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 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 1, 2, and 4-10 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 1, it is unclear whether the limitation “(event related desynchronization and event related synchronization, respectively)” is required or is optional. The parenthesis appear to be a point of narrowing/clarification but being within parenthesis creates confusion as to whether or not this is required by the claim. Clarification is requested.
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, 2, and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 1 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101.
However, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “an information storage unit comprising a memory device to collect EEG signals measured by an EEG measurement device and store the EEG signals”, “a feature mapping unit comprising at least one processor to classify the EEG signals into signals measured for each set unit time, combine features measured at a same unit time among features of the EEG signals arranged in chronological order and arrange the features in a matrix structure”, “a spatial feature analysis unit comprising a convolutional neural network model applied to a matrix to extract spatial features for each layer”, “a temporal feature analysis unit (140) comprising a recurrent neural network model applied to analyze changes in the spatial features between the layers arranged in chronological order”, “an intention classification unit (150) comprising a deep learning neural network classifier to classify motor imagery of the measured EEG signals based on input of values of the spatial features changing for each unit time”, and “a feature point generation reading unit …increases.” This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)lll.A. – in particular the reference to Electric Power group).
Claim 11 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, Claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “determining, by a feature point generation reading unit (160), if the EEG signals are generated by motor imagery by analyzing signal changes in a specific frequency band included in the EEG signals”, “collecting the EEG signals measured by an EEG measurement device and storing the EEG signals in an information storage unit”, “classifying, by a feature mapping unit (120), the EEG signals into signals measured for each set unit time, combining features measured at a same unit time among features of the EEG signals arranged in chronological order and arranging the features in a matrix structure”, “setting, by a spatial feature analysis unit (130), a matrix including the features as each layer to analyze spatial features for each layer”, “analyzing, by a temporal feature analysis unit (140), changes in the spatial features between the layers arranged in chronological order”, “classifying, by an intention classification unit (150), the motor imagery of the measured EEG signals based on input of values of the spatial features changing for each unit time.” This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)lll.A. – in particular the reference to Electric Power group).
The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. That is, there appears to be no tangible improvement in technology, effect of a particular treatment or prophylaxis, a particular machine or manufacture that is integrated, or transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing as a result of this claimed subject matter. As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regards to the second step 2B, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are “an information storage unit”, “an EEG measurement device”, “a feature mapping unit”, “a spatial feature analysis unit”, “a temporal feature analysis unit”, “an intention classification unit”, “memory device”, “at least one processor”, “a convolutional neural network”, “a recurrent neural network model”, “a deep learning neural network classifier”, “a frequency analysis unit”, “an energy analysis unit”, “a motor imagery determination unit” and “a feature point generation unit.” However, these elements are not “significantly more” because they are recited at a high level of generality. A “information storage unit” is simply recited at a high level of generality to provide a location to store data. A “EEG measurement device” is recited at a high level of generality to provide collection of EEG signals. A “feature mapping unit”, “spatial feature analysis unit”, “temporal feature analysis unit”, “intention classification unit”, and “feature point generation reading unit”, etc. are simply recited at a high level of generality to provide processing of EEG signals. The computer components are also recited at a high level of generality and are merely general purpose computer components.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements does not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements does not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 1 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 2 recites further limitations on abstract idea(s) that has/have already been recited. Claims 4-10 recite further limitations on abstract idea(s) that has/have already been recited. Thus, claims 1,2 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the 35USC112(a) and 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/25/25 regarding the 35USC101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the limitations are not an abstract idea but rather an improvement. The improvement appears to be all within the judicial exception as the algorithms/mental process steps are what is improved in this application. The Applicant further argues the specification discloses that there was a 20% increase in accuracy, this increase appears to be entirely within the judicial exception (i.e. the output classification is more accurate). This can be categorized as a mental step or insignificant extrasolution activity and thus is entirely within the judicial exception. Applicant further argues that the limitations alleged are not mental processes since they are tied to hardware. The hardware is generically recited (2B consideration) and the steps done with the data acquired by the hardware can be performed mentally or with a pen and paper as someone in the field could review the data and make a classification or pattern recognition. The remaining arguments can be countered with Example 47 of the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. The claims in the pending application are most analogous to claim 2 of example 47 which is deemed to be ineligible. The claim gathers data (continuous training data) and trains by the computer an artificial neural network which eventually merely outputs the data.
Applicant argues next that the claims are integrated into practical application because “…the determination of the user’s intended movement, which can be used to control external devices.”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as actually controlling the external devices is what would constitute the practical application. The claims require both a temporal limitation and the actual practical application within them to be given patentable weight. Further, it is noted that the EEG measurement device is not positively recited in the claim as well but even if it was, there would not be a broader way to recite an EEG sensor/detector. Normally, within this field, particular structural components or placements of the EEG electrodes are what overcome step 2B. Regarding step 2A prong 2, the abstract idea would need to integrated with the structural components and not just be receiving data from them which would then result in an “insignificant extra solution activity” designation. Regarding the arguments for CNN/RNN, it is noted in example 47 that training an ANN at a high level of generality was considered a mental process and/or math.
Regarding the arguments to section 2B. It appears that the additional elements are all generically recited (e.g. processor components, neural networks, EEG sensors, etc.). The claimed neural networks at a high level of generality are known commodities that function on general purpose computers. EEG sensors have been known for decades to input their data onto general purpose computers to output readings. The Examiner strongly suggests amending the claims to be more like claim 3 of example 47 to overcome the 35USC101 rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALEX M VALVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-4233. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
ALEX M. VALVIS
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights