DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and under exam herein.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-18) in the reply filed on 2 July 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2 July 2026.
Claims 1-18 are examined herein.
Priority
The instant Application claims the benefit priority to US Provisional Application 63/203,333, filed 6 August 2021. Each of examined claims 1-18 are granted priority to the EFD of 6 August 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 7 February 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has therefore been considered. A signed copy of the IDS is included with this Office Action.
It is noted that numerous references lacked appropriate page numbers, as is required under 37 CFR 1.97. The Examiner has annotated the references herein. Applicant is kindly reminded to provide proper citations in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97 in all future submissions to the office.
Specification: Drawings
The Drawings filed 20 July 2022 are accepted. The Specification has been amended to reflect the Detailed Description of claim Figure 15 and is accepted herein.
Specification
Note: All references to the Specification herein pertain to the PG publication: US20230070243.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 11, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 11 recite, “post-processing module to determine a Pearson's Correlation Coefficient (PCC) value associated with a match of the template with the received neural signal streams, the PCC value determined by combining the first summation, the second summation and the third summation with predetermined constants associated with the template”, which is missing the appropriate article preceding “post-processing”. Said limitation should be amended to recite, “a post-processing module to determine a Pearson's Correlation Coefficient (PCC) value associated with a match of the template with the received neural signal streams, the PCC value determined by combining the first summation, the second summation, and the third summation with predetermined constants associated with the template” for claim consistency.
Claims 6 and 14 are missing an appropriate “period” after the recited formula. Amendment is required.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)-Indefiniteness
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite, “the first summation comprising an element-wise multiply-sum using a time- dependent sliding indicator window on the received neuron signal streams and a template”, wherein the recitation of “and a template” is unclear in the claim, as the “template” is not defined. The “template”, for examination purposes is interpreted herein as a template of known values.
Claims 1 and 11 recite, “an accumulation using the time-dependent sliding indicator window” wherein the “accumulation” is not defined in the claim and is thus unclear. Clarification is requested by claim language such as “bit accumulations” for example or the like.
Claims 1 and 11 recite, “the third summation comprising a sum of squares using the time-dependent sliding indicator window” is unclear with respect to the “sum of squares” as said “sum” is not operational on any particular value rendering the claim indefinite. Clarification is requested to provide, for example, that sum of squares operates on binned inputs, or the like.
Claims 7 and 15 recite, “wherein for each of the neuron signal streams, a binned value of the template is accumulated if an input spike indicator is active”, wherein the claim is unclear with respect to the parameters that would provide an input spike indicator as “active” and further it is unclear as to what is intended by an “accumulated template”, as no active steps are delineated to provide for the said operations. For example, it would appear that the input spike would meet a threshold in order for an indication of “active”, or the like. Clarification is requested through clearer claim language.
Claims 10 and 18 recite, “wherein the third summation comprises partial sums of linear operations that are generated and accumulated as new values are received”, wherein the claim is unclear with respect to the “new values are received” as the “values” are not defined in the claim. For examination purposes it is assumed that the “values” new values received along the sliding window operations. However, this is not clear. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The instant rejection reflects the framework as outlined in the MPEP at 2106.04:
Framework with which to Evaluate Subject Matter Eligibility:
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter;
(2A) Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea;
Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application (Prong Two); and
(2B) If the claims do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
Framework Analysis as Pertains to the Instant Claims:
Step 1 Analysis: Are claims directed to process, machine, manufacture/composition of matter
With respect to step (1): yes, the claims are directed to a system and a method for template matching for neural population pattern detection.
Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis: Do claims recite abstract idea
With respect to step (2A)(1), the claims recite abstract ideas. The MPEP at 2106.04(a)(2) further explains that abstract ideas are defined as:
mathematical concepts, (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations);
certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices or principles, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people); and/or
mental processes (procedures for observing, evaluating, analyzing/ judging and organizing information).
With respect to the instant claims, under the (2A)(1) evaluation, the claims are found herein to recite abstract ideas that fall into the grouping of mental processes (in particular procedures for observing, analyzing and organizing information) and in conjunction with mathematical concepts (in particular mathematical relationships and formulas).
The claim steps to abstract ideas are as follows:
Independent Claim 1:
a summation module to serially determine a first summation (Si), a second summation (S2), and a third summation (S3) on the received neuron signals, the first summation comprising an element-wise multiply-sum using a time-dependent sliding indicator window on the received neuron signal streams and a template, the second summation comprising an accumulation using the time- dependent sliding indicator window, and the third summation comprising a sum of squares using the time-dependent sliding indicator window; post-processing module to determine a Pearson's Correlation Coefficient (PCC) value associated with a match of the template with the received neural signal streams, the PCC value determined by combining the first summation, the second summation, and the third summation with predetermined constants associated with the template, wherein steps directed to summation determination are mathematical processes of adding values together which is a mathematical process and wherein sliding window operations can be performed using pen and paper using the received data, for example. Determinations of PCC is a mathematical operation using the formula as defined at [0065] of the Specification.
Independent Claim 11:
serially determining a first summation (Si), a second summation (S2), and a third summation (S3) on the received neuron signals, the first summation comprising an element-wise multiply-sum using a time-dependent sliding indicator window on the received neuron signal streams and a template, the second summation comprising an accumulation using the time-dependent sliding indicator window, and the third summation comprising a sum of squares using the time-dependent sliding indicator window; determining a Pearson's Correlation Coefficient (PCC) value associated with a match of the template with the received neural signal streams, the PCC value determined by combining the first summation, the second summation, and the third summation with predetermined constants associated with the template, wherein steps directed to summation determination are mathematical processes of adding values together which is a mathematical process and wherein sliding window operations can be performed using pen and paper using the received data, for example. Determinations of PCC is a mathematical operation using the formula as defined at [0065] of the Specification.
Dependent claims:
Claim 2: template is encoded using unary coding, wherein unary code is data representation using n number values with marker 0.
Claim 3: PCC value is determined only over a subset of the received neuron signal streams, further defining the PCC value of claim 1.
Claims 4 and 12: predetermined constants comprise: a first constant (C1) using a number of bins and the number of neuron signal streams; a second constant (C2) using binned indicators of the template summed over the number of bins and the number of neuron signal streams; and a third constant (C3) using a combination of binned indicators of the template summed over the number of bins and the number of neuron signal streams, wherein constants are fixed values in mathematical operations.
Claims 5 and 13: the combination of the first summation, the second summation, and the third summation with the predetermined constants comprises a constant multiplier, a subtractor, a squarer, and a fractional divider, wherein “summation” is a mathematical process of adding summands to provide a total and further including operations of multiply, subtract, square and divide.
Claims 6 and 14: the combination of the first summation, the second summation, and the third summation with the predetermined constants comprises determining the combination (r) as a function of time (t) as
PNG
media_image1.png
92
349
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, which is equivalent to mathematical operations that includes the formula for summation herein.
Claims 7 and 15: wherein for each of the neuron signal streams, a binned value of the template is accumulated if an input spike indicator is active, which is a mathematical process of a binning operations as disclosed at [0064] of the Specification.
Claims 9 and 17: the second summation comprises a count of all bit indicators in each time-dependent sliding indicator window, wherein “summation” is a mathematical process of adding summands to provide a total.
Claims 10 and 18: the third summation comprises partial sums of linear operations that are generated and accumulated as new values are received, wherein “summation” is a mathematical process of adding summands to provide a total.
Hence, the claims explicitly recite numerous elements that, individually and in combination, constitute abstract ideas.
The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) and determined herein to each cover performance either in the mind (calculations by hand or pen and paper) and performance by mathematical operation (calculations using sums and PCC). There are no specifics as to the methodology involved in said operations and thus, under the BRI, one could simply, for example, perform said operation with pen and paper, or, alternatively with the aid of a generic computer as a tool to perform said calculations. These recitations are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it and providing certain results from the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations (Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and comparing information regarding a sample or test to a control or target data in (Univ. of Utah Research Found. v. Ambry Genetics Corp. (774 F.3d 755, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO (689 F.3d 1303, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2012)) that the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind with pen and paper, and can include mathematical concepts.
Further, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation (see, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674: noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016): holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind" (see Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016): holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis: Integration to a Practical Application
Because the claims do recite judicial exceptions, direction under (2A)(2) provides that the claims must be examined further to determine whether they integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d). A claim can be said to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application when it applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is performed by analyzing the additional elements of the claim to determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).I.; MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the abstract idea, the claim is said to fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).III).
With respect to the instant recitations, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Independent Claim 1:
A system for template matching for neural population pattern detection, the system in communication with a plurality of neural signal acquisition circuits, the system comprising one or more processors and one or more memory units in communication with the one or more processors, the one or more processors configured to execute a signal interface to receive neuron signal streams from the neural signal acquisition circuits and serially associate a bit indicator with spikes from each neuron signal stream… output module to output the determined PCC value
Independent Claim 11:
A processor-implemented method for template matching for neural population pattern detection… receiving neuron signal streams and serially associating a bit indicator with spikes from each neuron signal stream…outputting the determined PCC value
The additional elements herein directed to “output the PCC value” are those directed to insignificant extra-solution activity wherein said step is incidental to the primary process of performing math. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715-16, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (restricting public access to media was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1242, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (in patents regarding electronic menus, features related to types of ordering were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity). Further, See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
The claims further recite the additional elements that include a system and processor configured to execute a signal interface to receive neuron signal streams wherein said operations are directed to data gathering to data gathering perform functions of collecting the data needed to carry out the abstract idea. Data gathering does not impose any meaningful limitation on the abstract idea, or on how the abstract idea is performed. Data gathering steps are not sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, the system and processor execution herein are part of a general purpose computer system and there are no details herein wherein of how the specific computer structures are used to implement the judicial exceptions beyond generic computing operations, i.e., the computer elements of the claims do not provide improvements to the functioning of the computer itself (see: DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com LP); they do not provide improvements to any other technology or technical field (see: Diamond v. Diehr); nor do they utilize a particular machine (see: Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co.). Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer, and therefore the claim does not provide integration into a practical application of any judicial exception.
Step 2B Analysis: Do Claims Provide an Inventive Concept
The claims are lastly evaluated using the (2B) analysis, wherein it is determined that because the claims recite abstract ideas, and do not integrate that abstract ideas into a practical application, the claims also lack a specific inventive concept. Applicant is reminded that the judicial exception alone cannot provide the inventive concept or the practical application and that the identification of whether the additional elements amount to such an inventive concept requires considering the additional elements individually and in combination to determine if they provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05.A i-vi).
With respect to the instant claims, the additional elements of data gathering described above do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As directed in the Berkheimer memorandum of 19 April 2018 and set forth in the MPEP, determinations of whether or not additional elements (or a combination of additional elements) may provide significantly more and/or an inventive concept rests in whether or not the additional elements (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Said assessment is made by a factual determination stemming from a conclusion that an element (or combination of elements) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry, which is determined by either a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates a well-understood, routine or conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to one or more of the court decisions as discussed in MPEP 2106(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and/or a statement that the examiner is taking official notice with respect to the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
With respect to the instant claims, the prior art to Ciliberti et al. (eLife (2018)-IDS reference) discloses systems for classification of patterns of spiking activity using a “signal interface “ (electrode array) for spike detection (pp. 15-16; abstract). Further the prior art to O’Leary et al. (IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits (2018)-IDs reference) disclose a neural interface processor for brain-sate classification wherein neural circuit processing using digitization of neural signals (p. 3151) wherein the prior art shows that steps as disclosed herein directed to “a signal interface to receive neuron signal streams…associate a bit indicator” are directed to are data gathering elements as in 2A, prong 2 and that under the assessment herein under 2B encompass steps that are routine, well-understood and conventional in the art.
With respect to the claims to the system and processor, memory and instruction, the computer-related elements or the general purpose computer do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. Further, the specification also discloses that computer processors and systems, as example, are generic computing systems [0042]. The additional elements are set forth at such a high level of generality that they can be met by a general purpose computer. Therefore, the computer components constitute no more than a general link to a technological environment, which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept that would render the claims significantly more than an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(b)I-III).
The dependent claims have been analyzed with respect to step 2B and none of these claims provide a specific inventive concept, as they all fail to rise to the level of significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
For these reasons, the claims, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole, are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Prior Art Made of Record
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
1. Jiang (Algorithm and Hardware Co-design for Local/Edge Computing (2020) Dissertation; Colombia University-Proquest number: 27995499), disclosing algorithm hardware co-design for digital mixed-signal integrated circuit design in the field of biomedical devices, including those for Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCIs). Said disclosure includes teaching hardware augmentations and spike sorting as described in Chapter 1 and further discloses constraint allocations in Chapter 3 and mixed-signal multiply-accumulate operations in Chapters 4 and 5. However, said prior art does not teach or fairly disclose operations including Pearson Correlation Coefficients and summations as claimed herein.
The closest prior art is represented in the above citation wherein the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest the steps of the instant claims that are directed to summations S1, S2, and S3 with a post-processing to determine Pearson Correlation Coefficient value associated with a match of the template with the received neural signal streams.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
E-mail Communications Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting following form via EFS-Web or Central Fax (571-273-8300): PTO/SB/439. Applicant is encouraged to do so as early in prosecution as possible, so as to facilitate communication during examination.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
Inquiries
Papers related to this application may be submitted to Technical Center 1600 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Technical Center 1600 via the PTO Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notices published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (November 15, 1988), 1156 OG 61 (November 16, 1993), and 1157 OG 94 (December 28, 1993) (See 37 CFR § 1.6(d)). The Central Fax Center Number is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lori A. Clow, whose telephone number is (571) 272-0715. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 12:00PM to 10:00PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached on (571) 272-9047.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to (571) 272-0547.
Patent applicants with problems or questions regarding electronic images that can be viewed in the Patent Application Information Retrieval system (PAIR) can now contact the USPTO’s Patent Electronic Business Center (Patent EBC) for assistance. Representatives are available to answer your questions daily from 6 am to midnight (EST). The toll free number is (866) 217-9197. When calling please have your application serial or patent number, the type of document you are having an image problem with, the number of pages and the specific nature of the problem. The Patent Electronic Business Center will notify applicants of the resolution of the problem within 5-7 business days. Applicants can also check PAIR to confirm that the problem has been corrected. The USPTO’s Patent Electronic Business Center is a complete service center supporting all patent business on the Internet. The USPTO’s PAIR system provides Internet-based access to patent application status and history information. It also enables applicants to view the scanned images of their own application file folder(s) as well as general patent information available to the public.
/Lori A. Clow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights