DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1, 5, and 15 are amended. Claims 7, 13-14, 19, and 21-24 are cancelled. Claims 1-6, 8-12, 15-18, and 20 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn in view of the amendment to the claim.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd paragraph rejection of claims 1-20 in section 3.a of the previous Office Action is withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 1.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd paragraph rejection of claims 1-20 in section 3.b of the previous Office Action is withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 1.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd paragraph rejection of claims 1-20 in section 3.c of the previous Office Action is withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 1.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd paragraph rejection of claims 1-20 in section 3.d of the previous Office Action is withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 5 and the cancellation of claim 19.
The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1, 4-6, and 1-20 are withdrawn view of the amendment to claims 1 and 15 incorporating subject matter from claim 7. Claim 1’s amendments now include supplying the virtual reference signal to a port on an analog to digital converter (from claim 7). In this case, supplying the virtual reference signal to the ADC hardware is not abstract in nature but involves sending a signal into physical hardware (i.e. a practical application of the abstract idea).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 15 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the Office suggests amending the preamble and first two clauses of claim 1 as follows:
An apparatus for generating a virtual reference signal in a biopotential measurement system, the apparatus comprising:
a plurality of electrodes, each electrode configured to capture a respective electrode signal by sensing electric potentials on a surface of a subject; and
an additive signal mixer configured to receive the respective electrode signals from each electrode of the[[a]] plurality of electrodes[[;]],
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 1-6 and 8-12, 15-18, and 20 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 1 is directed to an apparatus for generating a reference signal. The apparatus comprises an additive signal mixer and a plurality of electrodes. The final wherein clause states that additive signal mixer is configured to apply a weight to the signals acquired by the electrodes and sum them to generate a virtual reference. A final limitation notes that the additive mixer must supply this virtual reference to the first port of an ADC. It is unclear from the claim whether the ADC limitations are actually part of the structure of the apparatus. In this case, the Office interpreted the apparatus as not including the ADC hardware, but merely being capable of outputting/suppling the virtual reference signal.
Claim 12 depends from claim 1 (an apparatus claim). Claim 1 was amended to note that a virtual reference signal is supplied to a port on an ADC. Claim 12 references “the reference signal.” It is unclear if this is the same as “virtual reference signal” cited in claim 1. Claim 12 also does not positively recite any structure. For purposes of examination, the Office interpreted claim 12 as indicating that the reference signal (interpreted as the virtual reference signal) is capable of being used as a reference voltage in a driven right leg to improve common mode interference rejection.
In claims 1 and 15, it is unclear what “a second port corresponding to the first port” at the end of the claim means (e.g. does this mean the second port is actually the same as the first port or does it mean the port is second in relation to the identified first port?). For purposes of examination, the Office interpreted the limitation as including either interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hagemann et al. (The quest for the EEG reference revisited: A glance from brain asymmetry research, Psychophysiology, vol. 38 (2001), 847–857).
Regarding claim 1, Hagemann et al. disclose an apparatus for generating a reference signal in a biopotential measurement system (see Abstract which describes the article as investigating different EEG reference schemes including one called “average reference” or “AR”), the apparatus comprising:
an additive signal mixer configured to receive respective electrode signals from each electrode of a plurality of electrodes (reference to ECI-Electrocap system for acquiring the EEG signals), and
the plurality of electrodes, each electrode configured to capture a respective electrode signal by sensing electric potentials on a surface of a subject (pg. 850, first paragraph under Procedure section refers to measurement electrodes applied to patient).
For the final limitations of the apparatus, Hagemann et al. disclose aspects of the final limitations reproduced below which include:
wherein the additive signal mixer is further configured to apply a respective weight to the received respective electrode signals to sum the weighted respective electrode signals, supply the sum of the weighted respective electrode signals as a virtual reference signal to a first port of an analog to digital converter (ADC), the ADC receiving at least one of the respective electrode signals at a second port corresponding to the first port.
From the above, the following processing process can be summarized:
apply a weight to each signal - > sum the weighted signals -> supply the sum of the weighted signals as the virtual reference to an ADC
Hagemann et al. disclose the determination of an average reference (also referred to as a virtual average reference on page 849, right col, lines 1-4) as the sum of all the electrode signals divided by the number of electrodes (pg. 851, Average reference (AR) section). Mathematically this can be viewed as:
(S1 + S2 + S3 + … SN) / N where Sx is a signal from an electrode channel
this can alternatively be expressed by applying the distributive property of math:
S1/N + S2/N + S3/N + … SN /N
From the above formula, one can interpret the multiplication of each signal by 1/N as the claimed weighting. The sum in 15.g.iv of the weighted signals is the claimed virtual reference. Hagemann et al. discloses that this value is used as a virtual average reference (pg. 849, right col, lines 1-4).
As to the final limitation regarding supplying the virtual reference to an ADC, please see the above 35 USC 112(b) issue. The Office noted in the 112(b) section above that the claim was interpreted as merely requiring the capability for outputting the virtual reference. In this case, AR computed as disclosed on page 851, left col., Average reference (AR) section was used to derive an EEG signal against the average which implies the average was outputted to be used in a computation which would meet the claim limitation.
While the Office does not believe claim 1 as currently constructed requires a disclosure in the art for the ADC limitations (see 112b rejection above), the Office provides the following reference for Applicant’s benefit:
Baumgartner (EP 0571075) describes a system of processing biopotentials including EEG signals (see pg. 2, lines 9-15). The system includes an ADC unit that can sum the analog signals and then digitize the result (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Hagemann et al. disclose wherein the weight applied to a second subset of the plurality of electrode signals is zero (if an electrode is not selected, then it follows that no weight is added nor is it used in the sum).
Regarding claim 8, Hagemann et al. disclose the apparatus further including a filtering unit for suppressing frequency components of the electrode signals outside a predetermined range of frequencies (pg. 851, EEG Recording and Quantification section, 2nd paragraph disclose that the SynAmp hardware uses a passband of 0.3-40 Hz), the additive signal mixer receiving respective electrode signals from each of a plurality of electrodes via the filtering unit (Hagemann discloses that after filtering the data is used analyzed later meaning the filtered signals are received by hardware downstream for determining the AR).
Regarding claim 9, Hagemann et al. disclose wherein the filtering unit includes at least one of a low- pass filter, a high-pass filter and a band-pass filter (see claim 8 rejection reference to passband filtering).
Regarding claim 10, Hagemann et al. disclose the apparatus further including an amplification unit, the amplification unit comprising at least one amplifier for amplifying the electrode signals (EEG Recordation section on page 851 discloses that the EEG signals are amplified by the SynAmp hardware), the additive signal mixer receiving respective electrode signals from each of a plurality of electrodes via the amplification unit (Hagemann discloses that after amplification the data is used analyzed later meaning the amplified signals are received by hardware downstream for determining the AR).
Regarding claim 11, Hagemann et al. disclose wherein the reference signal is used as a base reference for a re-referencing procedure (“After the data were edited, the Cz-referenced EEG was re-referenced to alternative montages”, alternative montages including the AR, EEG Recordation and Quantification section on page 851, 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 12, Hagemann et al. disclose wherein the reference signal is used as a reference voltage in driven right leg common-mode interference rejection (the reference signal generated in Hagemann et al. would be capable of being used by a right leg common mode interference rejection system.
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.
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagemann et al. (The quest for the EEG reference revisited: A glance from brain asymmetry research, Psychophysiology, vol. 38 (2001), 847–857) in view of Shevrin et al. (US 4699153).
Regarding claim 2, Hagemann et al. do not disclose wherein the additive signal mixer includes a switching unit, but does disclose that the additive signal mixer is configured to receive the respective electrode signals from each of the plurality of electrodes and to output a first subset of the electrode signals (the Average Reference (AR) section on page 849 states that in determining the reference signal, the system first looks to the measured electrode signal or target site electrode and records that signal while using data from the remaining electrode sites to compute the average reference, the remaining electrode sites used in the computation amounts to the claimed subset requirement, the resulting output is inherently output to the subtract from the target site signal). Hagemann et al. disclose the use of a SynAmp model 5083 device for recording the EEG signals, but it is not clear from the article whether the device includes switching capabilities. However, such switching units were known in the art when acquiring data from many sensors such as EEG electrodes. Shevrin et al. teach a system for acquiring EEG signals from electrodes (see Fig. 3). The hardware for acquiring EEG signals includes a multiplexing A/D as shown in Fig. 3 and noted at col. 5, first paragraph. A multiplexing A/D switches between different inputs to record data. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Hagemann et al. to use a multiplexing A/D device because it can be tailored to switch between EEG inputs in real-time for determining the AR described in Hagemann. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given that multiplexors are notoriously known and used in the EEG recording arts.
Regarding claim 3, Hagemann et al. disclose wherein the additive signal mixer further includes an averaging unit, the averaging unit being configured to receive the first subset of the electrode signals, to apply the respective weight to each of the first subset of the electrode signals, and to sum the weighted first subset of the electrode signals, the sum of the weighted first subset of the electrode signals being supplied as the reference signal this is covered in the claims 1 and 2 rejection above).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagemann et al. (The quest for the EEG reference revisited: A glance from brain asymmetry research, Psychophysiology, vol. 38 (2001), 847–857) in view of Cohen (US 2004/0097802).
Regarding claim 5, Hagemann et al. do not disclose wherein the additive signal mixer includes a controller configured to apply the respective weights to each electrode signal (the weighting in Hagemann is an ad hoc procedure performed post processing according to the EEG Recording and Quantification section on page 851). However, the use of EEG acquisition hardware to apply weights was known in the arts. Cohen teaches an apparatus for recording biopotentials such as EEGs ([0161] discloses a MUX for recording EEG data from different electrodes). Cohen teaches that processing may include weighting the signals to determine an average (see [0048]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Hagemann et al. to use the weighting hardware taught by Cohen for applying weights to the biosignals because it allows for processing in real time as opposed to the post ad hoc analysis in Hagemann.
Regarding claim 6, Hagemann et al. do not disclose wherein the respective weights are controlled in real-time. However, the previously cited hardware taught by Cohen for applying weights is capable of real time operation (See [0056] reference to real-time operation of the algorithms related to averaging). The rationale for modifying remains the same.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagemann et al. (The quest for the EEG reference revisited: A glance from brain asymmetry research, Psychophysiology, vol. 38 (2001), 847–857) in view of Baumgartner (EP 0571075).
Regarding claim 15, Hagemann et al. disclose a method for generating a reference signal in a biopotential measurement system, the method comprising:
receiving respective electrode signals from each of a plurality of electrodes, each of the electrodes being configured to capture a respective electrode signal by sensing electric potentials on a surface of a subject (pg. 851m, left col., EEG Recording and Quantification section where 32 channel EEG recordation system is described for recording brainwaves from the scalp using Ag/AgCl electrodes);
applying a respective weight to the respective electrode signals; summing the weighted respective electrode signals to generate a reference signal (see explanation below);
Hagemann et al. disclose the determination of an average reference (also referred to as a virtual average reference on page 849, right col, lines 1-4) as the sum of all the electrode signals divided by the number of electrodes (pg. 851, Average reference (AR) section). Mathematically this can be expressed as:
(S1 + S2 + S3 + … SN) / N where Sx is a signal from an electrode channel and N is the number of electrodes used;
This can alternatively be expressed by applying the distributive property of math:
S1/N + S2/N + S3/N + … SN /N
From the above formula, one can interpret the multiplication of each signal by 1/N as the claimed weighting. The sum in 33.k.v.3 of the weighted signals is the claimed virtual reference. Hagemann et al. discloses that this value is used as a virtual average reference (pg. 849, right col, lines 1-4).
However, Hagemann et al. do not disclose the final method step of supplying the reference signal to a first port of an analog to digital converter (ADC), the ADC receiving at least one of the respective electrode signals at a second port corresponding to the first port. In Hagemann et al., a review of different reference values is examined using electrode data that is pre-digitized (i.e. data is collected and under preconditioning and A/D conversion (see page 851). After this preconditioning, the data is used to generate different reference signals, including an average reference, in an ad hoc analysis. Applicant does not appear to state that the order of the digitization and reference creation provides an advantage. Other EEG signal processing devices were known in the art where digitization occurs after summing of the signals. Baumgartner (EP 0571075) describes a system of processing biopotentials including EEG signals (see pg. 2, lines 9-15). The system includes an ADC unit that can sum the analog signals and then digitize the result (see claim 1). The limitation regarding receiving at least one of the respective electrode signals at a second port corresponding to the first port was taught by Baumgartner also in the following manner. The sum of the signals is received at a first port of an ADC in Baumgartner as noted previously. The claim states that at least one of the respective signals is received at a second port corresponding to the first port (understood to mean that the second port is the same as the first port). In this case, the second signal is received at the first port too along with the rest of the signals forming the sum. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Hagemann et al. to change the order of summation and digitization in view of Baumgartner’s teachings described above because it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 16, Hagemann et al. disclose wherein applying the respective weight includes applying a non-zero weight to a first subset of the electrode signals (see explanation in the claim 15 rejection of multiplying each signal by 1/N).
Regarding claim 17, Hagemann et al. disclose wherein applying the respective weight further includes applying the respective weight to each of the first subset of the electrode signals, and to sum the weighted first subset of the electrode signals, the sum of the weighted first subset of the electrode signals being supplied as the reference signal (in the Average reference (AR) section in the left col. of page 851, AR for one of the 32 electrode channels is generated by summing and averaging the other 31 channels, subset is there for the 31 channels selected for computing AR).
Regarding claim 18, Hagemann et al. disclose wherein applying the respective weight further includes applying a zero weight to a second subset of the plurality of electrode signals (zero in this case was interpreted as not applying a weight; the one electrode channel out of 32 not being used in AR has no weight applied to it).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagemann et al. in view of Baumgartner as applied to claim 15 and further in view of Cohen (US 2004/0097802)
Regarding claim 20, Hagemann et al. do not disclose wherein the respective weight is applied in real-time. However, this is rejected using the same argument for modifying Hagemann in view of Cohen as explain in the claim 6 above.
Conclusion
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 15-18, and 20 are rejected.
The following references are provided for Applicant’s benefit: Smith et al. (US 4202354)- see col. 4, lines 54-59) and Gevins et al. (US 5513649) -see col. 3 last paragraph).
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 Tho Q. Tran whose telephone number is (571)270-1892. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5.
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at 5712725596. 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.
/THO Q TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791