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 .
Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted have been considered. The submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.9 /. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Specification
The specification is accepted.
Drawings
The formal drawings are accepted.
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 1-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “one sequence from at least one surrogate data sequence for a neutral data sequence that is for replacing a missing or corrupted data sequence of the electroencephalogram data” however “surrogate data sequence, a neutral data sequence a missing or corrupted data sequence of the electroencephalogram data” of what are being referred to here? and interconnections between surrogate data sequence, a neutral data sequence a missing or corrupted data sequence of the electroencephalogram data extremely confusing and for the most part not detailed or mentioned in the claim. It is difficult to translate the claim and follow what processes are taking place and further the limitation does not particularly point out how replacement of a missing or corrupted data sequence of the electroencephalogram data being processed to achieve the cited result. With regard to performing the selection based on an optimization comparison between a first data and a second data, a criterion of the optimization comparison being limitation of disturbance caused in case the neutral data sequence is applied to the data frame, there is no clear criteria for performing selection of optimization comparison. Performing the selection based on optimization comparison attempts to define the subject matter in terms of the result to be achieved, which merely amounts to a statement of underlying problem, without providing the technical features necessary for achieving the result. In regard to “a criterion of the optimization comparison being limitation of disturbance caused in case the neutral data sequence is applied to the data frame” it is vague with respect to what type of criteria is being referred to here or what specifically does the criteria related to? Is it deterministic, pseudorandom or random data sequences. There are many disconnects between the limitations in the claims.
Applicants are requested to review all claims and make corrections as needed to clarify the claim language. Corrections are requested.
Independent claim 14 includes similar limitations of independent claim 1 andtherefore are rejected for similar reasons.
Dependent claims depend from the base claims and inherently include limitations therein and therefore are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as well.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
1.A method of forming modifying data related to a data sequence for a data frame including electroencephalogram data, the method comprising: forming the modifying data by selecting: one sequence from at least one surrogate data sequence for a neutral data sequence that for replacing a missing or corrupted data sequence of the electroencephalogram data, or one surrogate algorithm from at least one surrogate algorithm, each of which is for generating at least one surrogate data sequence, which includes the neutral data sequence, by performing the selection based on an optimization comparison between a first data and a second data, a criterion of the optimization comparison being limitation of disturbance caused in case the neutral data sequence is applied to the data frame: the first data comprising reference data, which corresponds to the electroencephalogram data, or a reference algorithm for generating the reference data, and the second data comprising at least one result formed by applying a result algorithm, which provides characterizing information on the data frame including the electroencephalogram data, to the electroencephalogram data with the at least one surrogate data sequence replacing the missing or corrupted data sequence of the electroencephalogram data, or the result algorithm with the electroencephalogram data and the at least one surrogate algorithm.
Claim 1 recites a method therefore is a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
The limitations of performing the selection based on an optimization comparison between a first data and a second data, a criterion of the optimization comparison being limitation of disturbance caused in case the neutral data sequence is applied to the data frame and further the first data generating an algorithm for generating the reference data and the second data comprising at least one result formed by applying a result algorithm for replacing the missing or corrupted data sequence is a concept that falls into the “mathematical concepts” (mathematical relationship or mathematical method using mathematical algorithm) group of abstract ideas and also the limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind or this limitation falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical relationship for selecting data sequence for replacing a corrupted data sequence by computing first and second data to obtain a result formed by applying a result algorithm can be practically performed in the human mind. These are mathematical concepts that can be done mentally or via pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not recite additional elements or there is no hardware recited in the claim language. Further the claim does not require any physical transformation and the invention as claimed does not produce a useful, concrete, and tangible result. Further, the claim does not do more than use mental processes making a decision (i.e. store data) based on an evaluation or judgment of a value. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites an apparatus that performs the method of claim 1. Claim 11 recites additional elements one or more processors; and one or more memories perform the method of claim 1. As such the claimed invention recites an abstract idea. The additional elements (one or more processors and one or more memories) do not change the results of the analysis and further considered to be generic components and does not add meaningful limitations to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(f-h). The claim is not patent eligible. Therefore claim 14 is rejected as well.
Respective dependent claims further limit parent claims and do not cure the deficiencies of parent claims and are therefore rejected at least based on dependency,
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Micu et al. (US 8885464 B2) teach EEG recording can have a memory module configured to record EEG signals from a patient and a wireless transceiver configured to wirelessly transmit the EEG signals as packets. The host device can have a wireless transceiver configured to wirelessly receive at least some of the packets transmitted by the recording module wireless transceiver and a processor configured to identify one or more missing packets.
Shambroom (US-6985833-B2) describes a system and method of identifying and removing artifact from radio frequency noise from biopotential signals. Biopotential signals are divided into epochs and epochs contaminated with radio frequency noise are identified. Epochs with radio frequency noise are replaced with epochs without such noise. In order to avoid errors in the process, each epoch must be identified by two different artifact identification techniques as containing radio frequency noise. Discontinuities arising at the beginning of replaced epochs are smoothed by means of a windowing function.
Petley et al. (US-10694299-B2) teach an ear-worn electronic device comprises a plurality of EEG sensors configured to sense EEG signals from or proximate a wearer's ear. At least one processor is configured to detect, during a baseline period of no wearer movement, EEG signals from the EEG sensors, and detect, during each of a plurality of candidate control movements by the wearer, EEG signals from the EEG sensors.
Laszlo et al. (US-11576601-B2) teach computer programs encoded on a computer storage medium, for improving EEG measurements by identifying artifacts present in EEG measurements and providing a real-time indication to a user of likely artifacts in EEG measurements are described. EEG measurements of a patient can be obtained by placing a wearable device or EEG cap on a patient's head. Sensors in the cap provide EEG data to a computing device that processes the data to identify one or more artifacts in the EEG data. The artifacts can be identified by conducting one or more operations of determining the signal to noise ratio of the line noise, calculating mutual information between sensor pairs, and applying the p-welch method. Based on the types of artifacts identified, the computing device can output an indicator that provides feedback to the technician performing an EEG test to make adjustments to the test setup.
Although no art is used against claims 1-15, this is not an indication that the claims are allowable. The 112 problems cause a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitation of the claims. It is difficult for the examiner to ascertain what the applicant feels is the claimed invention.
The scope of the claims is unclear as discussed above. As a result, a meaningful formulation of art rejections cannot be done at this time. See MPEP 2173.06 II, 2nd paragraph:
... where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art.... a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
See also Ex Parte Timothy J.O. Catlin and Kevin T. Rowney, the appeal of 09/167,315, Appeal No. 2007-3072, decided Feb. 3, 2009, page 12:
... A rejection of a claim, which is so indefinite that "considerable speculation as to meaning of the terms employed and assumptions as to the scope of such claims" is needed, is likely imprudent. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962) (holding that the examiner and the board were wrong in relying on what at best were speculative assumptions as to the meaning of the claims and basing a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 thereon.)...
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Esaw T. Abraham whose telephone number is (571) 272-3812. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-4PM.
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, Albert DeCady can be reached on (571) 272-3819. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (703) 872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) 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.
/ESAW T ABRAHAM/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights