further allows unselected EEG data to be intuitively explored while its relation to the selected EEG is preserved. For example, as shown in FIG. 24, the guidance application may receive a user input (e.g., via user input interface 410 (FIG. 4)) that triggers adjustment to a truncated display of EEG data. For example, the guidance application may allow a user to interactively slide truncation bar 2402 about region 2400 to reveal EEG that was not included in a selectable portion" (¶ [0098]). Accordingly, Applicant discloses sliding the truncation bar can cause previously hidden, or the unselected "remaining" portions of the EEG data to be displayed. As discussed in a prior Office action (mailed 20 September 2024, hereinafter "2nd Final Rejection," see pgs. 4-9), Fig. 24 appears to illustrate movement of the truncation bar to the right (relative to its position in Fig. 23) results in showing less of one of the displayed selected portions (i.e., the selected portion displayed to the right of the truncation bar). Based on the visual appearance of the waveforms in the figures, Fig. 24 further appears to indicate the movement of the truncation bar to the right did not change its relative position with respect to the data to the right thereof (i.e., truncation bar appears to remain approximately the same distance/amount of time from the prominent peaks to the right thereof in both Figs. 23 and 24). However, Applicant neither describes, nor is it readily apparent, what the data to the left of the truncation bar in Fig. 24 represents, particularly relative to the data displayed in this region in Fig. 23, and/or how movement of the truncation bar affects what data is or is not displayed in said region, the order in which data is revealed on or hidden the display, etc. Specifically, Applicant fails to disclose and/or clearly identify what data of Figure 24 is newly displayed, relative to the display of Figure 23. See, for example, multiple possible interpretations of Figs. 23-24 described in the 2nd Final Rejection (pgs. 6-7).
In previously-described "Interpretation 1," the truncation bar moves with the EEG data (not "relative to the EEG data," as presently claimed). In "Interpretation 2," the truncation bar moves "relative to" some EEG data, though it is not readily apparent which EEG data. As discussed in the 2nd Final Rejection, under Interpretation 2, it is further unclear in what manner the guidance application, or truncation bar thereof, preserves a relation between the unselected and selected EEG, as described in ¶ [0098] of the specification. While the truncation bar may preserve such a relation with respect to selected EEG on one side of the bar, the truncation bar does not clearly preserve said relationship with respect to the selected EEG initially located on the other side of the bar (i.e., data displayed to the left of the bar in Fig. 23). If moving the truncation bar to the right displays data immediately following the data initially displayed in the "second region" (i.e., the selected EEG portion to the left of the bar), it is unclear how the guidance application or truncation bar "preserves" the relationship between the left selected EEG data, and any now revealed, previously hidden data, as the truncation bar is no longer delineating the initially selected data and the newly-revealed EEG data. Additionally, presuming the latter interpretation, Applicant fails to disclose how and/or the manner in which the display of data would change, relative to Fig. 24, if the truncation bar is moved to the left. Does such movement result in the unselected portion that was revealed in the movement of the truncation bar to the right (i.e., from Fig. 23 to 24) being hidden again; does the revealed unselected data remain revealed and additional initially unselected data immediately preceding the selected EEG data to the right of the truncation bar is displayed; etc.? Accordingly, since Applicant discloses the guidance application preserves the relation between unselected and selected EEG data (¶ [0098]), the above-noted limitations reciting causing the truncation bar "to move to a second position relative to the EEG data" lack sufficient support in the application as filed. Lastly, while Applicant broadly discloses, "the guidance application may provide options for incrementally increasing or decreasing the amount of EEG data that is truncated" (¶ [0017]), Applicant does not sufficiently disclose sliding the truncation bar, or incrementally increasing/decreasing the amount of EEG data that is truncated by "modifying an amount of EEG data displayed in the first region and (b) modifying an amount of the remaining portion of EEG data displayed in the second region" as required by the pending independent claims. Rather, as noted above, it is not readily apparent sliding the truncation bar changes the display of data to either the left or right thereof.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Claim(s) 21, 23-24, 27, 29-31, 34, 37 and 39-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 21, claim 31 and claims dependent thereon, the limitation(s) "displaying a truncation bar at a first position relative to the EEG data…wherein said sliding causes the truncation bar to move to a second position relative to the EEG data" of claim 21 and the comparable limitation(s) of claim 31 are indefinite. It is unclear to what each occurrence of "the EEG data" refers, the user-selected EEG data, the remaining portions of the EEG data, either the user-selected EEG data or the remaining EEG data, or both.
Additionally, the limitation "revealing EEG data that was not included in the initial user selected EEG data and modifying an amount of EEG data displayed in the first region" of claim 21 and the comparable limitation of claim 31 are indefinite. The relationship between "EEG data that was not included in the initial user selected EEG data" and the previously-recited "remaining portion of the EEG data" is unclear. The prior limitations of the claim appear to define the "remaining portion of the EEG data" as any/all EEG data that was not included in the initial user selection of EEG. However, the prior claims also indicate said "remaining portion" is already displayed in the second region of the GUI. Accordingly, it is unclear to what data "EEG data that was not included in the initial user selected EEG data" is to be "revealed" in response to movement of the truncation bar.
The limitations "revealing EEG data that was not included in the initial user selected EEG data and modifying an amount of EEG data displayed in the first region and (b) modifying an amount of the remaining portion of EEG data displayed in the second region" of claim 21 and the comparable limitation of claim 31 are further unclear. Each of claims 21 and 31 require truncation bar to be/visually indicate the border between the first and second regions of the GUI. Accordingly, sliding the bar in either direction horizontally (left or right) necessarily increases the size of one of the first or second region while decreasing the other of the first or second region, and modifies the "amount of EEG data displayed" in each region. Alternatively stated, even without any change to what actual EEG data is presented on the display, moving the truncation bar defining the border between first and second regions of the display necessarily modifies the amount of EEG data in each region, since the region definitions have changed. In view of the above, it is unclear in how, if at all, revealing EEG data that was not included in the initial user selected EEG data relates to the modification of the amount of EEG data in either region, particularly as Applicant discloses the truncation bar, even when moved/slid, preserves a relationship between selected EEG portions and adjacent, unselected portion(s) (¶ [0017], ¶ [0098]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), Applicant contends the amended claims directly incorporate the exact terminology of paragraphs [0097]-[0098] of the specification as filed, demonstrating position (Remarks, pg. 8).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The pending claims requires an initial selection of EEG data to be displayed in a first region of a truncated display, and separated from a remaining portion of the EEG data in a second region of the truncated display by a truncation bar. This is not disclosed in the paragraphs noted by Applicant or the remaining application as filed. Firstly, the examiner notes there is no "exact terminology" in the application as filed describing first and second regions of a truncated display (e.g., as illustrated in Fig. 23). Further, as noted in the rejection of record above, Applicant discloses outputting the truncated display based on initial highlighted/selected EEG portions features only the highlighted/selected portions of EEG data, with the remaining or unselected EEG portions hidden from view, and having a truncation bar indicating a border between the displayed highlighted/selected portions (e.g., ¶¶ [0017]-[0018], ¶¶ [0097]-[0098]).
Applicant further contends the specification expressly teaches the system "maintains selected portions, maintains remaining portions, and controls which portions are displayed" (Remarks, pgs. 7-8). The examiner acknowledges Applicant does disclose the guidance application "allows unselected EEG data to be intuitively explored while its relation to the selected EEG is preserved," Applicant does not sufficiently disclose how this is achieved, as discussed in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and/or U.S.C. 112(b) above. While Applicant discloses the above-noted truncation bar of the truncated display may be manipulated by a user "to reveal EEG that was not included in a selectable portion" (¶ [0098]), i.e., in the initial remaining/unselected EEG data, Applicant does not provide any detail as to how said EEG data is revealed. Specifically, Applicant fails to disclose how manipulation of the truncation bar results in initially hidden EEG data being revealed while preserving the relationship between the newly-revealed EEG data and the initially selected EEG portion(s), and particularly fails to disclose this is achieved by "modifying an amount of EEG data displayed in the first region and (b) modifying an amount of the remaining portion of EEG data displayed in the second region" as required by the pending claims.
Relevant to the above, Applicant contends "the bar acts like a window shade. Move it one way, you see more of the selected data. Move it the other way, you see more of the surrounding, unselected EEG. Sliding the bar keeps the relationship between EEG portions intact. Paragraph [0098] emphasizes that when you slide the bar, you're not changing what counts as a selected portion - you're just changing how much of each portion you can see" (Remarks, pgs. 6-7).
There is no disclosure that moving the bar "acts like a window shade," or that moving the bar in any direction allows "see[ing] move of the selected data." Further, paragraph [0098] does not indicate sliding the bar "just chang[es] how much of each [selected] portion you can see." Rather, paragraph [0098] describes sliding the reveals EEG that was not included in a selected portion, i.e., the "remaining" EEG data that was initially hidden. Neither paragraph [0098], nor the remainder of Applicant's originally-filed application indicates that sliding a truncation bar changes how much of an initially selected portion of the EEG data is displayed.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Meredith Weare whose telephone number is 571-270-3957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice to schedule an interview.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Tse Chen, can be reached on 571-272-3672. 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.
/Meredith Weare/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791