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, 2, 5, 7, 8, 12-15, 17, and 18 are amended. Claims 11 and 20 are cancelled. Claims 1-10 and 12-19 are pending.
Response to Arguments
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112, 2nd paragraph rejection of claims 2, 13, and 15 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claim. For claim 13, the Office has interpreted the amended limitations as further meaning the device must be capable of acquiring the type of brain signal claimed.
The 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-20 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to claims 1 and 12 in view of the arguments starting on page 7, second paragraph of the 101 section. In addition, the correction of the brain signal with the restored voltage waveform amounts to a practical application of the abstract idea.
The 35 USC 102 rejection of claims 1 and 12 and all dependents thereof are withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 1. The 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 4, 8, and 17 are withdrawn as well in view of the withdrawal of rejections to the parent claims of each.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
change “the motor” to “a motor” in line 10;
change “or the” to “of the” in line 10;
change “processing” to “process” in line 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 has the same issues as argued above for claim 1.
Claim 14 appears to be missing the word “by” after the word “generated” (similar to claim 13).
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 1-10 and 12-19 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.
The preamble of claim 1 recites a device that can detect cognitive ability. However, the limitations recited in the body of the claim merely provide a way of generating a cognitive signal. The Office suggests (i) amending the preamble to recite a cognitive potential measurement device and (ii) changing the “cognitive signal” to “cognitive potential.” In this manner, the claim limitations would therefore show how motor readiness potential data is used to correct the brain signal which is used to generate a cognitive potential. This change would require changes in dependent claim language. Alternatively, the claim may be amended to add a final step of determining cognitive ability from the corrected brain signal. Method claim 12 has the same issues as claim 1.
Conclusion
Claims 1-10 and 12-19 are rejected.
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
Prosecution Insights