DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The action is in response to amendments filed on 02/13/2026. Claims 1, 7, 17, 18 have been amended. Claims 1-18 are pending and examined below.
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.
Regarding claims 1-16, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to receiving and manipulating data without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “A computer implemented method for identifying time-frequency features of physiological events to extract spectral features of electrophysical seizure onset patterns and to predict an epileptic focus, the method comprising: a) using a computing system to receive: a time period in which a physiological event occurred; a set of physiological signals associated with the physiological event, each one of the set of physiological signals corresponding to a different spatial location of a body part of a living being; a time-frequency region of interest, the time-frequency region being defined by a minimum and a maximum time instant and a minimum and a maximum frequency; the minimum and maximum time instants being comprised within the time period in which the physiological event occurred and the maximum frequency being lower or equal than a sampling rate of the set of physiological signals; and a plurality of time-frequency windows defined within the time-frequency region of interest; b) filtering each one of the set of physiological signals within each of the plurality of time-frequency windows and obtaining as a result a filtered set of physiological signals for each one of the plurality of time-frequency windows; c) using the computing system to calculate, for each one of the plurality of defined time-frequency windows, a given feature for the filtered set of physiological signals, each one of the filtered set of physiological signals having a given feature value, and providing a set of feature values for each time-frequency window and d) using the computing system to calculate, for each time-frequency window, at least one of: a first quantifier defined as a function of the set of features values and comparing the calculated first quantifier with a given first threshold, the computing system further selecting a group of the plurality of time-frequency windows that satisfy the first threshold; and a second quantifier defined as a function of an empirical distribution of the set of feature values and comparing the calculated second quantifier with a given second threshold, the computing system further selecting a group of the plurality of time-frequency windows that satisfy the second threshold and e) using the computing system to compare the set of feature values with a given third threshold for each one of the group of the plurality of time-frequency windows satisfying the first threshold and/or the second threshold and defining, for each one of the group of the plurality of time-frequency windows satisfying the first threshold and/or second threshold, a subset of the filtered set of physiological signals, collectively referred to as relevant filtered physiological signals; and f) using the computing system to predict an epileptic focus by determining, based on the relevant filtered physiological signals, a spatial location within the body part associated with seizure onset activity.”
This falls into a mental process grouping of abstract ideas. These limitations are either capable of being performed mentally by looking at measurements and making mental assessments thereafter or considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
The step of receiving: a time period in which a physiological event occurred; a set of physiological signals associated with the physiological event, each one of the set of physiological signals corresponding to a different spatial location of a body part of a living being; a time-frequency region of interest, the time-frequency region being defined by a minimum and a maximum time instant and a minimum and a maximum frequency; the minimum and maximum time instants being comprised within the time period in which the physiological event occurred and the maximum frequency being lower or equal than a sampling rate of the set of physiological signals; and a plurality of time-frequency windows defined within the time-frequency region of interest is insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering).
The step of filtering each one of the set of physiological signals within each of the plurality of time-frequency windows and obtaining as a result a filtered set of physiological signals for each one of the plurality of time-frequency windows is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind or by a pencil and paper by a skilled clinician.
The step of using the computing system to calculate, for each one of the plurality of defined time-frequency windows, a given feature for the filtered set of physiological signals, each one of the filtered set of physiological signals having a given feature value, and providing a set of feature values for each time-frequency window is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind.
The step of using the computing system to calculate, for each time-frequency window, at least one of: a first quantifier defined as a function of the set of features values and comparing the calculated first quantifier with a given first threshold, the computing system further selecting a group of the plurality of time-frequency windows that satisfy the first threshold; and a second quantifier defined as a function of an empirical distribution of the set of feature values and comparing the calculated second quantifier with a given second threshold, the computing system further selecting a group of the plurality of time-frequency windows that satisfy the second threshold is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind.
The step of comparing the set of feature values with a given third threshold for each one of the group of the plurality of time-frequency windows satisfying the first threshold and/or the second threshold and defining, for each one of the group of the plurality of time-frequency windows satisfying the first threshold and/or second threshold, a subset of the filtered set of physiological signals, collectively referred to as relevant filtered physiological signals is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind.
The step of using the computing system to predict an epileptic focus by determining, based on the relevant filtered physiological signals, a spatial location within the body part associated with seizure onset activity is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind.
Additionally the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element is a generic computer structure for performing the generic computer function of data processing, which does not qualify as an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Finally, the claims analyzed as a whole do not provides any element, or combination of elements, sufficient to amount to significantly more than the mental process as only a computer are claimed. As noted previously, the addition of a generic computer structure for performing the generic computer function of data processing does not qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding dependent claims 2-16, the claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea or provide insignificant extra solution activity.
Regarding claim 17, which is a parallel computer apparatus claim to that of claim 1, is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 18, the claim also fails to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea or provide insignificant extra solution activity.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer program. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media. A program, per se, is not an apparatus, method, composition, or process of making and thus does not fall into a category of invention that is patentable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/13/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejections and the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejections and the prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/13/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant traverses the 35 USC 101 rejection of 35 USC 101.
On pages 13-14 of Remarks, Applicant argues at Step 2A Prong 1, Applicant asserts that claims 1 and 17 are not directed to a judicial exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The question to be answered at step 2A prong 1 is whether the claim is directed to an abstract idea and as discussed in the rejection above the steps of claims 1 and 17 are a mental process grouping of an abstract idea. All the steps are either mental process or extra solution activity (mere data gathering). The fact that mental steps are complicated does not mean they are not a mental process. Using a paper and pencil, and given enough time, a human could perform all the steps of the mental process. As such Applicant’s arguments are found to be unpersuasive.
Next, on pages 14-15, Applicant argues at Step 2A prong 2, arguing that the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed in the 35 USC 101 rejection above, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element is a generic computer structure for performing the generic computer function of data processing, which does not qualify as an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Finally, on pages 15-16, Applicant argues at Step 2B that the claims amount to significantly more than the mental process.
As discussed in the 35 USC 101 rejection above, the claims analyzed as a whole do not provides any element, or combination of elements, sufficient to amount to significantly more than the mental process as only a computer are claimed. As noted previously, the addition of a generic computer structure for performing the generic computer function of data processing does not qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
Claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 USC 101, but contain subject matter not found in the prior art search.
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 ABID A MUSTANSIR whose telephone number is (408)918-7647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 am to 6 pm Pacific Time.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/ABID A MUSTANSIR/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights