DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication dated 16 March 2026 concerning Application No. 18/023,059 filed on 24 February 2023.
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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-37 are pending; claim 1 has been amended; claims 18-36 previously were withdrawn; and claims 1-17 and 37 are currently under consideration for patentability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated 16 March 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive or 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 has amended the independent claim to recite that the second time window has a varying beginning among the plurality of segments. The Examiner has addressed the amended limitation in the updated text below.
Applicant argues that, based on the teachings of the Geva reference, “one would conventionally segment the data in a way that is correlative to the stimulus…that is, the segmentation would be such that each segment is spanned over a time window that contains the stimulus” (Arguments, p. 10). Applicant continues that “such a segmentation would be the natural thing for the skilled person to do, since there is no point in trying to identify a neurophysiological event in a data segment that does not contain it” (id.). The Examiner agrees that Geva’s segmentation would be correlative to the stimulus, for example starting a set period of time prior to the stimulus, but respectfully disagrees that each segment necessarily is spanned over a time window that contains the stimulus. For example, it can be said that each segment is spanned over a time period that may contain the stimulus, in order to properly identify the presence of the stimulus or the characteristics of the stimulus, but it is reasonable to conclude that some segments might not contain the stimulus, depending on the exact time window chosen. Therefore, the Examiner respectfully maintains that Geva’s time windows may have a varying beginning relative to the stimulus.
Applicant contrasts Geva’s purported teachings with the pending claims, which recite that the second time window has a varying beginning among the segments of data, by stating that “it may result in segments that do not contain the event, and so analyzing them may, in the eyes of the skilled person, result in erroneous identification” (Arguments, p. 10). The Examiner respectfully submits, based at least on the previous explanation, that some of the segments resulting from Geva’s segmentation process might not contain the stimulus, thereby reading on the amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 7-17, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geva et al. (US 2018/0089531 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Geva describes a method of estimating attention ([0216] - [0217]) comprising
receiving encephalogram data corresponding to signals collected from a brain of a subject ([0126]) synchronously with stimuli applied to the subject ([0126], [0216] - [0217]), the EG data being segmented into a plurality of segments, each corresponding to a single stimulus ([0228])
dividing each segment into a first time-window having a fixed beginning and a second time-window, said fixed beginning being relative to a respective stimulus ([0228]; please see discussion of bilinear spatial-temporal projection in [0136], non-overlapping time windows of the single-trial data matrix)
processing said time-windows to determine the likelihood for a given segment to describe an attentive state of the brain ([0160], [0230])
Regarding claim 1, Geva does not explicitly disclose wherein the second time-window has a varying beginning among said plurality of segments, but Geva does disclose, when describing the data segmentation and baseline correction techniques, that “other timings for the segmentation are also contemplated” ([0228]), further that “other time period for averaging are also contemplated” ([0229]). Based on this, the Examiner respectfully submits that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the beginning times for each of the time windows as necessary for appropriate data analysis, as doing so advantageously allows the relevant features to be extracted from the data.
Regarding claim 2, Geva suggests wherein said varying beginning is a random beginning ([0228]).
Regarding claim 3, Geva suggests
receiving additional EG data collected from a brain of a subject while deliberately being inattentive for a portion of said stimuli ([0165], when there is a lack of attention by the user, the system re-presents the stimulus to the user, such that additional EG data will be collected), said additional EG data also being segmented into a plurality of segments, each corresponding to a single stimulus ([0228])
processing said segments of said additional EG data to determine an additional likelihood for a given segment to describe an attentive state of the brain ([0072], [0166])
combining said likelihood and said additional likelihood ([0072], [0166])
Regarding claim 4, Geva suggests representing each segment of said additional EG data as a time-domain data matrix, wherein said processing comprises processing said time-domain data matrix ([0138]).
Regarding claim 5, Geva suggests representing each segment of said additional EG data as a frequency-domain data matrix, wherein said processing comprises processing said frequency-domain data matrix ([0135]).
Regarding claim 7, Geva describes receiving additional physiological data and processing said additional physiological data, wherein said likelihood is based also on said processed additional physiological data ([0147], [0160]).
Regarding claim 8, Geva describes wherein said additional physiological data pertain to amount and time-distribution of eye blinks ([0147]).
Regarding claim 9, Geva describes extracting spatio-temporal-frequency features from the segments ([0004], [0132]), and clustering said features into clusters of different awareness states ([0118] - [0119]).
Regarding claim 10, Geva describes wherein said awareness states comprise a fatigue state, an attention state, or an inattention state ([0160]).
Regarding claims 11-13, Geva describes wherein the first and second time-windows have a fixed width ([0228], starting 100 ms prior to image presentation and ending 900 ms after the onset of image presentation).
Regarding claim 14, although Geva does not explicitly disclose wherein said second time-window has a varying width, Geva does suggest that the width of the time-window may be varied as necessary ([0228]: “other timings for the segmentation are contemplated”). Therefore, the Examiner respectfully submits that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the second time-window to have a varying width, as doing so advantageously ensures that an appropriate amount of data is collected during the time window.
Regarding claim 15, Geva describes wherein said processing comprises applying a linear classifier ([0029]).
Regarding claim 16, Geva describes wherein said processing comprises applying a non-linear classifier ([0004], [0030], [0141]).
Regarding claim 17, Geva describes wherein said non-linear classifier comprises a machine learning procedure ([0004], [0030], [0141]).
Regarding claim 37, Geva describes a computer software product, comprising a computer-readable medium in which program instructions are stored, which instructions, when read by a data processor, cause the data processor to execute the method according to claim 1 ([0179]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim (independent claim 1) and any intervening claims (dependent claim 3).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 6, Geva suggests the method according to claim 3, including representing each segment of said additional electrogram data as a time-domain data matrix and as a frequency-domain data matrix ([0135], [0138]). However, Geva and the other prior art of record do not disclose or suggest “wherein said processing comprises separately processing said data matrices to provide two separate scores describing said additional likelihood, and wherein said combining comprises combining a score describing said likelihood with said two separate scores describing said additional likelihood.” The Examiner notes that, after generating a time-domain matrix and a frequency-domain matrix, the claimed method separately solves each matrix and generates two separate scores for the specific scenario of a time period during which a subject is being deliberately inattentive while stimuli are being applied. This scenario corresponds to the “additional likelihood” as claimed. The method then combines the two separate scores with a previously determined score which corresponds to a scenario during which the subject is not being deliberately inattentive, in order to generate a combined likelihood. Due to the specificity of the claimed steps and their corresponding descriptions in Applicant’s Specification, the Examiner respectfully submits that the skilled artisan would not have arrived at the steps recited in claim 6 without knowledge gleaned only from Applicant’s disclosure.
Statement on Communication via Internet
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. Where a written authorization is given by the applicant, communications via Internet e-mail, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used. USPTO employees are NOT permitted to initiate communications with applicants via Internet e-mail unless there is a written authorization of record in the patent application by the applicant. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please refer to MPEP 502.03 for guidance on Communications via Internet.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Ankit D. Tejani, whose telephone number is 571-272-5140. The Examiner may normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30AM through 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, Carl Layno, can be reached by telephone at 571-272-4949. 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 at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/Ankit D Tejani/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights