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 5, 8, and 14rejected 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 5 recites “summing (1-K) times of the stored stimulation artifact template and K of the transmitted data”; it is unclear what this means and what equation is being applied.
Claim 8 recites “a stimulation-point-in-time determiner configured to verify the stimulation point in time from the recorded data”; claim 8 depends on claim 2 which recites “a signal transmitter configured to verify a stimulation point in time from the recorded data”. It is unclear and indefinite whether the “a stimulation-point-in-time determiner” of claim 8 the same as “a signal transmitter” of claim 2, or if they are different components and if they perform the same function.
Claim 14 recites “summing (1-K) times of the stored stimulation artifact template and K of the transmitted data”; it is unclear what this means and what equation is being applied.
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.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claims 1, 10 and 18 positively recite “a living body”. Recommended language would be “configured to”, “designed for”, etc.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20130119620A to Hwan et al. (hereinafter “Hwan” – on IDS) in view of CN112826510A to Yue et al. (hereinafter “Yue”).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 18. Hwan discloses a computer device, method and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a computer program (para 0020, “apparatus”, figs 1 and 2) connected to a recording device in which data representing effect of stimulation on a living body is recorded (para 0020 “neural signal measuring unit 101”), the computer device comprising: a stimulation artifact template generation configured to generate a stimulation artifact template for the stimulation based on the recorded data (para 0028 “artifact remover 102”, para 0030 “generating a template waveform”); and a stimulation artifact removal configured to remove a stimulation artifact according to the stimulation from the recorded data using the stimulation artifact template (para 0030 “subtracting the waveform of the nerve signal including the electric stimulation artifacts from the template waveform”).
It is noted that any component of Hwan that performs the functions of the loop could be considered to be the claimed module. In arguendo, even if Hwan does not explicitly disclose having different modules.
Yue, teaches that it is known to use a device having a housing 8, a signal processing module 4, a signal analysis module 5, and a signal transmission module 7, etc. to perform a similar closed loop (Description, machine translated). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Hwan with the known teachings of Yue to provide the predictable result of performing the analysis using a device.
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 19 . Hwan as modified by Yue renders obvious the computer device of claims 1, 10 and 18, wherein the stimulation artifact template generation module comprises: a signal transmitter configured to verify a stimulation point in time from the recorded data and to transmit data corresponding to a predetermined time from the stimulation point in time (para 0007, fig. 1-2 “circuit section for transmitting an electrical stimulation signal to the brain or receiving a signal from the brain”); a template calculator configured to calculate the stimulation artifact template from the transmitted data (para 0030 “generating a template waveform”); and a template storage configured to store the stimulation artifact template (Yue, “controller/microcontroller”, it is understood that the templates would be at least temporarily stored to perform the functions).
Regarding claims 3 and 12. Hwan as modified by Yue renders obvious the computer device of claim 2 and claim 11, wherein the template calculator is configured to calculate the stimulation artifact template in a form of an infinite impulse response (IIR) filter (Yue, description, “the preprocessing comprises filtering (such as a Butterworth filter or other low-pass or band-pass IIR (infinite impulse response)”).
Regarding claims 4 and 13. Hwan as modified by Yue renders obvious the computer device of claim 2 and claim 11, wherein the template calculator is configured to, when a previously stored stimulation artifact template is present in the template storage, calculate the stimulation artifact template by applying a variable for updating the stored stimulation artifact template (para 0020, 0022-0025 “closed-loop”, it is understood that re-doing the template would include updating the template).
Regarding claim 5 and 14. Hwan as modified by Yue renders obvious the computer device of claim 4 and claim 13, wherein the template calculator is configured to, when the variable is K, calculate the stimulation artifact template by summing (1-K) times of the stored stimulation artifact template and K of the transmitted data (para 0020, 0022-0025 “closed-loop”, it is understood that re-doing the template would be capable of performing various calculations to determine a template).
Regarding claims 6 and 15. Hwan as modified by Yue renders obvious the computer device of claim 4 and claim 13, wherein the template calculator is configured to, track a change in stimulation artifact templates consecutively calculated, and adjust the variable based on the change (para 0020, 0022-0025 “closed-loop”, it is understood that the template generator would be capable of updating and tracking changes ).
Regarding claims 7 and 16. Hwan as modified by Yue renders obvious the computer device of claim 4 and claim 13, wherein the variable is greater than or equal to 0 and less than or equal to 1 (para 0020, 0022-0025 “closed-loop”, it is understood that re-doing the template would include updating the template).
Regarding claim 8. Hwan as modified by Yue renders obvious the computer device of claim 2, wherein the signal transmitter comprises: a stimulation-point-in-time determiner configured to verify the stimulation point in time from the recorded data; an input record storage configured to receive and store the data corresponding to the predetermined time from the stimulation point in time from the recording device; and a transmitter configured to transmit the stored data to the template calculator (see rejection of claims 1 and 2; Yue Description “confirming the position of the ECG artifact in the EEG signal”; it is understood that other portions of the loop could also be confirmed; see 112 rejection above).
Regarding claims 9, 17 and 20. Hwan as modified by Yue renders obvious the computer device of claim 1 and claim 10, wherein the stimulation artifact removal module is configured to subtract the stimulation artifact template from the recorded data and to recover a biosignal in which the stimulation artifact is removed from the recorded data (Hwan, para 0027-0031; Yue, Description, “extract the waveform of the ECG artifact in the EEG signal, filter the waveform of the ECG artifact, and use the filtered waveform of the ECG artifact to establish an artifact waveform template, and pass Template subtraction method to remove ECG artifacts in the target EEG signal”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANA SAHAND whose telephone number is (571)272-6842. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 am -5:30 pm; F 9 am-3 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer S McDonald can be reached at (571) 270- 3061. 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.
/SANA SAHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796