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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02 November 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “and wherein entire clean EEG recording” amended into the claim should be further amended to read “and wherein the entire clean EEG recording”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 Causevic’426 (US Pub No. 2011/0112426 – previously cited) further in view of Correa et al. (Artifact Removal… – previously cited) further 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: generating 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; displaying the original EEG recording on the display, the original EEG recording comprising a plurality of artifacts wherein the plurality of artifacts comprises at least three of a muscle artifact, an eye movement artifact, an electrical artifact, a heartbeat artifact, a tongue movement artifact, and a chewing artifact (page 5, section [0037]); filtering the original EEG recording to remove a first artifact, filtering the EEG recording to remove a second artifact, and filtering the EEG recording to remove a third artifact; and generating a clean EEG recording for viewing from the filtered EEG recording (page 5, sections [0036-0037] and page 6, section [0042]).
John et al.’430 discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed above, except for filtering a fourth artifact. Causevic’426 teaches that EEG signals are also subject to electrical artifact, tongue movement artifact and chewing artifact, and that filters are known in the art to be able to remove such artifacts (page 4, section [0051] – page 5, section [0052]). 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 filtering the EEG recording to remove at least one of electrical artifact, tongue movement artifact and chewing artifact (jaw movement), as taught by Causevic'426, since EEG signals are known to contain artifact due to electrical noise, tongue movement and chewing.
John et al.’430 further in view of Causevic’426 discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed above, except for filtering the plurality of artifacts in a cascading manner. While John et al.’430 discloses the use of a filtering arrangement 19 (page 5, section [0037]) to perform artifact rejection, it does not provide the details of the filtering arrangement. Correa et al. teaches a cascading filtering arrangement that removes a plurality of artifacts from an EEG recording by filtering the EEG recording to remove a first artifact, filtering the resultant EEG recording to remove a second artifact, and filtering the resultant EEG recording to remove a third artifact (see entire document). It would have been within the skill of the art to use the filtering arrangement of Correa et al. as the filtering arrangement of John et al.'430 further in view of Causevic'426 since John et al.’430 further in view of Causevic’426 requires the use of a filtering arrangement, but fails to provide details of the filtering arrangement, and the filtering arrangement disclosed by Correa et al. is capable of being used to perform the artifact rejection filtering method required by John et al.’430 further in view of Causevic’426.
John et al.’430 further in view of Causevic’426 further in view of Correa et al. discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed above, except for selecting a display mode for presenting the filtered EEG recordings. Thiagarajan et al.'709 teaches allowing a user to select displaying a raw physiological signal or a filtered physiological signal, in order to facilitate comparison between the two signals (page 7, 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 further in view of Causevic’426 further in view of Correa et al. to include selecting a display mode for presenting each of the filtered EEG recordings, as taught by Thiagarajan et al.'709, since it would allow a comparison to be made between the original EEG recording and the filtered EEG recordings. As John et al.’430 further in view of Causevic'426 further in view of Correa et al. teaches a plurality of EEG recordings -- the original, raw, unfiltered EEG recording, the EEG recording after the first filtering to remove the first artifact, the EEG recording after the second filtering to remove the second artifact, the EEG recording after the third filtering to remove the third artifact, and the EEG recording after the fourth filtering to remove the fourth artifact -- it would have been within the skill of the art to use Thiagarajan et al.'709 to modify John et al.'430 further in view of Causevic'426 further in view of Correa et al. to be configured to allow a user to select which of the five EEG recordings to display in order to allow a comparison to be made between the original EEG recording and any one of the selected filtered EEG recordings.
John et al.’430 further in view of Causevic’426 further in view of Correa et al. further in view of Thiagarajan et al.’709 discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed above, except for explicitly reciting that the display includes a display of the entirety of the clean EEG recording visually distinctive from the entirety of the original EEG recording wherein an x-axis and a y-axis of the clean EEG recording are aligned with an x-axis and a y-axis of the original EEG recording. It is noted that Thiagarajan et al.’709 also teaches displaying a raw (original) physiological signal together with a filtered (clean) signal in order to facilitate comparison (page 7, 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 further in view of Causevic’426 further in view of Correa et al. to also include a display option of 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.
Kaneko et al.’473 teaches providing 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 further in view of Causevic’426 further in view of Correa et al. further in view of Thiagarajan et al.’709 such that the 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, 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 further in view of Causevic’426 further in view of Correa et al. further 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 rejection of claim 4 has been modified, as seen in paragraph 5 above, to address the language amended into the claims. 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).
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.
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