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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-5, 7-11, 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites that “constructing the spatial filters based on the channel information of the EEG signal comprises”; claim 1 already defines what the constructing comprises. Is this in addition to the steps in claim 1? Or an alternate option for constructing the filters? Replacing the steps of constructing is not permitted. How do the steps of constructing in both claims 1 and 2 relate to each other?
Claim 2 calls for dividing data into segments corresponding to “a first time slice” and “a second time slice”. Claim 1 already defines a first time slice and a second time slice – are these the same time slices or different time slices?
Claim 2 twice refers to “a latter data segment” to define two different segments; each should clearly define what data is involved in each of these segments.
Claim 2 is ostensibly directed to “constructing the spatial filters based on the channel information of the EEG signal” but only calls for use of “training set data” that is part of “a group of original EEG signals” – do these “original EEG signals” somehow include the EEG signal that is received in claim 1 or are these some other EEG signals? If some other EEG signals, how are they used in constructing the spatial filters when only the received EEG signal’s channel information is recited as being used to construct the filters?
Claim 7 calls for performing processing “on the signals corresponding to the first time slice and the signals corresponding to the second time slice” – which signals are “the signals”? Are these the first signals and second signals as defined in claim 1 or are these signals from some other channel(s) in the EEG signal which also contain segmented EEG signals also corresponding to the same period of time? The same issue is found in claim 18. Clarification is required.
Claim 8 calls for “dividing the EEG signal into a plurality of segmented EEG signals, and dividing each of the plurality of segmented EEG signals into a signal corresponding to a first time slice and a signal corresponding to a second time slice” – is this the same EEG signal? Are these the same time slices or are these different periods of time? If the same periods of time the claim should refer to the first and second time slices, but if different periods of time they should be labeled as such. The same issue is found in claim 19. Clarification is required.
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 1-5, 7-11, 15, 16, 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method of creating and applying a filter for the purposes of “augmenting” data, which falls into the grouping of mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application by any additional elements because this “augmenting” of data
Does not present an improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology, it is simply design and use of a calculation using a computing device as a tool to perform the abstract idea
Does not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis, as the judicial exception is not actually output or otherwise used in any manner
Is not applied with any particular machine, as there is no recited application of the judicial exception
Does not effect any transformation, as the judicial exception itself has no recited effect or use
Is not applied or used in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the performance of the judicial exception to a generic technological environment, a processor, for its execution
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only recited elements are a non-specific “processor” used for execution of the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(d), Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."), showing that these computer functions are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions), a memory for storing the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d), Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."), showing that these computer functions are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions), and the well-understood, routine, and conventional “device having a brain-computer interface” that houses the processor (as evidenced by Meggiolaro below). As such, considered individually and as a whole, the claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The dependent claims also fail to provide anything significantly more, as claims 2, 3, 7-9, 18-20 are directed to mathematical calculations which fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts, and claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 21, and 22 are directed to mathematical formulas which also fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts, none of which are integrated into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meggiolaro (US 2012/0059273) in view of McFarland (Spatial filter selection for EEG-based communication; Dennis J. McFarland, Lynn M. McCane, Stephen V. David, Jonathan R. Wolpaw; Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, Volume 103, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 386-394).
Regarding claim 1, Meggiolaro discloses a method for performing spatial filtering and augmenting an electroencephalogram (EEG) signal, including: constructing, by a processor of a device having a brain-computer interface (paragraphs [0039]-[0040]), spatial filters based on channel information of the EEG signal received via the brain-computer interface (paragraphs [0076]-[0077]); and augmenting, by the processor, the EEG signal with the spatial filters (paragraph [0070] – “a signal preprocessing is performed from the EEG data, filtering noise, using a spatial filter”).
Meggiolaro further discloses obtaining the EEG signal (paragraph [0041]), but does not disclose further specifics of constructing the spatial filters;
McFarland teaches constructing the spatial filters based on channel information of an EEG signal by:
obtaining the EEG signal (section 2.1),
determining a first channel from a plurality of channels contained in the EEG signal, determining a second channel set containing at least one channel selecting from remaining channels except the first channel; and gathering the first channel and the second channel set as a current combination manner (section 1.2; figure 1; particular emphasis on Small and Large Laplacian methods);
dividing the EEG signal into a plurality of segmented EEG signals, and dividing each of the plurality of segmented EEG signals into a signal corresponding to a first time slice and a signal corresponding to a second time slice (section 2.2; any desired segment/slice can be considered first/second slice absent more specific limitations); and
determining signals of the first channel corresponding to the first time slice as first signals, determining signals of the second channel set corresponding to the first time slice as second signals, and constructing the spatial filters based on the first signals and the second signals respectively (section 2.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have followed Meggiolaro and constructed the spatial filters based on signals of a first channel and signals of the remaining channels, as taught by McFarland, in order to enhance focal activity (section 4 of McFarland).
Regarding claim 15, Meggiolaro discloses an electronic device having a brain-computer interface (paragraphs [0039]-[0040]), comprising:
at least one processor (paragraph [0067] – computer); and
a memory communicating with the at least one processor (paragraph [0067] – computer),
wherein the memory is configured to store instructions executable by the at least one processor (paragraph [0071]), and when the instructions are executed by the at least one processor, the at least one processor is configured to:
construct spatial filters based on channel information of an electroencephalogram (EEG) signal received via the brain-computer interface (paragraphs [0076]-[0077]); and
augment the EEG signal with the spatial filters (paragraph [0070]);
and further configured to obtain the EEG signal (paragraph [0041]).
Meggiolaro does not disclose details of the processor’s construction of the spatial filters. McFarland teaches an electronic device comprising a processor configured to construct spatial filters (abstract based on channel information of an obtained electroencephalogram (EEG) signal (section 2.1) by determining a first channel from a plurality of channels contained in the EEG signal, determining a second channel set containing at least one channel selecting from remaining channels except the first channel, and gathering the first channel and the second channel set as a current combination manner (section 1.2; figure 1; particular emphasis on Small and Large Laplacian methods);
dividing the EEG signal into a plurality of segmented EEG signals, and dividing each of the plurality of segmented EEG signals into a signal corresponding to a first time slice and a signal corresponding to a second time slice (section 2.2; any desired segment/period can be considered first/second “slice” absent more specific limitations); and
determining signals of the first channel corresponding to the first time slice as first signals, determining signals of the second channel set corresponding to the first time slice as second signals, and constructing the spatial filters based on the first signals and the second signals respectively (section 2.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have followed Meggiolaro and constructed the spatial filters based on signals of a first channel and signals of the remaining channels, as taught by McFarland, in order to enhance focal activity (section 4 of McFarland).
Regarding claim 16, Meggiolaro discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer instructions stored thereon (paragraph [0067]), wherein the computer instructions are configured to cause a computer having a brain-computer interface (paragraphs [0039]-[0040]) to execute a method for performing spatial filtering and augmenting an electroencephalogram (EEG) signal (paragraph [0071]), the method comprising:
constructing spatial filters based on channel information of the EEG signal received via the brain-computer interface (paragraphs [0076]-[0077]); and
augmenting the EEG signal with the spatial filters (paragraph [0070]);
and further comprising obtaining the EEG signal (paragraph [0041]).
Meggiolaro does not disclose specifics of constructing the spatial filters from the EEG channel information. McFarland teaches constructing spatial filters based on channel information of an EEG signal by determining a first channel from a plurality of channels contained in the EEG signal, determining a second channel set containing at least one channel selecting from remaining channels except the first channel, and gathering the first channel and the second channel set as a current combination manner (section 1.2; figure 1; particular emphasis on Small and Large Laplacian methods);
dividing the EEG signal into a plurality of segmented EEG signals, and dividing each of the plurality of segmented EEG signals into a signal corresponding to a first time slice and a signal corresponding to a second time slice (section 2.2; any desired segment/period can be considered first/second “slice” absent more specific limitations); and
determining signals of the first channel corresponding to the first time slice as first signals, determining signals of the second channel set corresponding to the first time slice as second signals, and constructing the spatial filters based on the first signals and the second signals respectively (section 2.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have followed Meggiolaro and constructed the spatial filters based on signals of a first channel and signals of the remaining channels, as taught by McFarland, in order to enhance focal activity (section 4 of McFarland).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 112, the Examiner notes that the amendments to the claims have generally resolved previous issues but have introduced new issues, as set forth above.
Regarding the rejections under 101, Applicant initially argues that the invention as claimed meets Step 2A, prong 1, by means of use of “a processor of a device having a brain-computer interface” which receives data, constructs filters, and “augments” a signal using the filters. The Examiner notes that the “processor of a device having a brain-computer interface” which performs all of these tasks is still “a processor” regardless of any device to which it may be attached, “a processor” being a well-understood, routine, and conventional device recited at a high level of generality and which still only provides a generic technological environment for the execution of the abstract idea itself as defined above.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong 2, Applicant argues that the claims “recite a ‘technological improvement’” as a result of how “the spatial filter can be dynamically designed”, which is not claimed, such that “the recognition accuracy of subsequent feature classification can be effectively improved”, which is not claimed, “the preprocessing technology of the EEG signal can be further improved”, which is not claimed, “the transformation of the technology to the application achievement can be promoted”, which does not identify what an “application achievement” is or how it relates to the invention as claimed, “the data preprocessing of the EEG signal can effectively improve the quality of collected signals”, where no “preprocessing” has been identified, and improving signal quality is not a unique and novel goal, nor is to “improve the performance” of any system; noting that “considerable social and economic benefits can be achieved” does not specifically identify any of these “benefits” nor how any specific aspect of the invention as claimed might provide these unidentified “benefits”. The Examiner notes that no part of this argument specifically identifies what aspect of the invention as claimed provides any of these “beneficial effects” that “may” be provided by the invention as claimed, nor do Applicant’s remarks identify any part of the disclosure that might provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the improvement as is required by MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) .
Regarding Step 2B, Applicant’s remarks are directed to the benefits of the spatial filter itself; as this is part of the judicial exception, not an “additional element”, the discussion of whether the spatial filter meets the requirement of “whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself” is moot. The claims remain rejected.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the art rejections of the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues only that Meggiolaro does not disclose the limitations that are similar to but not identical to those found in previous claims 6 and 17 as depending from previous claims 1 and 15 respectively. As these limitations are taught by McFarland above, the general allegation of patentability is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
No art has been applied against claims 2-5, 7-11, and 18-22; however, as the claims are all rejected under 112 and 101 above, they are not presently allowable and the question of prior art will be revisited upon resolution of these other issues.
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 KAREN E TOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-6824. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9a-6p.
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 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.
/KAREN E TOTH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights