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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “displaying on the display the entire clean EEG recording on the display” should be amended to read “displaying the entire clean EEG recording on a display”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 4 is 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. The first “the display” phrase in the phrase “displaying on the display the entire clean EEG recording on the display” lacks proper antecedent basis; there is no previous recitation of a display in the claim. As noted in paragraph 2 above, the phrase is being interpreted as “displaying the entire clean EEG recording on a display”. Further regarding claim 4, the phrase “the simultaneous display of the original EEG recording and the entire clean EEG recording” lacks proper antecedent basis. For this examination, the phrase is being interpreted as “a simultaneous display of the original EEG recording and the entire clean EEG recording”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over John et al.’430 (US Pub No. 2008/0249430 – previously cited) in view of Thiagarajan et al.’709 (US Pub No. 2008/0273709 – previously cited) further in view of Kaneko et al.’473 (USPN 5,410,473 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 4, John et al.’430 discloses a method for removing artifacts in an EEG recording, the method comprising: obtaining an original EEG recording from a machine comprising a plurality of electrodes for generating a plurality of EEG signals, at least one amplifier connected to each of the plurality of electrodes by a plurality of wires to amplify each of the plurality of EEG signals, a processor connected to the amplifier to generate an EEG recording from the plurality of EEG signals, and a display connected to the processor for displaying an EEG recording; wherein the original EEG recording comprises a plurality of artifacts, wherein the plurality of artifacts comprises at least two of a muscle artifact, an eye movement artifact, an electrical artifact, a heartbeat artifact, a tongue movement artifact, and a chewing artifact (section [0037]); filtering the original EEG recording to remove the plurality of artifacts to generate a filtered EEG recording, wherein the processor is inherently configured to apply a first filter program to the original EEG recording to remove the plurality of artifacts; and generating a clean EEG recording for viewing from the filtered EEG recording (sections [0036-0037] and [0042]).
John et al.’430 discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed above, except for simultaneously displaying the original EEG recording and the entire clean EEG recording at a specific time. Thiagarajan et al.’709 teaches displaying a raw (original) physiological signal together with a filtered (clean) signal in order to facilitate comparison (section [0125]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the method of John et al.’430 to include simultaneously displaying the original EEG recording with the clean EEG recording, as Thiagarajan et al.’709 teaches that this would facilitate comparison of the two signals. The simultaneous display of the two EEG recordings would result in the display of a true brain activity of a patient to a user at a specific time.
John et al.’430 in view of Thiagarajan et al.’709 discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed above, except for the clean EEG recording being visually distinctive from the entirety of the original EEG recording, and an x-axis and a y-axis of the clean EEG recording being aligned with an x-axis and a y-axis of the original EEG recording. Kaneko et al.’473 teaches simultaneously displaying two waveforms (trend graphs 161 and 162 of Figure 10) aligned with an x-axis and a y-axis, wherein each waveform is provided in a single different color so that each waveform can be easily distinguished (col. 11, line 67 – col. 12, line 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the method of John et al.’430 in view of Thiagarajan et al.’709 such that the simultaneous display of the original EEG recording and the clean EEG recording includes a display of the two recordings with their x-axis and y-axis aligned, with each recording visually distinct from the other by virtue of each recording being a single different color, as it would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The modification to John et al.’430 in view of Thiagarajan et al.’709 would permit a direct visual comparison of the original EEG recording to the clean EEG recording. Furthermore, as evidenced by Lerman et al.’486 (USPN 5,224,486 – previously cited), it is known in the art to display two waveforms in different colors so that they may be readily compared and contrasted by a physician (col. 1, line 67 – col. 2, line2, and col. 4, lines 45-49).
It is noted that John et al.’430 discloses that a varying number of electrodes may be used, including an appropriate array of electrodes placed upon the scalp in accordance with the International 10/20 Electrode Placement System (sections [0016-0017], [0019], [0032], [0036]). When electrodes are placed along the scalp in accordance with the International 10/20 system, each of the entire clean EEG recording and the entire original EEG recording would be comprised of at least 10 channels. Furthermore, as Applicant has failed to provide any details of criticality or unexpected results in the Specification with regard to the number of channels in each EEG recording, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine optimization, to determine an appropriate number of channels for each EEG recording. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 4 have been considered. The prior art rejection of claim 4 has been modified, as seen in paragraph 6 above, to address the amended claim language. Applicant’s argument that the prior art combination fails to disclose that the simultaneous display of the original EEG recording and the entire clean EEG provides a true brain activity of a patient to a user at a specific time is not persuasive. Applicant appears to be arguing that the prior art does not teach an end result of performing a method step, not that the prior art fails to disclose the method step itself. As modified by Thiagarajan et al.’709, the method of John et al.’430 provides a simultaneous display of an original EEG recording and an entire clean EEG recording. The result of the simultaneous display would be the display of true brain activity of a patient to a user at the time the display is provided. Applicant has failed to provide any reasoning as to why the simultaneous display of John et al.’430 in view of Thiagarajan et al.’709 does not provide a true brain activity of a patient to a user at a specific time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of MacAdam’753 (US Pub No. 2007/0010753 – previously cited), Collura’340 (US Pub No. 2003/0225340 – previously cited), Machida et al.’088 (US Pub No. 2003/0063088 – previously cited), and Patton et al.’610 (USPN 4,989,610 – previously cited) teaches displaying on a display screen two different waveforms aligned with an x-axis and a y-axis in order to allow comparison of the two different waveforms.
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 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