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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “processing device” in claims 24-27, feedback device in claims 24 and 28, and EEG electronics in claims 26 and 33.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Paragraph [0020] of the specification as filed defines a processing device as a smartphone, tablet, or other portable processing device. Paragraph [0026] of the specification as filed defines a feedback device as headphones, a VR headset, tactile transducers or other feedback devices. Paragraph [0064] of the specification as filed defines EEG electronics as amplifiers, analog-to-digital converters and microcontrollers.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 24, 26, 28-30, and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nurflus (US 20190192033 A1– previously cited) in view of Sadeghian-Motahar (US 20170079543 A1) in view of Kumada (US 20090171181 A1 – previously cited) in view of Auman (US 20110288586 A1).
In regards to claim 24 Nurflus teaches a system for precision psychiatry, comprising:
a wearable device including a headset comprising a plurality of EEG electrodes attached thereto, the headset configured to be placed over a head of a user ([0095])
a processing device configured to be connected to the EEG electrodes of the wearable device to receive brain activity signals therefrom ([0060] [0109] Fig. 4), the processing device generating a neurofeedback signal based on a detected aberrant brain activity ([0053]);
and a feedback device providing the neurofeedback signal to the user ([0115]).
Nurflus fails to teach hdEEG electrodes. Sadeghian-Motahar teaches using high density EEG high density EEG systems (64 channels or more) provide higher spatial resolution for measuring the scalp EEG signal ([0029]). It would have been prima facie obvious to modify the electrodes of Nurflus hdEEG electrodes like the ones described in Sadeghian-Motahar in order to provide higher spatial resolution for measuring the scalp EEG signal and improve accuracy.
Nurflus fails to teach a system comprising a wearable cap; wherein a 3-D location of the EEG electrodes is known at all times; including a plurality of first linear actuators, each of the first linear actuators configured to expand and contract to increase and decrease a size of the cap, respectively, and wherein the EEG electrodes connected to the cap via a plurality of second linear actuators, each of the second linear actuators configured to expand and contract to move at least one of the LEG electrodes toward and away from, respectively, a scalp of the user when the cap is placed over the head of the user
Kumada teaches a system for precision psychiatry, comprising:
a wearable device including a cap and a plurality of EEG electrodes attached thereto, the cap configured to be placed over a head of a user and including a plurality of first linear actuators, each of the first linear actuators configured to expand and contract to increase and decrease a size of the cap, respectively (Fig 4, Belt 5, [0049] holder pieces 4a, 4b, and 4c actuate along belt 5)
the EEG electrodes connected to the cap via a plurality of second linear actuators, each of the second linear actuators configured to expand and contract to move at least one of the LEG electrodes toward and away from, respectively, a scalp of the user when the cap is placed over the head of the user ([0042] “In addition, by varying the fastening position of the male screw thread 3a and the female screw thread 8a, it is possible to change the length of the projection of the tip”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the headset of Nurflus to include the cap and EEG actuators of Kumada in order to adjust the placement of the EEGs to ensure greater accuracy (Kumada abstract).
Modified Nurflus fails to teach a system wherein a 3-D location of the hgEEG electrodes is known at all times. Auman teaches linear actuators with internal position sensors ([0038] “electrical motor 80 driven linear displacement adjustment actuators 18 with internal position sensors 46 are employed as adjustment tools as well as position indicators”). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second actuators of modified Nurflus to include position sensors like the actuators of Auman. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of allowing the processor to know the position of the EEG electrodes in relation to the belt sections allowing for more accurate placement of the electrodes.
In regards to claim 26 modified Nurflus teaches the system of claim 24, wherein the processing device includes EEG electronics (Nurflus [0098] communication interface 218 communicates with headset that includes EEGs) and a smartphone (Nurflus [0103]).
In regards to claim 28 modified Nurflus teaches the system of claim 24. wherein the feedback device includes one of a headphone. an earbud, a video screen, a VR headset and a tactile transducer (Nurflus [0115]).
In regards to claim 29 modified Nurflus teaches the system of claim 24, wherein the neurofeedback signal includes one of audible information, visual information, tactile information and pharmacological intervention (Nurflus [0115]).
In regards to claim 30 modified Nurflus teaches the system of claim 24, wherein at least one of the second linear actuators activates to control a movement of electrode protrusions relative to one another to further adjust a contact between the EEG electrodes and the scalp (Kumada [0042] linear actuators are activated by user interacting with them to adjust a contact between the EEG electrodes and the scalp).
In regards to claim 50 modified Nurflus teaches the system of claim 24, wherein the wearable device comprising a rigid structure and at least one linear displacement sensor configured to determine the location of a first one of the hdEEG electrodes relative to the rigid structure (Kumada ([0049] holder pieces 4a, 4b, and 4c actuate along belt 5, Belt is a rigid structure, See rejection for claim 24, the linear actuator position sensors allow for the position of the EEG electrodes in relation to the belt).
Claim(s) 25, 27, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nurflus (US 20190192033 A1– previously cited) in view of Sadeghian-Motahar (US 20170079543 A1) in view of Kumada (US 20090171181 A1 – previously cited) in view of Auman (US 20110288586 A1) as applied to claims 24 and 26, further in view of Deutsch (US 20220313135 A1 – previously cited).
In regards to claim 25 modified Nurflus teaches the system of claim 24. Modified Nurflus fails to teach a system wherein the processing device autonomously controls an adjustment of the wearable device such that the EEG electrodes contact the scalp of the user. Deutsch teaches a processing device that autonomously controls an adjustment of a wearable device such that EEG electrodes contact the scalp of the user ([0132] [0144] electrodes can vibrate to penetrate hair and ensure better contact of to the scalp). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Nurflus to include the actuators of Deutsch and modify the processor to control the vibration of the actuators in order to penetrate hair and ensure better contact of to the scalp.
In regards to claim 27 modified Nurflus teaches the system of claim 26, wherein the processing device includes a graphical user interface ([0138] display shows if electrodes are positioned properly). Modified Nurflus fails to teach the interface displaying and monitoring an adjustment of the wearable device. Deutsch teaches a processing device that autonomously controls an adjustment of a wearable device such that EEG electrodes contact the scalp of the user ([0132] [0144] electrodes can vibrate to penetrate hair and ensure better contact of to the scalp). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Nurflus to include the actuators of Deutsch and modify the processor of the graphical user interface to monitor and control the vibration of the actuators in order to penetrate hair and ensure better contact of to the scalp. The display of modified Nurflus would then display that the electrodes are now positioned properly therefore displaying the adjustment was successful.
In regards to claim 31 modified Nurflus teaches the system of claim 24. Modified Nurflus fails to teach a system wherein each of the EEG electrodes include a vibration motor for vibrating the EEG electrodes to further adjust a contact between the EEG electrodes and the scalp. Deutsch teaches a system wherein EEG electrodes include a vibration motor for vibrating the EEG electrodes to further adjust a contact between the EEG electrodes and the scalp ([0132]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Nurflus to include the actuators of Deutsch and modify the processor to control the vibration of the actuators in order to penetrate hair and ensure better contact of to the scalp.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nurflus (US 20190192033 A1– previously cited) in view of Sadeghian-Motahar (US 20170079543 A1) in view of Kumada (US 20090171181 A1 – previously cited) in view of Auman (US 20110288586 A1) as applied to claim 24, further in view of Hampstead (US 20210268266 A1– previously cited).
In regards to claim 32 modified Nurflus teaches the system of claim 24. Modified Nurflus fails to teach a 3D printed cap. Hampstead teaches 3D printing a frame that positions EEGs on the scalp (Hampstead [0060]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the cap of modified Nurflus to be 3D printed like the frame of Hampstead. Doing so would allow for rapid manufacturing of the cap (Hampstead [0060]).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nurflus (US 20190192033 A1– previously cited) in view of Sadeghian-Motahar (US 20170079543 A1) in view of Kumada (US 20090171181 A1 – previously cited) in view of Auman (US 20110288586 A1) as applied to claim 24, further in view of Coyle (US 20230165503 A1– previously cited).
In regards to claim 33 modified Nurflus teaches the system of claim 24 including circuitry (Nurflus [0089]). Modified Nurflus fails to teach EEG electronics including a flexible printed circuit board (PCB). Coyle teaches EEGs with EEG electronics including a flexible printed circuit board ([0081]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the circuitry of modified Nurflus with a flexible printed circuit board like the one of Coyle. Doing so would merely be a simple substitution of one known circuit board type for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nurflus (US 20190192033 A1– previously cited) in view of Sadeghian-Motahar (US 20170079543 A1) in view of Kumada (US 20090171181 A1 – previously cited) in view of Auman (US 20110288586 A1) as applied to claim 24, further in view of Technische Universiteit Delft (Final Report Summary - 4D-EEG (4D-EEG: A new tool to investigate the spatial and temporal activity patterns in the brain.)).
In regards to claim 48 modified Nurflus teaches the system of claim 24. Modified Nurflus fails to teach a system wherein the processing device is further configured to generate a 4-D image of brain activity based on the brain activity signals. Technische Universiteit Delft teaches a processing device configured to generate a 4-D image of brain activity based on hdEEG brain activity signals (Final report Paragraph 1, “In the 4D EEG project a new methodology was developed to monitor brain activity with a very high spatial (3D) and temporal (+1D = 4D) resolution”). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the processor of modified Nurflus to carry out the 4-D image of brain activity method of Technische Universiteit Delft. Doing so would allow for “fundamental analysis of role of the brain in human motor control”, and allow for a “non-invasive method which can be applied during functional tasks” (Technische Universiteit Delft Paragraph 5).
Claim(s) 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nurflus (US 20190192033 A1– previously cited) in view of Sadeghian-Motahar (US 20170079543 A1) in view of Kumada (US 20090171181 A1 – previously cited) in view of Auman (US 20110288586 A1) as applied to claim 24, further in view of Pion-Tonachini (Real-time EEG Source-mapping Toolbox (REST): Online ICA and Source Localization).
In regards to claim 49 modified Nurflus teaches the system of claim 24. Modified Nurflus fails to teach a system wherein the processing device processes the brain activity signals using a real-time source localization algorithm. Pion-Tonachini teaches a method of processing EEG brain activity signals using a real-time source localization algorithm (Abstract “REST allows blind source separation of EEG data in real-time using Online Recursive Independent Component Analysis (ORICA), plus near real-time localization of separated sources”). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the processor of modified Nurflus to carry out the EEG processing method of Pion-Tonachini to process the EEG data in order to visualize the users brain activity in real time (Pion-Tonachini Abstract “Selected measures of raw EEG data or component activations (e.g. time series of the data, spectral changes over time, equivalent current dipoles, etc.) can be visualized in near real-time”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 03/11/2026, with respect to the 112(f) analysis of the claims have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Being known in the art is not enough to overcome the 112f interpretation of the claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 03/11/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 29 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 29 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 03/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 24-33 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nurflus (US 20190192033 A1) in view of Kumada (US 20090171181 A1 – previously cited) in view of Sadeghian-Motahar (US 20170079543 A1).
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 LUCY EPPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-0818. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
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.
/LUCY EPPERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights