DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed on 01/15/2026 is acknowledged and has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 12, and 15 have been amended. Claims 19-20 are canceled. Presently, Claims 1-18, and 21-22 remain pending and are hereinafter examined on the merits.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Previous Claim Objections are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed on 01/15/2026.
Previous rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed on 01/15/2026.
Examiners Notes
It should be noted that Claims 1-18, and 21-22, though rejected under 35 U.S.C § 101, are not rejected under the prior arts. Note; a change in scope in view of the requested corrections will require further search and consideration.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities and should recite:
Claim 2, and 10-14: line 1, “The computer-”. There is an extra space between the two terms. The extra space should be removed. Appropriate correction is needed.
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 1-18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claims 1-2, and 10-14 are directed to a “method” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a process.
Claim 3-9, and 21-22 are drawn to a “system” which describes one of the four statutory categories, i.e., a machine.
Claims 15-18 are drawn to a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” which describes one of the four statutory categories, i.e., a manufacture.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One:
Claim 1 recite (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.), & the abstract idea of “mathematical concepts” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).I.), substantially as follows:
“ c. removing aperiodic activity to perform a first filtering on the plurality of EM measurements in the three-dimensional time-frequency space [...], wherein the time-frequency space includes a plurality of frequency points, wherein the first filtering removes EM measurements of the plurality of EM measurements containing pink noise to generate a flattened three-dimensional time-frequency space by providing thresholds within the time-frequency space to identify periodic signals for each frequency point of the plurality of frequency points;
d. constructing, [...], a first plurality of bounding boxes, each bounding box of the first plurality of bounding boxes enclosing a contiguous group of the EM measurements of the plurality of EM measurements to capture onset and offset times of candidate oscillations within the flattened three-dimensional time-frequency space, wherein the contiguous group of the EM measurements of the plurality of EM measurements are detected where spectral power is above the thresholds within the time-frequency space;
e. performing a second filtering, [...], on the first plurality of bounding boxes to reject bounding boxes of the plurality of bounding boxes enclosing less than two candidate oscillation cycles to generate a second plurality of bounding boxes, wherein candidate oscillations are detected based on detecting harmonic peaks in a corresponding bounding box of the plurality of bounding boxes;
f. performing, [...], an autocorrelation on the EM measurements of the plurality of EM measurements within each bounding box of the second plurality of bounding boxes to identify a corresponding frequency for each corresponding bounding box of the second plurality of bounding boxes by analyzing intervals of peaks and troughs of the candidate oscillations in the corresponding bounding box to identify the corresponding frequency for the corresponding bounding box;
g. performing a third filtering, [...], on the second plurality of bounding boxes to retain only the bounding boxes of the second plurality of bounding boxes containing candidate oscillations with corresponding frequencies equal to a center frequency of the candidate oscillations to generate a third plurality of bounding boxes, wherein the center frequency is calculated as a center of frequencies of a plurality of EM signals in the corresponding bounding box; and ”
Claim 3 recite (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.), & the abstract idea of “mathematical concepts” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).I.), substantially as follows:
“ c. remove aperiodic activity to perform a first filtering on the plurality of EM measurements in the three- dimensional time-frequency space, wherein the time-frequency space includes a plurality of frequency points, wherein the first filtering remove EM measurements of the plurality of EM measurements containing pink noise to generate a three- dimensional flattened time-frequency space by providing thresholds within the time-frequency space to identify periodic signals for each frequency point of the plurality of frequency points;
d. construct a first plurality of bounding boxes, each bounding box of the first plurality of bounding boxes enclosing a contiguous group of the EM measurements of the plurality of EM measurements to capture onset and offset times of candidate oscillations within the flattened three-dimensional time- frequency space, wherein the contiguous group of the EM measurements of the plurality of EM measurements are detected where spectral power is above the thresholds within the time-frequency space;
e. perform a second filtering on the first plurality of bounding boxes to reject bounding boxes of the first plurality of bounding boxes enclosing less than two candidate oscillation cycles to generate a second plurality of bounding boxes, wherein candidate oscillations are detected based on detecting harmonic peaks in a corresponding bounding box of the plurality of bounding boxes;
f. perform an autocorrelation on the EM measurements of the plurality of EM measurements within each bounding box of the second plurality of bounding boxes to identify a corresponding frequency for each corresponding bounding box of the second plurality of bounding boxes by analyzing intervals of peaks and troughs of the candidate oscillations in the corresponding bounding box to identify the corresponding frequency for the corresponding bounding box;
g. perform a third filtering of the second plurality of bounding boxes to retain only the bounding boxes of the second plurality of bounding boxes containing candidate oscillations with corresponding frequencies equal to a center frequency of the candidate oscillations to generate a third plurality of bounding boxes, wherein the center frequency is calculated as a center of frequencies of a plurality of EM signals in the corresponding bounding box; and ”
Claim 15 recite (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.), & the abstract idea of “mathematical concepts” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).I.), substantially as follows:
“ c. remove aperiodic activity to perform a first filtering on the plurality of EM measurements in the three- dimensional time-frequency space, wherein the time-frequency space includes a plurality of frequency points, wherein the first filtering remove EM measurements of the plurality of EM measurements containing pink noise to generate a three- dimensional flattened time-frequency space by providing thresholds within the time-frequency space to identify periodic signals for each frequency point of the plurality of frequency points;
d. construct a first plurality of bounding boxes, each bounding box of the first plurality of bounding boxes enclosing a contiguous group of the EM measurements of the plurality of EM measurements to capture onset and offset times of candidate oscillations within the flattened three-dimensional time- frequency space, wherein the contiguous group of the EM measurements of the plurality of EM measurements are detected where spectral power is above the thresholds within the time- frequency space;
e. perform a second filtering on the first plurality of bounding boxes to reject bounding boxes of the first plurality of bounding boxes enclosing less than two candidate oscillation cycles to generate a second plurality of bounding boxes, wherein candidate oscillations are detected based on detecting harmonic peaks in a corresponding bounding box of the plurality of bounding boxes;
f. perform an autocorrelation on the EM measurements of the plurality of EM measurements within each bounding box of the second plurality of bounding boxes to identify a corresponding frequency for each corresponding bounding box of the second plurality of bounding boxes by analyzing intervals of peaks and troughs of the candidate oscillations in the corresponding bounding box to identify the corresponding frequency for the corresponding bounding box;
g. perform a third filtering of the second plurality of bounding boxes to retain only the bounding boxes of the second plurality of bounding boxes containing candidate oscillations with corresponding frequencies equal to a center frequency of the candidate oscillations to generate a third plurality of bounding boxes, wherein the center frequency is calculated as a center of frequencies of a plurality of EM signals in the corresponding bounding box; and ”
In claims (1, 3, 15), recite operations that, when evaluated in substance set for abstract ideas. In particular, the limitations recite mathematical concepts, including mathematical relationships, calculations, and mathematical techniques, as well as mental processes that reflect evaluative and analytical steps that can be practically performed by the human mind, even with aid of pen and paper.
Specifically, the limitations directed to removing aperiodic activity by applying thresholds to distinguish periodic signals, constructing bounding boxes around contiguous regions of spectral power exceeding those thresholds, rejecting bounding boxes that fail to meet a minimum oscillatory criterion, performing autocorrelation to determine frequencies by analyzing peak and trough intervals, and retaining only those bounding boxes meeting a calculated center-frequency condition collectively describe a sequence of analytical operations applied to data (i.e., electromagnetic measurements). These operations rely on mathematical manipulations of numerical representations of electromagnetic measurements, including frequency domain transformations, noise subtraction, threshold comparison, interval analysis, averaging, and correlation. Such steps indeed reflect mathematical techniques used to analysis signals and identify patterns.
In addition, the underlying logic of the steps correspond to mental processes involving observation, comparison and evaluation. For instance, identifying regions where spectral power exceed a threshold, determining whether a region contains fewer than two oscillation cycles, analyzing peak spacing to infer frequency, and comparing the calculated frequency to a center frequency all mirror judgment based reasoning steps that could be performed mentally by a trained individual reviewing numerical data. Regarding the steps of: “h. communicate the candidate oscillations in the third plurality of bounding boxes to a user.”-(claim 3), “h. communicate the candidate oscillations in the third plurality of bounding boxes to a user.”-(claim 15), merely amounts to presenting the results of the prior analytical steps to a user. Specifically, it merely conveys the outcome of the mathematical and evaluative processing already performed, which falls within the treatment of mental processes.
Accordingly, the claims recite abstract ideas because they are directed to a series of mathematical analysis and mental evaluation performed on data to identify candidate oscillations. The focus of the claimed subject matter is on the abstract analytical methodology itself (i.e., results and calculations for filtering, grouping, correlating, selecting features). Therefore, the identified abstract limitations set forth abstract idea falling within the categories of mathematical concepts and mental processes under (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.), (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).I.).
Prong Two: Claims (1, 3, 15) do not include additional elements that integrate the mental process into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites (1) additional steps of “A computer-implemented method for the identification of oscillations within electromagnetic (EM) activity of a brain, the method implemented on a computing device comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one non-transitory computer readable medium, the method comprising: a. receiving, at the computing device, a plurality of EM measurements indicative of EM activity of the brain and corresponding times; b. transforming, using the computing device, the plurality of EM measurements into a three-dimensional time- frequency space;”-(claim 1), “A system for identifying oscillations within electromagnetic (EM) activity of a brain, the system comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: a. receive a plurality of EM measurements indicative of EM activity of the brain and corresponding times; b. transform the plurality of EM measurements into a three-dimensional time-frequency space;”-(claim 3),“At least one non-transitory computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, when executed by a computing device including at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device, the computer-executable instructions cause the at least one processor to: a. receive a plurality of EM measurements indicative of EM activity of the brain and corresponding times; b. transform the plurality of EM measurements into a three-dimensional time-frequency space;”-(claim 15); (2) further an addition step of “h. displaying, using the computing device, the candidate oscillations in the third plurality of bounding boxes to a user.”-(claim 1).
At the onset, the claims do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Although the claims recite performing the abstract mathematical and evaluative steps using a computing device, processor, memory, or non-transitory computer readable medium, these elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely serve as a tool to carry out the abstract ideas on a computer. The claims do not recite any specialized hardware, particularized data structures, or unconventional processing techniques that improve the functioning of the computer “itself”. That is, the claims are not improving the computer “itself”. Instead, the computing device is used only to automate calculations, apply rules, and communicate results, which amounts to nothing more than implementing the abstract ideas on a generic computer.
The steps in (1) represent merely data gathering or pre-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality with conventionally used tools (see below Step IIB for further details). Data gathering and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05 (f and g)). Regarding the processor language written at such a high level of generality of structural limitations, the processor language amounts to a generic computer component with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer
The step in (2) represents merely outputting the results of the abstract idea on a generic display does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. This step merely presents the results of the abstract mathematical and evaluate analysis to a user on a display and does not recite any particular display technique or technological improvement. Presenting the output of the abstract idea on a display using a generic computing device is insufficient to confer eligibility.
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather and feed information to the abstract idea and to output a notification based on the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on conventionally used tools. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident, and the estimated information is not outputted in any way such that a practical benefit is realized. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, there is no evidence of record that would support the assertion that this step is an improvement to a computer or technological solution to a technological problem. Ultimately, the Applicant’s describe improvement in the process of using electromagnetic activity techniques, but this is not an improvement in the function of a computer or other technology (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(ii); “the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology”; See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1); 2106.05(a); and 2106.05(f)). The claims are directed to the abstract idea. Also, there does not appear to be any particular structure or machine, treatment or prophylaxis, transformation, or any other meaningful application that would render the claim eligible at step 2A, prong 2.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claims (1, 3, 15) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims recite additional steps of sending a probe beam and receiving the probe beam from structures of the eye, and outputting the information. These steps represents mere data gathering, data outputting or pre/post/extra-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. Furthermore, as discussed above, limitations with respect to the processor languages/terms, respectively, amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept. The data gathering steps that were considered insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong Two, have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
As an evidence, Kofol et al (US 2006/0149160 A1) discloses:
¶0012: ‘The method estimates cerebral sources of electrical activity for a set of N input channels of EEG data utilizing Inverse Methods well known in the art.”, ¶0019, ‘EEG signals are collected from each of these electrodes in a fashion well known in the state of the art.’
As an evidence, Robinson (US 6,370,414 B1) discloses:
[Col 4 l.45-48], ‘The results of the method of the present invention displays an estimate of the source activity in the form of images of the intensity versus location of the brain's electrical activity, as known to those of skill in the art’
As an evidence, Doidge et al (US 2010/0042011 A1) discloses:
¶0240, ‘This is useful as the operator can in near-real time simultaneously observe the shifts in the electrical activity and perform mouse controlled free rotation manipulations of the display so as to observe all angles of the 3D cerebral cortex. This gives the operator the power to see the cortex from any angle and not be restricted to fixed views such as front, back, bird's eye and side views (which is a drawback of tomography). We achieved this by generating a standard 3D rotation matrix from variables specifying the degrees of rotation around each of the 3 axes, X, Y, and Z, then using that matrix in successive transformations, in a manner well known to those skilled in the art.’
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims
The following dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons:
Defining determining for each candidate oscillation the onset time, the offset time, the center frequency, a frequency range, a number of cycles, and a degree of asymmetry. Claim 2.
Defining wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine for each candidate oscillation the onset time, the offset time, the center frequency, a frequency range, a number of cycles, and a degree of asymmetry. Claim 4. Regarding the processor language written at such a high level of generality of structural limitations, the processor language amounts to a generic computer component with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Defining wherein the candidate oscillations include rhythmic, repeating patterns of neural activity including at least one of delta, theta, alpha, beta, and low gamma band oscillations. Claim 5.
Defining wherein the second plurality of bounding boxes with at least two candidate oscillation cycles represent event-related potentials and evoked responses from a group of neurons by an external stimulus or event. Claim 6.
Defining wherein the candidate oscillations include rhythmic, repeating patterns of neural activity including at least one of delta, theta, alpha, beta, and low gamma band oscillations. Claim 10.
Defining wherein the second plurality of bounding boxes with at least two candidate oscillation cycles represent event-related potentials and evoked responses from a group of neurons by an external stimulus or event. Claim 11.
Defining wherein the computer-executable instructions cause the at least one processor to determine for each candidate oscillation the onset time, the offset time, the center frequency, a frequency range, a number of cycles, and a degree of asymmetry. Claim 16. Regarding the processor language written at such a high level of generality of structural limitations, the processor language amounts to a generic computer component with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Defining wherein the candidate oscillations include rhythmic, repeating patterns of neural activity including at least one of delta, theta, alpha, beta, and low gamma band oscillations. Claim 17.
Defining wherein the second plurality of bounding boxes with at least two candidate oscillation cycles represent event-related potentials and evoked responses from a group of neurons by an external stimulus or event. Claim 18.
Defining herein the at least one processor is further configured to use the candidate oscillations in the third plurality of bounding boxes to provide targeted feedback on a magnitude of a user's alpha oscillation to improve attention and improve task performance. Claim 21.
The following dependent claims merely further describe the extra-solution activities and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for similar reasons:
describing wherein the at least one processor is further configured to group candidate oscillations by frequency range to generate a normalized power map. Claim 7.
describing wherein the at least one processor is further configured to incorporate at least one of a brain-computer interface and a neurofeedback system. Claim 8.
describing wherein the plurality of EM measurements include at least one of electroencephalography (EEG) signals, magnetoencephalography (MEG) signals, electrocorticography (ECoG) signals, stereo EEG (sEEG) signals, single neuronal recordings, and local field potentials (LFP). Claim 9.
describing further comprising grouping the candidate oscillations by frequency range to generate a normalized power map. Claim 12.
describing further comprising incorporating at least one of a brain-computer interface and a neurofeedback system. Claim 13.
describing further comprising incorporating at least one of a brain-computer interface and a neurofeedback system. Claim 14.
describing wherein the at least one processor is further configured to adjust a phase of electrical stimulation based on the candidate oscillations in the third plurality of bounding boxes. Claim 22.
Taken alone and 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. They also do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. Their collective functions merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. 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. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Robinson whose telephone number is (571)272-9019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/N.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798