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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 2/10/2022 have been considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to CN202011255263.9 filed 11/11/2020.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition
Claims 1-6 are drawn to a method, so a process.
Step 2A Prong One: Identification of an Abstract Idea
The claim(s) recite(s):
1. processing acquired EEG signals, removing artifacts and extracting the movement-related cortical potential (MRCP), and rhythms as recited in step (2).
This step reads on a process that is entirely mathematical and is therefore an abstract idea. The process can also be performed by the human mind through waveform and data analysis. The step is therefore an abstract idea.
2. determining a lead field matrix of the signals, and calculating initial solutions of sources by means of L1 regularization constraint; and then performing iteration for the initial solutions by means of successive over-relaxation, and using the latest solution vector as a final estimation result of source localization after iteration completion.
This step reads on mathematics and is therefore an abstract idea. The step of using the latest solution vector as a final estimation reads on a mental process and is also an abstract idea.
3. by using the sources as nodes, calculating PLV between each pair of sources at each time point by means of short-time sliding window; and when the PLV is greater than a set threshold, constructing an edge between the two sources,
This step of calculating PLV between sources with a sliding window reads on mathematics. The sliding window represents a conceptual range and is therefore also a mathematical concept and abstract idea. Using the standardized value of PLV as a weight of an edge is a mathematical concept. The step is therefore an abstract idea.
4. using a standardized value of PLV as the weight of the edge.
The step of using the standardized value of PLV as a weight of an edge is a mathematical concept. The step is therefore an abstract idea.
5. calculating the characteristic path length, clustering coefficient, average node strength, average betweenness, efficiency, and network adjacency matrix at each time point.
The step reads on a process that can be performed with math or by the human mind and is therefore an abstract idea.
6. introducing these features into a classifier for training and testing; and conducting a statistical test for the first 5 features, to analyze differences in time or frequency of these features corresponding to different movements.
This step reads on a process of inputting values into a mathematical function and is therefore an abstract idea. The statistical test is mathematics and therefore an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-6 are further drawn to mathematical steps and steps that can be performed by the human mind and are therefore abstract ideas. The claimed method as a whole is therefore drawn to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Consideration of Practical Application
The claimed method results in conducting a statistical test for the features of a signal to analyze differences in time and frequency corresponding to different movements. The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea of Step 2A Prong One into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not meet any of the following criteria:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than
a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B: Consideration of Additional Elements and Significantly More
The claimed method also recites "additional elements" that are not limitations drawn to an abstract idea. The recited additional elements are drawn to:
1. performing multi-channel EEG measurement for natural movements, as in claim 1.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because multichannel EEG measurements of brain signals are well known, routine and conventional as evidenced by at least Robinson et al. (Journal of neural engineering vol. 10 (2013) 056018).
Other elements of the method include the step of “preprocessing acquired EEG signals” which implies the recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea recited in the instantly presented claims into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112-2nd paragraph
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 1-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, step (3) recites “calculating initial solution of sources by means of L1 regularization constraint.” This limitation is interpreted as a step of determining sources by L1 regularization constraint. However, a review of the specification does not reveal a description of what the “sources” are, i.e. the sources of what? The specification discusses “sources” without a description of what is being sourced. The specification also does not describe what the “L1 regularization constraint” is. In particular, “L1” is not defined. The limitation is therefore unclear.
Claim 1, step (3) recites “using the latest solution vector as a final estimation result of source localization after iteration completion.” This limitation recites a “use” without steps that set forth how this use is achieved. See MPEP 2173.05(q) regarding “use” claims. Furthermore, “the latest solution vector” lacks antecedent basis. It is not clear what “the latest solution vector” is referring to because the claim does not set forth producing or determining a latest solution vector; it is not clear in what context the vector is the latest in.
Claim 1, step (4) recites “by using the sources as nodes, calculating PLV between each pair of sources at each time point by means of short-time sliding window.” It is not clear how the nodes are used to calculate PLV. The claim does not set forth limitations describing how the use is achieved. It is not clear how the nodes are used with a short-time sliding window because time is one dimensional and nodes as sources are at least two dimensional in space. Nodes in space also do not have a time component. Therefore the calculation recited is unclear.
Claim 1, step (5) recites calculating “the characteristic path length.” There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. It is not clear what “the characteristic path length” is referring to, i.e. path length of what?
Furthermore, previous step (4) results in using a standardized value of PLV as a weight of the edge. However, there is no meaningful connection between step (4) and step (5) of calculating features. Due to lack of connection between the steps of the method, the method as a whole is unclear.
Claim 1, step (5) recites “introducing these features into a classifier.” This limitation is unclear because it does not clearly provide antecedent basis for what “these features” are. It is not clear what the metes and bounds of “these features” that are introduced into the classifier are. Furthermore, the step recites conducting a statistical test for “the first 5 features.” There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. It is not clear what the method considers to be the “first 5 features.”
Claim 2, step (a1) recites “the acquired EEG signals.” There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 1, step (1) recites performing EEG measurements and therefore it is not clear if the acquired EEG signals is referring to the EEG measurements of step (1) or something else.
Claim 2, step (a2) recites eliminating “the data channel” with abnormal kurtosis. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. The claim does not set forth determining a channel with abnormal kurtosis.
Claim 2, step (a2) recites “which uses an average value of four channels closest to the interpolated channel as a value of this channel.” It is unclear if this limitation is intended to be an active step of somehow using an average value of four channels. It is further unclear what “this channel” is referring to.
Claim 3, step (b4) recites the T-WMNE algorithm. The variable W is defined as an equation with variables “l1, l2 … lN..” However, it is not clear what the variable “l” is as it is not defined in the claim or in the specification. Therefore it is unclear how to calculate “W.” Furthermore, s(0)t includes the variable the symbol (0) wherein it is unclear what (0) is intended to represent as it is not defined in the specification.
Claim 3, step (b6) recites ending iteration when K number of iterations is reached or when e iteration error is reached. However, it is not clear what parameters or threshold to use to set the K or e. It is not clear what the values of K or e should be so that the iteration would end.
Claim 4 recites an equation where variables I, j, f, t are undefined and therefore the equation as whole is unclear.
Claim 5 recites “the sLDA” classifier however, the acronym sLDA is not defined in the specification and therefore it is not clear what classifier is being recited.
Claim 6 recites “with 0.01 step size between (1,2).” It is not clear what “(1,2)” is referring to and therefore it is unclear how to apply a step size of 0.01.
Relevant Prior Art
Gainesville et al. US 2015/0088024
Suggestion for Examiner Interview
Applicant is advised to contact the Examiner at the below listed contact information in order to set up an Interview to discuss the rejections maintained and newly set forth herein. It is noted that an Interview with the Examiner serves to move prosecution forward and clarify remaining issues in the Office Action.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna Skibinsky whose telephone number is (571) 272-4373. The examiner can normally be reached on 12 pm - 8:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ram Shukla can be reached on (571) 272-7035. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Anna Skibinsky/
Primary Examiner, AU 1635