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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on July 29, 2025 was considered by the examiner. Claims 1, 5-10, and 13-14 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 13, line 7: “with” should be added after “compliance”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-10, and 13-14 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.
Claim 1 recites “an input interface” in line 3. There is no disclosure for “an input interface” in the specification of the present application. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the inventors were in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was effectively filed. Amending this recitation to recite “an input” or “an inputter” would overcome the present rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “the processor is configured to utilize the information relating to the one or more tasks provided over the period of time and the EEG data acquired over the period of time to determine at least one first sub-set period of time over the period of time” in lines 16-19. Claim 7 recites “the utilization of the information relating to the one or more tasks and the EEG data by the processor comprises a determination that the patient is watching the video or looking at the photograph” in lines 1-4. Claim 8 recites “the determination that the patient is watching the video or looking at the photograph comprises an analysis of the EEG data to determine a level of visual attentiveness of the patient” in lines 1-3. Claim 9 recites “the determination that the patient is watching the video or looking at the photograph comprises an analysis of the EEG data to determine an alpha power at a visual cortex” in lines 1-3. These recitations all may be accomplished via “determining an alpha power at the visual cortex” (see specification pg. 9 ln. 3-4 and pg. 10 ln. 18-19). However, the specification does not disclose how the alpha power at the visual cortex is determined, or how this alpha power relates to determining the first sub-set period of time.
These are clearly computer-implemented recitations (i.e., by the processor). Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 1, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the determination of the first sub-set (i.e., the determination of the alpha power at the visual cortex). The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the determination itself, but only refers to the determination in a “black box” description, meaning that the determination is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the determination itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the inventors were in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was effectively filed, especially since it appears that the determination is the central feature of the claimed invention.
Claims 5-9 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “the processor is configured to utilize the information relating to the one or more tasks and the EEG data acquired over the period of time to determine at least one second sub-set period of time over the period of time” in lines 1-4. However, the specification does not disclose how the second sub-set is determined.
This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (i.e., by the processor). Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 5, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the determination of the second sub-set. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the determination itself, but only refers to the determination in a “black box” description, meaning that the determination is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the determination itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the inventors were in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was effectively filed, especially since it appears that the determination is the central feature of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites “an input interface” in line 3. There is no disclosure for “an input interface” in the specification of the present application. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the inventors were in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was effectively filed. Amending this recitation to recite “an input” or “an inputter” would overcome the present rejection. The claim is being read as such for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “utilizing by a processor the information relating to the one or more tasks and the EEG data and determining at least one first sub-set period of time over the period of time” in lines 12-14. The specification details that this may be accomplished via “determining an alpha power at the visual cortex” (see specification pg. 9 ln. 3-4 and pg. 10 ln. 18-19). However, the specification does not disclose how the alpha power at the visual cortex is determined, or how this alpha power relates to determining the first sub-set period of time.
This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (i.e., by the processor). Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 10, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the determination of the first sub-set (i.e., the determination of the alpha power at the visual cortex). The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the determination itself, but only refers to the determination in a “black box” description, meaning that the determination is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the determination itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the inventors were in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was effectively filed, especially since it appears that the determination is the central feature of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 10.
Claim 13 recites “utilizing by the processor the information relating to the one or more tasks and the EEG data acquired over the period of time to determine at least one second sub-set period of time over the period of time” in lines 3-5. However, the specification does not disclose how the second sub-set is determined.
This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (i.e., by the processing unit). Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 13, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the determination of the second sub-set. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the determination itself, but only refers to the determination in a “black box” description, meaning that the determination is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the determination itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the inventors were in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was effectively filed, especially since it appears that the determination is the central feature of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 recites “the processor is configured to utilize the EEG data acquired over the period of time to determine at least one sub-set period of time over the period of time associated with a level of wakefulness of the patient” in lines 12-14. However, the specification does not disclose how this sub-set is determined and/or how the level of wakefulness is determined.
This is clearly a computer-implemented recitation (i.e., by the processor). Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 14, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the determination of this sub-set. The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the determination itself, but only refers to the determination in a “black box” description, meaning that the determination is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the determination itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the inventors were in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was effectively filed, especially since it appears that the determination is the central feature of the claimed invention.
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.
The succeeding 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections to the claims below are made with the claims as best understood and interpreted in light of the preceding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 above.
Claims 1, 5-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim 1 interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Based on the specification, the recitation “utilize the information relating to the one or more tasks provided over the period of time and the EEG data acquired over the period of time to determine at least one first sub-set period of time over the period of time” (see specification pg. 9 ln. 3-4 and pg. 10 ln. 18-19) is being interpreted as judgements/observations (the identification of sub-sets) and/or mathematical calculations/evaluations (the mathematical determination of the sub-sets). The recitation “determine an action associated with acquisition of the fMRI data over the at least one first sub-set period of time” (see specification pg. 3 ln. 14-16 and pg. 4 ln. 18-24) is being interpreted as judgements/observations (i.e., data indicating non-compliance from the EEG over the at least first sub-set would get a prompt indicating the non-compliance).
Claim 10 interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Based on the specification, the recitation “utilizing the information relating to the one or more tasks and the EEG data and determining at least one first sub-set period of time over the period of time” (see specification pg. 9 ln. 3-4 and pg. 10 ln. 18-19) is being interpreted as judgements/observations (the identification of sub-sets) and/or mathematical calculations/evaluations (the mathematical determination of the sub-sets). The recitation “determining an action associated with acquisition of the fMRI data over the at least one first sub-set period of time” (see specification pg. 3 ln. 14-16 and pg. 4 ln. 18-24) is being interpreted as judgements/observations (i.e., data indicating non-compliance from the EEG over the at least first sub-set would get a prompt indicating the non-compliance).
Claim 14 interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Based on the specification, the recitation “utilize the EEG data acquired over the period of time to determine at least one sub-set period of time over the period of time associated with a level of wakefulness of the patient” (see specification pg. 5 ln. 5-8) is being interpreted as judgements/observations (the identification of sub-sets of wakefulness) and/or mathematical calculations/evaluations (the mathematical determination of the sub-sets). The recitation “determine an action associated with acquisition of the fMRI data over the at least one sub-set period of time” (see specification pg. 5 ln. 8-11) is being interpreted as judgements/observations (i.e., data indicating resting or wakefulness is identified as such).
Step 1: This part of eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. Claims 1 and 14 are directed towards a system for functional magnetic resonance image data acquisition, which are directed towards a machine and/or a manufacture (a statutory category of invention). Claim 10 recites a method for functional magnetic resonance image data acquisition, which is directed towards a process (a statutory category of invention). Step 1: YES.
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The “mental processes” abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. As discussed in the claim interpretation section, the limitations include, under the BRI, judgements/observations and/or mathematical calculations/evaluations. Accordingly, the limitations as seen in claims 1, 10, and 14 recite judicial exceptions (abstract ideas that fall within the mental process grouping).
Furthermore, as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The courts consider mathematical calculations, when the claim is given its BRI in light of the specification, as falling within the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas. A claim does not have to recite “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using a mathematical method, or “performing” a mathematical operation, may also be considered a mathematical calculation when the BRI of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation. As discussed in the claim interpretation section, the limitations include, under the BRI, mathematical calculations/evaluations. Accordingly, the limitations as seen in claims 1, 10, and 14 recite judicial exceptions (abstract ideas that fall within the mathematical calculations grouping of mathematical concepts).
In particular, claim 1 recites the following elements, which are part of the abstract idea (i.e., the algorithm):
functional magnetic resonance image data acquisition:
provide information relating to one or more tasks to a patient, wherein the information relating to the one or more tasks is provided to the patient over a period of time;
wherein, the MRI device is configured to acquire functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data relating to brain activity of the patient, wherein the fMRI data is acquired over the period of time;
wherein, the EEG device is configured to acquire EEG data relating to electrical activity of a brain of the patient, wherein the EEG data is acquired over the period of time;
wherein, the processor is configured to utilize the information relating to the one or more tasks provided over the period of time and the EEG data acquired over the period of time to determine at least one first sub-set period of time over the period of time; and
wherein, the processor is configured to determine an action associated with acquisition of the fMRI data over the at least one first sub-set period of time, wherein the determined action comprises identifying the fMRI data acquired over the at least one first sub-set period of time as data when the patient was not in compliance with at least one task of the one or more tasks and providing a prompt to the patient and/or an operator of the system that the patient is not in compliance with the at least one task of the one or more tasks over the at least one first sub-set period of time.
Furthermore, claim 10 recites the following elements, which are part of the abstract idea (i.e., the algorithm):
a method for functional magnetic resonance image data acquisition, the method comprising:
a) providing information relating to one or more tasks to a patient, wherein the information relating to the one or more tasks is provided to the patient over a period of time;
b) acquiring functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data relating to brain activity of the patient, wherein the fMRI data is acquired over the period of time;
c) acquiring EEG data relating to electrical activity of a brain of the patient, wherein the EEG data is acquired over the period of time;
d) utilizing the information relating to the one or more tasks and the EEG data and determining at least one first sub-set period of time over the period of time; and
f) determining an action associated with acquisition of the fMRI data over the at least one first sub-set period of time by identifying the fMRI data acquired over the first sub-set period of time as data when the patient was not in compliance with at least one task of the one or more tasks and providing a prompt to the patient and/or an operator of a system performing one or more aspects of the method that the patient is not in compliance with the at least one task of the one or more tasks over the at least one first sub-set period of time.
In addition, claim 14 recites the following elements, which are part of the abstract idea (i.e., the algorithm):
functional magnetic resonance image data acquisition,
wherein, the MRI device is configured to acquire functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data relating to brain activity of a patient,
wherein the fMRI data is acquired over a period of time;
wherein, the EEG device is configured to acquire EEG data relating to electrical activity of a brain of the patient, wherein the EEG data is acquired over the period of time;
wherein, the processor is configured to utilize the EEG data acquired over the period of time to determine at least one sub-set period of time over the period of time associated with a level of wakefulness of the patient; and
wherein, the processor is configured to determine an action associated with acquisition of the fMRI data over the at least one sub-set period of time,
and wherein the determined action comprises an identification of the fMRI data over the sub-set period of time as data when the patient was asleep or an identification of the fMRI data over the sub-set period of time as data when the patient was awake.
Step 2A Prong One: YES.
Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exceptions into a practical application. Claims 1, 10, and 14 recite the additional elements of a processor and input interface (i.e., a generic computer). The system/method are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims further recite additional elements relating to the gathering of data, the MRI device and EEG device. These devices does not qualify as integration into a practical application because this limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g) using generic components (i.e., an MRI device and an EEG device are generic, no specificity is recited).
Alternatively and/or additionally, these devices are well-understood, routine, and conventional. For example, Intrator (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0347906 – cited in prior action) teaches about recording an individual’s brain electrical activity (see abstract), and that conventional EEG may be utilized to measure brain activity, including alpha waves (see ¶[0223]). Furthermore, Poltroak (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0247662 – cited in prior action) teaches a method of facilitating a skill learning process involving determining brain wave patterns (see abstract), and that brain waves may be detected via several known techniques including EEG and fMRI (see ¶[0948]). Therefore, the MRI and the EEG device cannot be seen as integration into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05. As explained with Step 2A Prong Two, the claims recite additional elements which are directed towards the usage of a generic computer, and are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. These elements/steps can be seen as well-understood, routine, and conventional individually and in combination. Claims 1, 10, and 14 recite the additional elements of a processor and input interface (i.e., a generic computer). Thus, the system/method do not qualify as significantly more because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
The claims further recite an additional elements relating to the gathering of data, the MRI device and EEG device. These devices do not qualify as significantly more because (1) this is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry and/or (2) this limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g) using generic components (i.e., the sensors are generic). In this case, as the devices are claimed generically, they may be considered generic computer components.
Alternatively and/or additionally, these devices are well-understood, routine, and conventional. For example, Intrator (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0347906 – cited in prior action) teaches about recording an individual’s brain electrical activity (see abstract), and that conventional EEG may be utilized to measure brain activity, including alpha waves (see ¶[0223]). Furthermore, Poltroak (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0247662 – cited in prior action) teaches a method of facilitating a skill learning process involving determining brain wave patterns (see abstract), and that brain waves may be detected via several known techniques including EEG and fMRI (see ¶[0948]). Therefore, the MRI and the EEG device cannot be seen as significantly more than the recited exceptions.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process. Step 2B: NO.
Claims 1, 10, and 14 are not eligible.
Claims 5-9; and 13 depend from claims 1 and 10, respectively, and merely further define the abstract ideas of claims 1 and 10 with no further element that integrates the abstract ideas into a practical application or that qualifies as being significantly more. Looking at the limitations of each claim as an ordered combination in conjunction with the claims from which they depend (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome.
Claim 6 recites the additional element of a visual display unit, which is a component of a generic computer (i.e., a computer display). Therefore, the system are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer (i.e., a generic computer with a generic display) or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f). Further that, the claims recite additional elements which are directed towards the usage of a generic computer (i.e., a generic computer with a generic display), and are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. These elements/steps can be seen as well-understood, routine, and conventional individually and in combination. Thus, the system does not qualify as significantly more because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5-10, and 13-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/273,987 in view of Grodzki et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0267827 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Grodzki.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding Claims 1, 5-10, and 13-14, copending claim 6 has all of the features of claims 1, 5-10, and 13-14 of the present application, except that the task compliance and/or sleep status is determined via EEG data.
Grodzki teaches acquiring functional MR data and EEG data of a brain so as to evaluate the MR data based on the EEG data (see abstract and Fig. 1). Grodzki teaches a system for functional magnetic resonance image data acquisition (see abstract and Fig. 1), the system comprising:
an input interface (¶[0023]-[0025] the user information output to the user, such as to wake up or to relax, provided by the headphones, the headphones/speaker would be the input interface);
a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device (abstract, ¶[0002]-[0008], and ¶[0038] the functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) via the magnetic resonance imaging system 5; Fig. 1);
an electroencephalography (EEG) data acquisition device (¶[0038] the electroencephalograph 30; Fig. 1); and
a processor (¶[0028] and ¶[0030] the control device implemented through a computer);
wherein, the input interface is configured to provide information relating to one or more tasks to a patient, wherein the information relating to the one or more tasks is provided to the patient over a period of time (¶[0012]-[0016], ¶[0019], ¶[0021], and ¶[0023]-[0025] time intervals of the data are monitored, ¶[0023]-[0025] the user information output to the user, such as to wake up or to relax, provided by the headphones – here, the task would be the user staying in the relaxing state, which falls under the BRI of the task of the present application, see present application specification pg. 3 ln. 10-13);
wherein, the MRI device is configured to acquire functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data relating to brain activity of the patient, wherein the fMRI data is acquired over the period of time (¶[0012]-[0016], ¶[0019], ¶[0021], and ¶[0023]-[0025] time intervals of the data are monitored, abstract, ¶[0002]-[0008], and ¶[0038] the functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI); Fig. 1);
wherein, the EEG device is configured to acquire EEG data relating to electrical activity of a brain of the patient, wherein the EEG data is acquired over the period of time (¶[0012]-[0016], ¶[0019], ¶[0021], and ¶[0023]-[0025] time intervals of the data are monitored, ¶[0038] the electroencephalograph 30 for acquiring EEG data of the user’s brain; Fig. 1);
wherein, the processor is configured to utilize the information relating to the one or more tasks provided over the period of time and the EEG data acquired over the period of time to determine at least one first sub-set period of time over the period of time (¶[0012]-[0016], ¶[0019], ¶[0021], and ¶[0023]-[0025] time intervals of the data are monitored, only data during desired states may be utilized, such as resting state time intervals, ¶[0033] other states may be utilized, ¶[0048]-[0050] the MR data taken simultaneously with the EEG data is classified based on the EEG data, i.e., resting state or not, the time periods corresponding to the non-resting state are the at least one first sub-set; Fig. 4); and
wherein, the processor is configured to determine an action associated with acquisition of the fMRI data over the at least one first sub-set period of time, wherein the determined action comprises identifying the fMRI data acquired over the at least one first sub-set period of time as data when the patient was not in compliance with at least one task of the one or more tasks (¶[0012]-[0016], ¶[0019], ¶[0021], and ¶[0023]-[0025] time intervals of the data are monitored, only data during desired states may be utilized, such as resting state time intervals, ¶[0033] other states may be utilized, ¶[0048]-[0050] the MR data taken simultaneously with the EEG data is classified based on the EEG data, i.e., resting state or not; Fig. 4) and
providing a prompt to the patient and/or an operator of the system that the patient is not in compliance with the at least one task of the one or more tasks over the at least one first sub-set period of time (¶[0023]-[0025] the user information output to the user, such as to wake up or to relax, provided by the headphones, the user information output is the prompt).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the EEG (alpha wave analysis) task/sleep determination of Grodzki with the task determination of copending claim 6 because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device/method ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) the EEG determination would provide a real-time determination, that may be analyzed faster and with less compute than an fMRI based determination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The succeeding art rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 below are made with the claims as best understood and interpreted in light of the preceding rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 above.
Claims 1, 5, 10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Grodzki et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0267827 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Grodzki.
Regarding Claim 1, Grodzki teaches acquiring functional MR data and EEG data of a brain so as to evaluate the MR data based on the EEG data (see abstract and Fig. 1). Grodzki teaches a system for functional magnetic resonance image data acquisition (see abstract and Fig. 1), the system comprising:
an input interface (¶[0023]-[0025] the user information output to the user, such as to wake up or to relax, provided by the headphones, the headphones/speaker would be the input interface);
a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device (abstract, ¶[0002]-[0008], and ¶[0038] the functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) via the magnetic resonance imaging system 5; Fig. 1);
an electroencephalography (EEG) data acquisition device (¶[0038] the electroencephalograph 30; Fig. 1); and
a processor (¶[0028] and ¶[0030] the control device implemented through a computer);
wherein, the input interface is configured to provide information relating to one or more tasks to a patient, wherein the information relating to the one or more tasks is provided to the patient over a period of time (¶[0012]-[0016], ¶[0019], ¶[0021], and ¶[0023]-[0025] time intervals of the data are monitored, ¶[0023]-[0025] the user information output to the user, such as to wake up or to relax, provided by the headphones – here, the task would be the user staying in the relaxing state, which falls under the BRI of the task of the present application, see present application specification pg. 3 ln. 10-13);
wherein, the MRI device is configured to acquire functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data relating to brain activity of the patient, wherein the fMRI data is acquired over the period of time (¶[0012]-[0016], ¶[0019], ¶[0021], and ¶[0023]-[0025] time intervals of the data are monitored, abstract, ¶[0002]-[0008], and ¶[0038] the functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI); Fig. 1);
wherein, the EEG device is configured to acquire EEG data relating to electrical activity of a brain of the patient, wherein the EEG data is acquired over the period of time (¶[0012]-[0016], ¶[0019], ¶[0021], and ¶[0023]-[0025] time intervals of the data are monitored, ¶[0038] the electroencephalograph 30 for acquiring EEG data of the user’s brain; Fig. 1);
wherein, the processor is configured to utilize the information relating to the one or more tasks provided over the period of time and the EEG data acquired over the period of time to determine at least one first sub-set period of time over the period of time (¶[0012]-[0016], ¶[0019], ¶[0021], and ¶[0023]-[0025] time intervals of the data are monitored, only data during desired states may be utilized, such as resting state time intervals, ¶[0033] other states may be utilized, ¶[0048]-[0050] the MR data taken simultaneously with the EEG data is classified based on the EEG data, i.e., resting state or not, the time periods corresponding to the non-resting state are the at least one first sub-set; Fig. 4); and
wherein, the processor is configured to determine an action associated with acquisition of the fMRI data over the at least one first sub-set period of time, wherein the determined action comprises identifying the fMRI data acquired over the at least one first sub-set period of time as data when the patient was not in compliance with at least one task of the one or more tasks (¶[0012]-[0016], ¶[0019], ¶[0021], and ¶[0023]-[0025] time intervals of the data are monitored, only data during desired states may be utilized, such as resting state time intervals, ¶[0033] other states may be utilized, ¶[0048]-[0050] the MR data taken simultaneously with the EEG data is classified based on the EEG data, i.e., resting state or not; Fig. 4) and
providing a prompt to the patient and/or an operator of the system that the patient is not in compliance with the at least one task of the one or more tasks over the at least one first sub-set period of time (¶[0023]-[0025] the user information output to the user, such as to wake up or to relax, provided by the headphones, the user information output is the prompt).
Regarding Claim 5, Grodzki teaches the system of claim 1 as stated above. Grodzki further teaches the processor is configured to utilize the information relating to the one or more tasks and the EEG data acquired over the period of time to determine at least one second sub-set period of time over the period of time; and wherein the processor is configured to determine an identification of the fMRI data acquired over the second sub-set period of time as data when the patient was in compliance with at least one task of the one or more tasks over the at least one second sub-set period of time (¶[0012]-[0016], ¶[0019], ¶[0021], and ¶[0023]-[0025] time intervals of the data are monitored, only data during desired states may be utilized, such as resting state time intervals, ¶[0033] other states may be utilized, ¶[0048]-[0050] the MR data taken simultaneously with the EEG data is classified based on the EEG data, i.e., resting state or not, the time periods corresponding to the resting state are the at least one second sub-set; Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 10, Grodzki teaches acquiring functional MR data and EEG data of a brain so as to evaluate the MR data based on the EEG data (see abstract and Fig. 1). Grodzki teaches a method for functional magnetic resonance image data acquisition (see abstract and Fig. 1), the method comprising:
a) providing by an input interface (¶[0023]-[0025] the user information output to the user, such as to wake up or to relax, provided by the headphones, the headphones/speaker would be the input unit) information relating to one or more tasks to a patient, wherein the information relating to the one or more tasks is provided to the patient over a period of time (¶[0012]-[0016], ¶[0019], ¶[0021], and ¶[0023]-[0025] time intervals of the data are monitored, ¶[0023]-[0025] the user information output to the user, such as to wake up or to relax, provided by the headphones, the headphones/speaker would be the input unit – here, the task would be the user staying in the relaxing state, which falls under the BRI of the task of the present application, see present application specification pg. 3 ln. 10-13);
b) acquiring by a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device (abstract, ¶[0002]-[0008], and ¶[0038] the functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) via the magnetic resonance imaging system 5; Fig. 1) functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data relating to brain activity of the patient, wherein the fMRI data is acquired over the period of time (¶[0012]-[0016], ¶[0019], ¶[0021], and ¶[0023]-[0025] time intervals of the data are monitored, abstract, ¶[0002]-[0008], and ¶[0038] the functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) via the magnetic resonance imaging system 5; Fig. 1);
c) acquiring by an electroencephalography (EEG) device (¶[0038] the electroencephalograph 30; Fig. 1) EEG data relating to electrical activity of a brain of the patient, wherein the EEG data is acquired over the period of time (¶[0012]-[0016], ¶[0019], ¶[0021], and ¶[0023]-[0025] time intervals of the data are monitored, ¶[0038] the electroencephalograph 30 for acquiring EEG data of the user’s brain; Fig. 1);
d) utilizing by a processor (¶[0028] and ¶[0030] the control device implemented through a computer) the information relating to the one or more tasks and the EEG data and determining at least one first sub-set period of time over the period of time (¶[0012]-[0016], ¶[0019], ¶[0021], and ¶[0023]-[0025] time intervals of the data are monitored, only data during desired states may be utilized, such as resting state time intervals, ¶[0033] other states may be utilized, ¶[0048]-[0050] the MR data taken simultaneously with the EEG data is classified based on the EEG data, i.e., resting state or not, the time periods corresponding to the non-resting state are the at least one first sub-set; Fig. 4); and
f) determining by the processor an action associated with acquisition of the fMRI data over the at least one first sub-set period of time by identifying the fMRI data acquired over the first sub-set period of time as data when the patient was not in compliance with at least one task of the one or more tasks (¶[0012]-[0016], ¶[0019], ¶[0021], and ¶[0023]-[0025] time intervals of the data are monitored, only data during desired states may be utilized, such as resting state time intervals, ¶[0033] other states may be utilized, ¶[0048]-[0050] the MR data taken simultaneously with the EEG data is classified based on the EEG data, i.e., resting state or not; Fig. 4) and
providing a prompt to the patient and/or an operator of a system performing one or more aspects of the method that the patient is not in compliance with the at least one task of the one or more tasks over the at least one first sub-set period of time (¶[0023]-[0025] the user information output to the user, such as to wake up or to relax, provided by the headphones, the user information output is the prompt).
Regarding Claim 13, Grodzki teaches the method of claim 10 as stated above. Grodzki further teaches step e) utilizing by the processor the information relating to the one or more tasks and the EEG data acquired over the period of time to determine at least one second sub-set period of time over the period of time; and step g) identifying by the processor the fMRI data acquired over the second sub-set period of time as data when the patient was in compliance at least one task of the one or more tasks over the at least one second sub-set period of time (¶[0012]-[0016], ¶[0019], ¶[0021], and ¶[0023]-[0025] time intervals of the data are monitored, only data during desired states may be utilized, such as resting state time intervals, ¶[0033] other states may be utilized, ¶[0048]-[0050] the MR data taken simultaneously with the EEG data is classified based on the EEG data, i.e., resting state or not, the time periods corresponding to the resting state are the at least one second sub-set; Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 14, Grodzki teaches acquiring functional MR data and EEG data of a brain so as to evaluate the MR data based on the EEG data (see abstract and Fig. 1). Grodzki teaches a system for functional magnetic resonance image data acquisition (see abstract and Fig. 1), the system comprising:
a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device (abstract, ¶[0002]-[0008], and ¶[0038] the functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) via the magnetic resonance imaging system 5; Fig. 1);
an electroencephalography (EEG) data acquisition device (¶[0038] the electroencephalograph 30; Fig. 1); and
a processor (¶[0028] and ¶[0030] the control device implemented through a computer);
wherein, the MRI device is configured to acquire functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data relating to brain activity of a patient, wherein the fMRI data is acquired over a period of time (¶[0012]-[0016], ¶[0019], ¶[0021], and ¶[0023]-[0025] time intervals of the data are monitored, abstract, ¶[0002]-[0008], and ¶[0038] the functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI); Fig. 1);
wherein, the EEG device is configured to acquire EEG data relating to electrical activity of a brain of the patient, wherein the EEG data is acquired over the period of time (¶[0012]-[0016], ¶[0019], ¶[0021], and ¶[0023]-[0025] time intervals of the data are monitored, ¶[0038] the electroencephalograph 30 for acquiring EEG data of the user’s brain; Fig. 1);
wherein, the processor is configured to utilize the EEG data acquired over the period of time to determine at least one sub-set period of time over the period of time associated with a level of wakefulness of the patient (¶[0012]-[0016], ¶[0019], ¶[0021], and ¶[0023]-[0025] time intervals of the data are monitored, only data during desired states may be utilized, such as resting state time intervals, ¶[0033] other states may be utilized, ¶[0048]-[0050] the MR data taken simultaneously with the EEG data is classified based on the EEG data, i.e., resting state or asleep or not, which is a level of wakefulness; Fig. 4); and
wherein, the processor is configured to determine an action associated with acquisition of the fMRI data over the at least one sub-set period of time (¶[0023]-[0025] the user information output to the user, such as to wake up or to relax, provided by the headphones, the user information output is the prompt), and
wherein the determined action comprises an identification of the fMRI data acquired over the sub-set period of time as data when the patient was asleep or an identification of the fMRI data acquired over the sub-set period of time as data when the patient was awake (¶[0012]-[0016], ¶[0019], ¶[0021], and ¶[0023]-[0025] time intervals of the data are monitored, only data during desired states may be utilized, such as resting state time intervals, ¶[0033] other states may be utilized, ¶[0048]-[0050] the MR data taken simultaneously with the EEG data is classified based on the EEG data, i.e., resting state or asleep or not; Fig. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grodzki as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Bernstein (WIPO Publication WO 2013/157012 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Bernstein.
Regarding Claim 6, Grodzki teaches the system of claim 1 as stated above. Grodzki teaches that other activation states of the user may be utilized (see ¶[0033]), but does not specifically teach the input interface comprises a VDU (visual display unit) and wherein provision of information relating to the one or more tasks comprises a display of a video or a photograph on the VDU that the patient is requested to watch or look at.
Bernstein teaches a method and system for monitoring and training attention allocation (an attention state) (see abstract; Figs. 1-3D and 5-6). Bernstein teaches that the stimulus for the attention state monitoring may be displayed via a computer screen or audio speaker (see ¶[0036] and ¶[0048]; Fig. 5-6), in which the stimulus may comprise various images on the screen for which the user is instructed to look at, such as the dot-probe paradigm including the target image (see ¶[0038], ¶[0052], ¶[0055], and ¶[0057]; Figs. 3A-3D), and the user’s response (i.e., looking at the appropriate image) is measured via eye tracking or brain activity, such as via EEG or MRI (see ¶[0031], ¶[0049], and ¶[0058]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the attention state (attention allocation) monitoring (via the images displayed on the screen for user response via brain activity) with the brain activity monitoring of Grodzki because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) Grodzki teaches a system for monitoring user resting state and Bernstein teaches one alternative user state (attention state) to monitor; and/or (3) monitoring the user’s attention state (attention allocation) would give an indication of the user’s attentional bias (see Bernstein ¶[0003] and ¶[0019]).
Regarding Claim 7, Grodzki in view of Bernstein teaches the system of claim 6 as stated above. The modified Grodzki further teaches the utilization of the information relating to the one or more tasks and the EEG data by the processor comprises a determination that the patient is watching the video or looking at the photograph (see Grodzki ¶[0012]-[0016], ¶[0019], ¶[0021], and ¶[0023]-[0025], time intervals of the data are monitored, only data during desired states may be utilized, such as resting state time intervals, ¶[0033], other states than resting state may be utilized, ¶[0048]-[0050], the MR data taken simultaneously with the EEG data is classified based on the EEG data, i.e., the time periods corresponding to the specific state are monitored; see Bernstein ¶[0038], ¶[0052], ¶[0055], and ¶[0057]; Figs. 3A-3D, the stimulus may comprise various images on the screen for which the user is instructed to look at, such as the dot-probe paradigm including the target image, ¶[0031], ¶[0049], and ¶[0058], the user’s response (i.e., looking at the appropriate image) is measured via eye tracking or brain activity, such as via EEG or MRI).
Regarding Claim 8, Grodzki in view of Bernstein teaches the system of claim 7 as stated above. The modified Grodzki further teaches the determination that the patient is watching the video or looking at the photograph comprises an analysis of the EEG data to determine a level of visual attentiveness of the patient (see Grodzki ¶[0012]-[0016], ¶[0019], ¶[0021], and ¶[0023]-[0025], time intervals of the data are monitored, only data during desired states may be utilized, such as resting state time intervals, ¶[0033], other states than resting state may be utilized, ¶[0048]-[0050], the MR data taken simultaneously with the EEG data is classified based on the EEG data, i.e., the time periods corresponding to the specific state are monitored; see Bernstein ¶[0038], ¶[0052], ¶[0055], and ¶[0057]; Figs. 3A-3D, the stimulus may comprise various images on the screen for which the user is instructed to look at, such as the dot-probe paradigm including the target image, ¶[0031], ¶[0049], and ¶[0058], the user’s response (i.e., looking at the appropriate image) is measured via eye tracking or brain activity, such as via EEG or MRI).
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grodzki in view of Bernstein as applied to claim 7 above, and in view of Klimesch (“Alpha-band oscillations, attention, and controlled access to stored information”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 16, No. 12, December 2012 – cited in prior action), hereinafter Klimesch.
Regarding Claim 9, Grodzki in view of Bernstein teaches the system of claim 7 as stated above. The modified Grodzki further teaches to analyze the alpha waves of the EEG data (see Grodzki ¶[0015]-[0017], the alpha waves analyzed; see Bernstein ¶[0031], ¶[0049], and ¶[0058], the user’s response (i.e., looking at the appropriate image) is measured via eye tracking or brain activity, such as via EEG or MRI).
The modified Grodzki is silent regarding to determine an alpha power at the visual cortex.
Klimesch teaches about alpha-band oscillations related to functions of attention (see abstract), in which the power of the alpha-band may be measured (determined) at various brain regions, including the visual cortex, with a variety of stimulus presented (see § ERS reflects inhibition and ERD the release from inhibition and § The attentional buffer, anticipatory ERD, and resting alpha power).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the alpha power monitoring at the visual cortex of Klimesch as the brain activity monitoring of the modified Grodzki because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) the modified Grodzki requires brain activity monitoring and Klimesch teaches one such modality of brain activity monitoring.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, objections to the specification
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, filed July 29, 2025, with respect to the objection to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, filed July 29, 2025, with respect to the interpretation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the interpretation has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, objections to the claims
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, filed July 29, 2025, with respect to the objection to claims 6 and 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new objection was necessitated by the amendments filed on July 29, 2025.
Applicant’s arguments, 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8-10, filed July 29, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 5-10, and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) have been fully considered and are NOT persuasive. The Applicant first argues that the rejection is speculative and does not provide analysis to support a prima facie rejection. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The specific claim limitations at issue were identified. For example, claim 1 recites “the processing unit is configured to utilize the information relating to the one or more tasks provided over the period of time and the EEG data acquired over the period of time to determine at least one first sub-set period of time over the period of time” in lines 16-19. Claim 7 recites “the utilization of the information relating to the one or more tasks and the EEG data by the processing unit comprises a determination that the patient is watching the video or looking at the photograph” in lines 1-4. Claim 8 recites “the determination that the patient is watching the video or looking at the photograph comprises an analysis of the EEG data to determine a level of visual attentiveness of the patient” in lines 1-4. Claim 9 recites “the determination that the patient is watching the video or looking at the photograph comprises an analysis of the EEG data to an alpha power at the visual cortex” in lines 1-3. These recitations all may be accomplished via “determining an alpha power at the visual cortex” (see specification pg. 9 ln. 3-4 and pg. 10 ln. 18-19). is the only description given in the specific for performing the functional language. However, the specification does not disclose how the alpha power at the visual cortex is determined, or how this alpha power relates to determining the first sub-set period of time.
As previously described, these are clearly computer-implemented recitations (i.e., by the processor). Under the current guidelines of 35 USC 112, the specification fails to support a claim that defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result when the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. For there to be sufficient disclosure for a computer-implemented claim limitation, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). With respect to claim 1, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the determination of the first sub-set (i.e., the alpha power at the visual cortex). The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the determination itself, but only refers to the determination in a “black box” description, meaning that the determination is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the determination itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the invention was in possession of the claimed invention, especially since it appears that the determination is the central feature of the claimed invention. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Next, Applicant argues that the claim features do not require disclosure of a particular computer algorithm, citing to portions of the MPEP including MPEP § 2161.01(III), which describes enablement of a computer-implemented functional claim limitation. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s arguments which are directed towards enablement are not persuasive to the present 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejections for written description. As previously stated, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function (emphasis added). Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Next, Applicant argues that the claimed limitations would be understood in proper context by one of ordinary skill in the art. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously stated, this was not an enablement rejection, so the question is not whether the claimed limitations would be understood in proper context by one of ordinary skill in the art. Rather, the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, Fed. Reg. Vol. 76, No. 27, February 9, 2011, p. 7162-7175 (“the Supplementary Examination Guidelines”). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Next, Applicant argues that the rejection is missing several criteria for the rejection to be proper, including four criteria. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The burden on an examiner with regard to the written description is described in MPEP § 2163.04(I). In order for the rejection to be proper, there are two requirements: (A) identify the claim limitation(s) and (B) establish a prima facie case by providing reasons why a person skilled in the art at the time the application was filed would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed in view of the disclosure of the application as filed. The claim limitations were properly identified above, as well as the rationale. For example, with respect to claim 1, this claim is rejected under §112, first paragraph, based on lack of written description because the specification fails to provide the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function. In particular, no specificity is provided with respect to the determination of the first sub-set (i.e., the alpha power at the visual cortex). The disclosure provides no algorithm, flow chart, or other detailed description of the determination itself, but only refers to the determination in a “black box” description, meaning that the determination is referred to in a general sense but the specifics of the determination itself is not elaborated upon such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the invention was in possession of the claimed invention, especially since it appears that the determination is the central feature of the claimed invention.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10, filed July 29, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 5-10, and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 10-17, filed July 29, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 5-10, and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are NOT persuasive. The Applicant first argues that while the rejection cites features of claim 1, nowhere does the rejection properly identify an abstract idea. The examiner respectfully disagrees. For example, the recitation “utilize the information relating to the one or more tasks provided over the period of time and the EEG data acquired over the period of time to determine at least one first sub-set period of time over the period of time” with citation to the specification of the present application (see specification pg. 9 ln. 3-4 and pg. 10 ln. 18-19) was interpreted as judgements/observations (the identification of sub-sets) and/or mathematical calculations/evaluations (the mathematical determination of the sub-sets). Such statements as used in the rejection clearly indicate the abstract ideas. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Next, the Applicant argues that the claim, when considered as a whole, cannot be performed based on a simple mathematical calculation. Furthermore, that the claim, when considered as a whole, cannot be practically performed in the human mind. The examiner respectfully disagrees. For this part of the eligibility analysis, when the claim is taken as a whole, additional elements not directed towards the abstract ideas and evaluated to determine whether the claim, as a whole, is integrated into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the recited exceptions. As stated above, claims 1, 10, and 14 recite the additional elements of a processor and input interface (i.e., a generic computer). The system/method are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the system/method do not qualify as significantly more because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
The claims further recite additional elements relating to the gathering of data, the MRI device and EEG device. These devices does not qualify as integration into a practical application because this limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g) using generic components (i.e., an MRI device and an EEG device are generic, no specificity is recited). The claims further recite an additional elements relating to the gathering of data, the MRI device and EEG device. These devices do not qualify as significantly more because (1) this is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry and/or (2) this limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g) using generic components (i.e., the sensors are generic). In this case, as the devices are claimed generically, they may be considered generic computer components.
Alternatively and/or additionally, these devices are well-understood, routine, and conventional. For example, Intrator (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0347906 – cited in prior action) teaches about recording an individual’s brain electrical activity (see abstract), and that conventional EEG may be utilized to measure brain activity, including alpha waves (see ¶[0223]). Furthermore, Poltroak (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0247662 – cited in prior action) teaches a method of facilitating a skill learning process involving determining brain wave patterns (see abstract), and that brain waves may be detected via several known techniques including EEG and fMRI (see ¶[0948]).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Therefore, the additional elements cannot be seen as integration into a practical application or as significantly more. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Next, the Applicant argues that the system of claim 1 is not conventional. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, claims 1, 10, and 14 recite the additional elements of a processor and input interface (i.e., a generic computer). The system/method are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the system/method do not qualify as significantly more because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
The claims further recite additional elements relating to the gathering of data, the MRI device and EEG device. These devices does not qualify as integration into a practical application because this limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g) using generic components (i.e., an MRI device and an EEG device are generic, no specificity is recited). The claims further recite an additional elements relating to the gathering of data, the MRI device and EEG device. These devices do not qualify as significantly more because (1) this is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry and/or (2) this limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g) using generic components (i.e., the sensors are generic). In this case, as the devices are claimed generically, they may be considered generic computer components.
Alternatively and/or additionally, these devices are well-understood, routine, and conventional. For example, Intrator (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0347906 – cited in prior action) teaches about recording an individual’s brain electrical activity (see abstract), and that conventional EEG may be utilized to measure brain activity, including alpha waves (see ¶[0223]). Furthermore, Poltroak (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0247662 – cited in prior action) teaches a method of facilitating a skill learning process involving determining brain wave patterns (see abstract), and that brain waves may be detected via several known techniques including EEG and fMRI (see ¶[0948]).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Therefore, the additional elements cannot be seen as integration into a practical application or as significantly more. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Next, the Applicant argues that the technical details of how the abstract ideas are implemented amount to “how” the abstract ideas are implemented. The examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no indication of what technical improvement the claim is providing. Next, similar to the claims in the cited cases, the claims only provide generic language that does not answer the “how”. For example, as recited above to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection, the recitation “the processor is configured to utilize the information relating to the one or more tasks provided over the period of time and the EEG data acquired over the period of time to determine at least one first sub-set period of time over the period of time” in lines 16-19 recites functional language without the algorithm (i.e., the “how”). This amounts to functional language as a “black box” without indication to how the first sub-set period of time over the period of time is determined. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Next, the Applicant argues that the claim as a whole recites features that are not mere insignificant extra-solution activity, such as the MRI device and the EEG data acquisition device. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As to the cited portion of the MPEP, the devices are used for gathering data at a high level of generality. The purported inventive concepts of the claim do not lie in the MRI device or the EEG data acquisition device. These are mere generic devices previously known (see Intrator recited above - US Patent Application Publication 2017/0347906) claimed at a high level of generality. For example, no specificity is given to the input of data (i.e., parameters of the MRI acquisition or EEG electrode placement/data analysis). Given the generic nature of the recitations related to the MRI device or the EEG data acquisition device, they can be seen as mere insignificant extra-solution activity, routine data gathering. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Next, the Applicant argues that the claimed system is new, such that a search for an improvement to an existing technical field is inapplicable. The examiner respectfully disagrees. It is not clear what improvement the present system has. Furthermore, the system is not seen as new, in view of the 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 rejections as recited above. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The arguments to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained. For commensurate reasons, the rejections to claims 10 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are maintained, as well as to the dependent claims.
Applicant’s arguments, double patenting
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 17, filed July 29, 2025, with respect to the provisional rejections of claims 1, 5-10, and 13-14 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting have been fully considered and are NOT persuasive. Therefore, the provisional double patenting rejections are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, prior art
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8-10, filed July 29, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 5-10, and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are NOT persuasive. The Applicant first argues that nothing in Grodzki relates to compliance with at least one task, rather, Grodzki is ensuring the state of the patient is as expected. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Referring to claim 1, the system specifically requires that “the processor is configured to determine an action associated with acquisition of the fMRI data over the at least one first sub-set period of time, wherein the determined action comprises identifying the fMRI data acquired over the at least one first sub-set period of time as data when the patient was not in compliance with at least one task of the one or more tasks and providing a prompt to the patient and/or an operator of the system that the patient is not in compliance with the at least one task of the one or more tasks over the at least one first sub-set period of time”. In simple terms, the processor determines an action, which comprises identifying the first sub-set period of time when the patient was not in compliance, and a prompt to the patient/operator indicating non-compliance.
As to the first portion of action, Grodzki teaches that the periods of time during which desired states (i.e., resting state) are present may be utilized (see Grodzki ¶[0012]-[0016], ¶[0019], ¶[0021], and ¶[0023]-[0025] time intervals of the data are monitored, only data during desired states may be utilized, such as resting state time intervals, ¶[0033] other states may be utilized, ¶[0048]-[0050] the MR data taken simultaneously with the EEG data is classified based on the EEG data, i.e., resting state or not, the time periods corresponding to the non-resting state are the at least one first sub-set; Fig. 4). Therefore, as Grodzki wants data from the resting state, and the patient has been instructed to be in the resting state, the non-resting state time periods would be considered that the patient is not compliant. For example, see Merriam-Webster comply definition, accessed on October 06, 2025, accessed at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/complying; see also Merriam-Webster compliance definition, accessed on October 06, 2025, accessed at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compliance. As the time periods are identified in Grodzki, all elements of the first portion of action are taught by Grodzki.
As to the second portion of action, Grodzki teaches that a prompt be provided to the patient/operator indicating the non-compliance (see Grodzki ¶[0023]-[0025] the user information output to the user, such as to wake up or to relax, provided by the headphones, the user information output is the prompt). The providing of the prompt to the user is itself indicative of the non-compliance. It also further indicates what the user should do in order to become compliant (this element not required in the claim). Therefore, as a prompt is provided to the patient/operator indicative of the non-compliance in Grodzki, all elements of the second portion of action are taught by Grodzki.
The arguments to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained. For commensurate reasons, the rejections to claims 10 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 are maintained, as well as to the dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103.
Conclusion
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 JONATHAN D. MORONESO whose telephone number is (571)272-8055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30AM - 6:00 PM, MST.
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, JENNIFER M. ROBERTSON can be reached at (571)272-5001. 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.
/J.D.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights