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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an information storage unit to collect EEG signals…a feature mapping unit to classify the EEG signals…a spatial feature analysis unit to set a matrix…a temporal feature analysis unit to analyze changes…an intention classification unit to classify motor imagery of the measured EEG signals…a feature point generation reading unit to determine if the EEG signals are generated by motor imagery” in lines 4-17 of claim 1, and “a frequency analysis unit…an energy analysis unit…a motor imagery determination unit” in lines 3-7 of claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim limitations “a feature point generation reading unit” in line 17 of claim 1 and “a frequency analysis unit…an energy analysis unit…a motor imagery determination unit” in lines 3-7 of claim 3 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the functions associated with the limitations listed above.
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 1-11 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.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “features” in, respectively, lines 7 and 11. It is unclear what these “features” are supposed to mean.
Claim 11 recites multiple “steps” in lines 4-22. It is unclear how the different steps function together in achieving the overarching results or if all steps just need to be completed.
Claim limitations “a feature point generation reading unit” in line 17 of claim 1 and “a frequency analysis unit…an energy analysis unit…a motor imagery determination unit” in lines 3-7 of claim 3 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the functions associated with the limitations listed above. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
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 to collect EEG signals measured by an EEG measurement device and store the EEG signals”, “a feature mapping unit 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 to set a matrix including the features as each layer to analyze spatial features for each layer”, “a temporal feature analysis unit (140) to analyze changes in the spatial features between the layers arranged in chronological order”, “an intention classification unit (150) 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 (160) to determine if the EEG signals are generated by motor imagery by analyzing signal changes in a specific frequency band included in the EEG signals.” 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”, 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” are simply recited at a high level of generality to provide processing of EEG signals.
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. Claim 3 recites “a frequency analysis unit”, “an energy analysis unit”, and “a motor imagery determination unit” which are all recited at a high level of generality to provide processing of EEG signals. Claims 4-10 recite further limitations on abstract idea(s) that has/have already been recited. Thus, claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1 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 “a feature point generation reading unit”, “an EEG measurement device”, “an information storage unit”, “a feature mapping unit”, “a spatial feature analysis unit”, “a temporal feature analysis unit”, “an intention classification 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” are simply recited at a high level of generality to provide processing of EEG signals.
Additionally, the 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 11 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 and is thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action as seen above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Lee teaches a motor imagery classification apparatus and method using EEG for predicting a user’s intention by analyzing EEG signals generated during motor imagery in chronological order (Abstract, Figure 5, BCI apparatus 100), comprising: an information storage unit (Figure 5, memory 130); a feature extraction unit configured to extract features from the EEG signals (Figure 5, control unit 140, Paragraph 0056) and determine the user’s intention based on the extracted features (Paragraph 0057). However, Lee fails to teach wherein the information storage unit is configured to collect the EEG signals measured by an EEG measurement device and store the EEG signals; and wherein the apparatus comprises: a feature mapping unit 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 to set a matrix including the features as each layer to analyze spatial features for each layer; a temporal feature analysis unit to analyze changes in the spatial features between the layers arranged in chronological order; an intention classification unit 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 to determine if the EEG signals are generated by motor imagery by analyzing signal changes in a specific frequency band included in the EEG signals.
Ang et al. (US 20140018694 A1), hereinafter “Ang”, teaches a method for calibrating a motor imagery detection module, comprising: acquiring measured EEG signals (Paragraph 007, Figure 2, step 204), and a spatial feature analysis step which includes generating a matrix (Paragraph 0008, Figure 2, step 208). However, Ang fails to teach a motor imagery determination step of determining, by a feature point generation reading unit, if the EEG signals are generated by motor imagery by analyzing signal changes in a specific frequency band included in the EEG signals; an information storage step of collecting the EEG signals measured by an EEG measurement device and storing the EEG signals in an information storage unit; a block mapping step of classifying, by a feature mapping unit, 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; a spatial domain analysis step of setting, by a spatial feature analysis unit, a matrix including the features as each layer to analyze spatial features for each layer; a temporal domain analysis step of analyzing, by a temporal feature analysis unit, changes in the spatial features between the layers arranged in chronological order; and a user's intention classification step of classifying, by an intention classification unit, the motor imagery of the measured EEG signals based on input of values of the spatial features changing for each unit time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABEL SEIFU ABEGAZ whose telephone number is (703)756-4502. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, 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, Charles Marmor, can be reached on (571)272-4730. 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.
/CHARLES A MARMOR II/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/A.S.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights