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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected –invention--, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 25 March 2026. Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 25 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
-Pg. 3, line 1 recites “much severer”. Examiner recommends amending to –much more severe—
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 1 recites “a plurality of brainwave measuring electrode” in line 5. Examiner recommends amending to –a plurality of brainwave measuring electrodes—
-Claim 4 recites “Furrier transform” in line 4. Examiner recommends amending to –Fourier transform—
Appropriate correction is required.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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:
-Claim 1 recites “a motor hotspot location detecting part” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to detect the location of the motor hotspot. According to the specification the motor hotspot location detecting part includes at least one processor, and a memory that stores a motor hotspot location detection algorithm [53] and equivalents thereof.
-Claim 3 recites “a feature data extracting part” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to extract the feature data from brainwave data collected for the channels. According to the specification the feature data extracting part includes a fast Fourier transform part, a correlation coefficient calculating part and/or a phase synchronization index calculating part [87] and equivalents thereof.
-Claim 5 recites “a correlation coefficient calculating part” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to calculate feature data including a correlation coefficient. Based on the specification, there is no disclosure provided to disclose the corresponding structure.
-Claim 6 recites “a phase synchronization index calculating part” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to calculate feature data includes a phase synchronization index. Based on the specification, there is no disclosure provided to disclose the corresponding structure.
-Claim 10 recites “an electrode moving part” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to be provided in the head mounted body. According to the specification the electrode moving part includes a first, second and third driving part [125-126] and equivalents thereof.
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.
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 § 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 2-8 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 “brainwave data” in lines 4 and 6. It is unclear whether this is referring to the brainwave data originally referenced in claim 1, lines 6-7 or the brainwave data of time domains in claim 2, line 4.
-Claim 4 recites “feature data” in line 3. It is unclear whether this is referring to the feature data originally referenced in claim 2, line 5.
-Claim 4 recites “the plurality of channels” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 5 recites “feature data” in line 3. It is unclear whether this is referring to the feature data originally referenced in claim 2, line 5.
-Claim 5 recites “the plurality of channels” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 6 recites “feature data” in line 3. It is unclear whether this is referring to the feature data originally referenced in claim 2, line 5.
-Claim 6 recites “the plurality of channels” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 7 recites “the plurality of channels” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim limitation “a correlation coefficient calculating part” and “a phase synchronization index calculating part” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification and drawings reference these parts, it’s unclear whether these are embodied by actual structure such as a processor, memory or CPU or whether this is referring to algorithms or calculations in general. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 9-10 are 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).
-Claim 9 recites “mountable on the scalp” in line 3. Examiner recommends amending to –configured to be mountable on the scalp— or –configured to be mounted on the scalp—
-Claim 9 recites “data are collected at different locations on the scalp” in lines 6-7. Examiner recommends amending to –data are configured to be collected at different locations on the scalp—
-Claim 10 recites “transcranial electrical stimulation is applied onto the scalp” in line 4. Examiner recommends amending to –transcranial electrical stimulation is configured to be applied onto the scalp—
-Claim 10 recites “transcranial electrical stimulation electrode is moved to the location of the motor hotspot” in lines 7-8. Examiner recommends amending to –transcranial electrical stimulation electrode is configured to be moved to the location of the motor hotspot—
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. "Motor Hotspot Identification Based on Electroencephalography." 2020 8th International Winter Conference on Brain-Computer Interface (BCI). IEEE, (2020). pp 1-4.
Regarding Claim 1, Choi teaches a motor hotspot location detecting device using brainwaves for detecting a location of a motor hotspot that is a target location for a transcranial electrical stimulation of a scalp of a target object [Pgs. 1-2; “Ag-AgCl disposable electrodes were attached on the right first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle to measure a MEP while a series of single-pulse TMS (REMED, Daejeon, Korea) were applied to the motor area for the right hand, which is around C3 based on the international 10-20 system. We determined an individual motor hotspot when a MEP with an amplitude of at least 50 μV was observed more than 5 out of 10 single-pulse TMSs with an individual minimum stimulus intensity.”], the motor hotspot location detecting device comprising:
a plurality of brainwave measuring electrode configured to measure brainwaves generated in the target object at different locations and collect brainwave data [Figure 2] and [Pg. 2, “The EEGs were sampled at 1,000 Hz using a multi-channel active electrode EEG acquisition system”]; and
a motor hotspot location detecting part configured to detect the location of the motor hotspot based on the brainwave data collected by the plurality of brainwave measuring electrodes [Pg. 2, “The EEG data were analyzed using the MATLAB 2017b”]—demonstrating that processing and computational resources were used as the motor hotspot location detecting part.
Regarding Claim 2, Choi teaches wherein the motor hotspot location detecting part includes:
an artificial neural network configured to calculate the location of the motor hotspot based on brainwave data of time domains [Pg. 1, Abstract; “and a linear regression and artificial neural network (ANN) were used to estimate an individual motor hotspot location.”] [Pg. 2, “Subjects repeatedly performed the motor task 30 times whenever a red circle was presented at the center of the monitor.”]-representative of brainwave data of time domains, which are collected for channels allocated to the plurality of brainwave measuring electrodes or feature data extracted from the brainwave data [Pg. 2, “We used the PSDs of 63 channels and the 3D coordinate information of the motor hotspot identified by TMS to train the two models (linear regression and ANN), and estimated the motor hotspot 3D coordinate information based on the EEGPSD features.”]
Regarding Claim 3, Choi teaches wherein the motor hotspot location detecting part further includes:
a feature data extracting part configured to extract the feature data from the brainwave data collected for the channels [Pg. 2, “A multiple artifact rejection algorithm-independent component analysis (MARA-ICA) was applied to the filtered data to remove physiological artifacts. The preprocessed data were epoched between -0.5 and 0.5 sec based on the key press time for each trial. After that, we estimated the power spectral density (PSD) for each trial and each channel using the fast Fourier transform (FFT) for six frequency bands (delta: 1 – 4 Hz, theta: 4 – 8 Hz, alpha: 8 – 13 Hz, beta: 13 – 30 Hz, gamma: 30 – 50 Hz, full: 1 – 50 Hz)”]., and
the artificial neural network is configured to calculate the location of the motor hotspot based on the feature data extracted from the brainwave data by the feature data extracting part [Pg. 2, “We used the PSDs of 63 channels and the 3D coordinate information of the motor hotspot identified by TMS to train the two models (linear regression and ANN), and estimated the motor hotspot 3D coordinate information based on the EEGPSD features.”]
Regarding Claim 4, Choi teaches wherein the feature data extracting part is configured to:
calculate feature data including power spectrum densities for the channels through Furrier transform, wavelet transform, or an autoregressive scheme from the brainwave data of the time domains [Pg. 2, “After that, we estimated the power spectral density (PSD) for each trial and each channel using the fast Fourier transform (FFT) for six frequency bands”], which are collected for the plurality of channels allocated to the plurality of brainwave measuring electrodes [Pg. 2, “The EEGs were sampled at 1,000 Hz using a multi-channel active electrode EEG acquisition system”], and
wherein the artificial neural network is configured to calculate the location of the motor hotspot based on the feature data including the power spectrum densities calculated for the plurality of channels [Pg. 2, “and estimated the motor hotspot 3D coordinate information based on the EEGPSD features.”]
Regarding Claim 5, Choi teaches wherein the feature data extracting part includes:
a correlation coefficient calculating part configured to calculate feature data including a correlation coefficient between the brainwave data collected for the plurality of channels [Pg. 3, “The minimum error distance was 0.18 cm when using the full band EEG-PSD features with ANN. Since a tES electrode size is generally more than 1 cm, we expect that the error distance of the motor hotspot detected by EEG-PSD features is sufficiently acceptable.”], and
wherein the artificial neural network is configured to calculate the location of the motor hotspot based on the feature data including the correlation coefficient [Pg. 2, “We used the Euclidean distance to calculate the error distance between the 3D coordinates of the motor hotspot detected by TMS-induced MEPs and EEG-PSD features for each frequency band.”].
Regarding Claim 6, Choi teaches wherein the feature data extracting part includes:
a phase synchronization index calculating part configured to calculate feature data including a phase synchronization index between the brainwave data collected for the plurality of channels [Pg. 2, “The raw EEG data were first down-sampled at 200 Hz, and then we applied common average reference (CAR) and band pass filtering between 0.5 and 50.5 Hz using zero-phase third-order Butterworth filter.”], and
wherein the artificial neural network is configured to calculate the location of the motor hotspot based on the feature data including the phase synchronization index [Pg. 2, “A multiple artifact rejection algorithm-independent component analysis (MARA-ICA) was applied to the filtered data to remove physiological artifacts.”] and [Pg. 2, “We used the PSDs of 63 channels and the 3D coordinate information of the motor hotspot identified by TMS to train the two models (linear regression and ANN).”]
Regarding Claim 7, Choi teaches wherein the artificial neural network performs learning based on the brainwave data collected for the plurality of channels and the location of the motor hotspot measured through a transcranial magnetic stimulation [Figure 4]—showing locations of motor hotspots detected by TMS and EEG.
Regarding Claim 8, Choi teaches wherein the artificial neural network includes a convolutional neural network [Figure 3]—depicting a convolutional neural network model.
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.
Claim(s) 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. ("Motor Hotspot Identification Based on Electroencephalography." 2020 8th International Winter Conference on Brain-Computer Interface (BCI). IEEE, (2020). pp 1-4) in view of Wongsarnpigoon (U.S. 20130204315).
Regarding Claim 9, Choi is silent on further comprising: a head mounted body provided in a form that is mountable on the scalp of the target object, wherein the plurality of brainwave measuring electrodes are distributed and disposed on an inner surface of the head mounted body such that the brainwave data are collected at different locations on the scalp of the target object. Wongsarnpigoon teaches further comprising: a head mounted body provided in a form that is mountable on the scalp of the target object [0041]; wherein the plurality of brainwave measuring electrodes are distributed and disposed on an inner surface of the head mounted body such that the brainwave data are collected at different locations on the scalp of the target object [0055] and [Figs. 4, 5, 6A-C].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the head mounted device for collection of brainwave data as taught by Wongsarnpigoon to combine with the method and device reference in Choi et al., as Choi discusses a system that uses TMS and EEG-PSD data to predict a motor hotspot location [Pg. 3] with Wongsarnpigoon because Wongsarnpigoon teaches monitoring impedance to determine whether the electrodes are functioning properly [0053].
Regarding Claim 10, Choi is silent on further comprising: a transcranial electrical stimulation electrode provided in the head mounted body such that the transcranial electrical stimulation is applied onto the scalp of the target object; and an electrode moving part provided in the head mounted body such that the transcranial electrical stimulation electrode is moved to the location of the motor hotspot. Wongsarnpigoon teaches further comprising:
a transcranial electrical stimulation electrode provided in the head mounted body such that the transcranial electrical stimulation is applied onto the scalp of the target object [0055]—reference to application of tDCS; and
an electrode moving part provided in the head mounted body such that the transcranial electrical stimulation electrode is moved to the location of the motor hotspot [0055; “more gross changes in electrode position may be made by moving to a different therapeutic target region.”], [0056; “simply and quickly move the electrode”], and [0057]—reference to Figs. 4-6 elements 20, 21, and 22.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow for adjustability of the electrodes as taught by Wongsarnpigoon to simplify placement of the electrodes as suggested by Choi et al., as Choi discusses preventing unwanted artifacts and impracticality associated with placement of 63 EEG channels [Pgs. 2 and 3] with Wongsarnpigoon because Wongsarnpigoon teaches the use of the repositioning capability to improve the likelihood of determining the correct electrode position [0056].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Poltorak (U.S. 20200368491)-discusses the use of EEG and transcranial stimulation to effect sleep
-Wingeier (U.S. 20090112278)-references a movable electrode system
-Gevins (U.S. 4967038)-discloses an adjustable helmet electrode system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm 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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights