DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/07/2025, have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application. Applicant canceled claim 2.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are the current claims hereby under examination.
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 limitations identified in the Office Action filed 08/07/2025 continue to be interpreted under 112(f) as previously set forth.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 and 3-5 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear if the depression detection module and the output module identify the user depression state, or if the output module is configured to display the result determined by the depression detection module. Applicant should clarify which modules are configured for identifying the depression state of the user and generate a report for EEG response. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the depression detection module is configured for identifying a user depression state only. Claims 3-5 are also rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claim limitations “signal processing module” and “depression detection module” 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. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. While it appears that the signal processing module and depression detection module are implemented on a computer or processor, there is no disclosure of such structure in the specification. 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. Claims 3-5 are also rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without
significantly more.
Analysis of independent claim 1:
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claim 1 is directed to a system, which describes one of the four statutory categories of
patentable subject matter, i.e., a machine. Therefore, further consideration is necessary regarding claims.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One: Claim 1 recites an abstract idea. In particular, the claims generally recite
the following:
identify a user depression state through decision fusion of the depressive disorder-related EEG features.
perform frequency domain feature analysis through short-time Fourier transform, extracting the ASSR data induced by 40Hz frequency-increasing stimulation under montage of frontal lobes and temporal lobes, and calculating a power value of each trial through the claimed formula
perform background interference reduction and individual baseline difference on the ASSR data through the claimed formula
select the relative ERSP at a narrow band over a specific time period through the claimed formula
These elements recited in claim 1 are drawn to an abstract idea since they are directed to
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I); and
Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
“identify a user depression state through decision fusion of the depressive disorder-related EEG features” is drawn to an abstract idea since it is a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind, with the aid of pen and paper. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably review collected data and determine someone’s depression state. There is nothing to suggest an undue level of complexity in “identifying a user depression state”.
“perform frequency domain feature analysis through short-time Fourier transform … and calculating a power value of each trial” is drawn to an abstract idea since it is a mathematical concept because the claim recites a numerical formula or equation and/or a mathematical calculation to determine a variable or number.
“perform background interference reduction and individual baseline difference on the ASSR data” is drawn to an abstract idea since it is a mathematical concept because the claim recites a numerical formula or equation and/or a mathematical calculation to determine a variable or number.
“select the relative ERSP at a narrow band over a specific time period” is drawn to an abstract idea since it is a mathematical concept because the claim recites a numerical formula or equation and/or a mathematical calculation to determine a variable or number.
Prong Two: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception
into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are "directed to" the abstract idea. The additional
elements merely:
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (the pre-solution activity of: using generic data gathering components (e.g., "the auditory stimulation module being configured to input 40Hz frequency-increasing sound stimulation signals to a user to obtain electroencephalogram (EEG) signals", "the data acquisition module being configured to obtain ASSR data by acquiring the LEG signals by a non-intrusive method and being configured to perform preprocessing to the signal", “the depressive disorder-related EEG features comprising an event-related spectral perturbation (ERSP) feature, an inter-trial phase coherence (ITC) feature and a weighted phase- lag-index (WPLI) feature”, “the ERSP feature being representing power change in 40Hz ASSR; the ITC feature representing an ITC value during auditory stimulation; the WPLI feature representing the connectivity between the brain regions being configured to measure a change in the connectivity between the brain regions during auditory stimulation”, “where, f represents frequency, t represents time, k is a mark number of a corresponding trial, m is a total number of n groups of trials, Fk(f, t)2 represents a corresponding power value at a frequency of f and the moment of t in a kth trial”, “where, FkBaseline(f)2 represents an average power value in a period of [-200ms,0] corresponding to the frequency f in the kth trial; ERSP(f, t) represents relative ERSP at the frequency of f and the moment of t after removal of baseline power”, and “where, fmin and fmax are a lower limit and an upper limit of a narrow band frequency respectively, and twin and tmax are a lower limit and an upper limit of interception time respectively, and fmin and fmax are 38 Hz and 42 Hz in default respectively, and trin and tmax are 1 s and 2.5 s respectively”); the post-solution activity of: (e.g. “the output module being configured to identify the user depression state according to the EEG features to generate an evaluation report for abnormality in EEG response, and feed it back to the user”)).
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather information to be used by the
abstract idea, while generically implementing it on a computer. There is no practical application because
the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. The processing performed
remains in the abstract realm, i.e., the result is not used for a treatment. No improvement to the
technology is evident. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claim 1 does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an inventive concept) for the
same reasons as described above. E.g., all elements are directed to implementing the abstract ideas on
generic processing components, the pre-solution activity of using generic data-gathering components,
and generic post-solution activities, which merely facilitate the abstract idea.
Per the Berkheimer requirement, the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and
conventional. For example, “the auditory stimulation module” as disclosed in the Applicant’s specification on page 9, line 10, are directed to “head-mounted wired noise-canceling headphones”. With the data acquisition module and the output module, these elements do not qualify as significantly more because this limitation is simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'/, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric PowerGroup, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'/, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. lnvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a
practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the
abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing
that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that
the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any
other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of
elements include a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a
desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely
provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the
process.
Analysis of the dependent claims:
Claims 3-5 depend from the independent claim. Dependent claims 3-5 merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons: they merely
Recite the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g., “reduce, by the depression detection module, dimensions of a depressive disorder-related EEG feature matrix through a sequential backward feature selection algorithm (SBFS) to screen depression classification features … select by the depression detection module, different depression classification features using a support vector machine (SVM) classifier as inputs to acquire an identification accuracy rate under each feature … perform, by the depression detection module, identification and classification on user depression states for the determination of output categories through decision fusion according to the following formula … where, o represents a weight coefficient w1, w2 and w3 are dynamically regulated according to an accuracy rate of a test set during SVM classification with the ERSP, ITC and WPLI features as the separate inputs” (claim 5)); and
Further describe the pre-solution activity (“extract, by the signal processing module, EEG signals induced by 40Hz frequency- increasing stimulation under montage of the frontal lobes and the temporal lobes through short- time Fourier transform (STFT), and calculating an ITC value according to the following formula … where, f and t represent the frequency and time respectively, k is the mark number of the corresponding trial, and m is the total number of n groups of trials” (claim 2), “perform, by the signal processing module, reduction of background interference and individual baseline difference on the ASSR data through the following formula … where, ITCbaseline(f) represents an average ITC value in a period of [-200ms, 0] corresponding to the frequency f; AITC(f, t) represents a relative ITC value at the frequency of fand the moment of t after removal of baseline ITC” (claim 2), “select, by the signal processing module, the ITC at a narrow band over a specific time period through the following formula … where, fmin and fmax are 38 Hz and 42 Hz in default respectively, and tmin and tmax are 1 s and 2.5 s respectively” (claim 4), “ measuring, by the signal processing module, WPLI corresponding to a phase angle difference between two time series x(t) and y(t) distributed at positive and negative parts of an imaginary axis in a complex plane through the following formula … where, Sxy,t represents a composite cross spectral density of x(t) and y(t) at the moment of t, and || represents the evaluation of an absolute value” (claim 4), and “” (claim 5)).
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception
into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a
meaningful way. The additional elements do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea.
The collective functions of the additional elements merely provide computer/electronic implementation
and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. There is no indication
that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be
automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a
computer, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. The result of the abstract idea does not cause the computing device and/or application to perform
different. The result of the abstract idea does not cause output of the user-accessible output. The user-
accessible output does not cause or confirm that the user adjusts their posture. Therefore, the claims
are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subjection matter. Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 11/07/2025, with respect to the specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the specification per Examiner suggestions. The objection of the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 11/07/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. Applicant has amended the limitations regarding the features measured (ERSP and ITC) per Examiner’s suggestions. This rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn. Applicant has amended the method steps of claims 1-5 to recite that structure of the system is configured to perform said steps. This rejection of claims 1-5 has been withdrawn. Applicant has failed to address the indefiniteness rejection regarding claim limitations of “signal processing module” and “depression detection module”. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function of these modules in the claim. Thus, this rejection stands.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 11/07/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 to incorporate previously indicated allowable subject matter of claim 2. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. See below.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH MICHAEL HEALY whose telephone number is (703)756-5534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:30pm ET.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/NOAH M HEALY/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/RENE T TOWA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights