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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/08/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-4, 7-14, and 44-46 are pending. Claims 1-4, 7-14, and 44-46 are rejected under new grounds due to amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-4, 7-14, and 44-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 10 follows.
STEP 1
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a series of steps or acts, including detecting whether sharp wave ripple activity is above a set threshold. Thus, the claim is directed to mathematical calculations, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The step of detecting whether sharp wave ripple activity is above a set threshold sets forth a judicial exception. This step describes a concept performed on paper with a pencil. Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 1 recites providing feedback based on the SWR activity meeting threshold criteria and wherein the feedback comprises visual and/or auditory cues, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The provided feedback does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the method does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the feedback, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
STEP 2B
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional steps of recording a plurality of signals and filtering the recorded signals. Recording and filtering data from the recorded data is well-understood, routine and conventional activity for those in the field of medical diagnostics. Further, the recording and filtering steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the recording, filtering, and extracting information steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
The dependent claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they generally recite method steps pertaining to data gathering and processing. The recording, filtering, and extracting information steps recited in the independent claims maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-4, 7-14, and 44-46 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “ the subject notices the cue, identifies the thought patterns or mental strategies that were occurring within their mind at the time of the cue, and purposefully continues with the identified thought patterns or mental strategies, thereby increasing their own SWR activity ” in the last 3 lines, but is indefinite because it is unclear how the step is interpreted as a method step. How are “notices” and ” “identifies” steps performed? How can they be measured? Additionally, it is unclear what constitutes “purposefully.” Amendment and/or clarification required.
Claims not listed are rejected by virtue of claim dependency.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest, providing a cue to the subject when the SWR activity above the set threshold is detected in the filtered plurality of signals, wherein the cue is a visual cue, an auditory cue, or a combination thereof.
However, due to the 25 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b) rejections stated above, claims are not in condition for allowance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of amended claims have been considered but are moot because amendments require new grounds of rejection.
The remaining rejections are found persuasive. New rejections have been stated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hogan teaches common to many of these techniques is the use of discrete visual or audible feedback signals or cues that relate in some predetermined manner to the person's EEG signals. These techniques typically compare the frequency of an EEG signal to a predetermined frequency threshold or frequency range and provide one visual feedback signal if the EEG frequency is within the range and a different feedback signal if the frequency is outside the range. The person being trained uses these feedback signals to modify the electrical activity of one or more areas of the brain thereby achieving a target mental state. US 20030158495
Hua teaches internal EEG signals can also be analyzed within the body with feedback send directly using either brain stimulation or auditory signals. US 20140194720 A1
Keane teaches a neurofeedback system for multiple brain wave training of a brain of a participant. US 20200069208 A1
Keane teaches a feedback modality corresponding to a desired type of brain wave characterized by a frequency range and a target threshold corresponding to a parameter of the desired type of brain wave. US 20200073475 A1
Luczak teaches an apparatus and method for assessing brain plasticity by measuring electrical brain biomarkers, for example, with a near real-time analysis of electrical brain biomarkers, where an increase or decrease in at least one biomarker is indicative of a state of brain plasticity in response to a stimulus or treatment. US 20160022168
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN NATHAN ORTEGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:10 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571) 272-3672. 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.
/MARTIN NATHAN ORTEGA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /TSE W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights