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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/31/19 has been considered by the examiner.
Amendment Entered
In response to the amendment filed on February 10, 2026, amended claims 1, 11 and 12 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and amendments with respect to the rejections under
U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered. While Examiner agrees that the claimed invention does not explicitly recite mathematical calculations, after considering the amendments, Examiner argues that nothing from the claims, accompanying specification, and/or drawings suggest that the method steps cannot be practically performed mentally, or using pen/paper. Applicant argues the invention is not an abstract idea. Examiner notes that although the claims include EEG sensors, no physical aspect of the EEG sensors mentioned in the claims is novel. The claims merely recite data gathering/outputting steps. Applicant further argues the claims integrate into a practical application. Examiner notes that according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2), the practical application consists of administering a specific medication in response to the collected data. Alternately, a practical application would consist of incorporating additional structure to the detection system. Lastly, Applicant argues the claims provide an inventive concept. Examiner notes the previously cited references teach all the components (i.e. EEG sensors, machine learning for detection of seizures) of the present application. Therefore, as currently claimed, the invention is not an improvement in technology. Accordingly, Examiner maintains that the identified judicial exception recites a mental process that is not integrated into a practical application. As such, the 35 USC 101 rejections are maintained. Examiner suggests incorporating more structure to the claim or a medication administration step. Please see corresponding rejection heading below for more detailed analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7, 9-18, 20, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a method for detecting seizures. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The following limitations set forth a judicial exception:
“determining that a subject experienced a seizure during a measurement interval based on an output of the machine learning model; classifying the two-dimensional frames using convolutional neural network-based model that is trained to accept the two-dimensional frames and to output a likelihood that the segment of data indicates a seizure and performing a treatment for the subject responsive to the determination that the subject experienced a seizure”
These limitations describe a mental process as the skilled artisan is capable of performing the judicial exception mentally, or using pen and paper. Furthermore, nothing from the claims or applicant’s accompanying specification shows that the skilled artisan would not be able to perform the judicial exception mentally, or using pen and paper.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, integrates the identified judicial exception into a practical application.
For this part of the 101 analysis, the following additional limitations are considered:
“generating two-dimensional frames that each include a first set of elements that store measurements from a plurality of electroencephalograph sensors and a second set of elements that store values calculated from said measurements and to output a likelihood that the segment of data indicates a seizure”
These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the additional limitations are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant pre-solution and post-solution activity, e.g., merely using a processor to collect, store, and organize data to convey meaning to a user – i.e. the user takes the tabulated data and decides on a course of action or treatment. The claim as a whole is directed to conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system, and/or the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. See MPEP 2111.05. Additionally, the treatment is not particular and is merely a recommendation. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). See Heddi [par. 38] which teaches EEG sensors and machine learning for the detection of seizures.
Furthermore, the additional limitations do not add significantly more to the judicial exception as the recited limitations amount to well-known and conventional data gathering techniques in the art.
Independent claims 11 and 12 are also not patent eligible for substantially similar reasons
Dependent claims 2-7, 9, 10, 13-18, 20, 22, and 23 also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-7, 9-18, 20, 22 and 23 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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 GRACE ROZANSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on 5712724233. 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
/GRACE L ROZANSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791