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 .
This Office action is responsive to an amendment filed June 2, 2023. Claims 1-18 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 2, 2023, July 13, 2023, November 15, 2024, January 3, 2025 and October 24, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-18 is/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.
In regards to claim 1, at line 17, the limitations “an ideal sink” renders the claim indefinite; for example, it is unclear what constitutes an ideal sink.
In regards to claim 8, at line 25, the limitations “an ideal sink” renders the claim indefinite; for example, it is unclear what constitutes an ideal sink.
In regards to claim 12, at line 13, the limitations “an ideal sink” renders the claim indefinite; for example, it is unclear what constitutes an ideal sink.
In regards to claim 13, at line 3, the limitations “(e.g., the product)” renders the claim indefinite; first, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d); second, it is unclear whether the language following the “e.g.” are part of the claim; third, it is unclear whether the entire language within the parenthesis are part of the claim.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 recite(s), at least in part the following step(s):
“parameterizing, by a computing device, a dynamical network model by a plurality of state transition matrices based on a plurality of neural state vectors formed from interictal data generated by monitoring each node of a plurality of nodes of the brain during each of a plurality of consecutive predefined time windows, each of the plurality of nodes corresponding to a respective area of the brain being monitored,” “calculating, by the computing device for each of a plurality of state transition matrices, a corresponding node influence-to network score and a corresponding node influenced-by network score for each node of the plurality of nodes, the corresponding node influence-to network score indicating how influential the respective node is regarding the each of the plurality of nodes and the node influenced-by score indicating an amount by which the respective node is influenced by the plurality of nodes,” “calculating, by the computing device for the each state transition matrix, a sink index, a source influence index for the each respective node, and a sink connectivity index for the each respective node, the sink index for the each respective node indicating how far the each respective node is from an ideal sink when one of rows and columns of a two-dimensional representation of the plurality of nodes is arranged according to a rank of the each respective node with respect to the node influence-to network score and another of the rows and the columns of the two-dimensional representation of the plurality of nodes is arranged according to a rank of the each respective node with respect to the node influenced-by network score, the source influence index for the each respective node being based on a sum of an influence of the plurality of nodes on a respective node weighted by a source index of the node, and the sink connectivity index of the each respective node being based on a sum of an influence of the plurality of nodes weighted by a sink index of the each node,” “calculating, by the computing device, a score for the each respective node based on the source influence index, the sink index, and the sink connectivity index for the respective node,” and “determining, by the computing device, nodes of the plurality of nodes that are in the epileptogenic zone based on the calculated score for each of the plurality of nodes.”
These step(s), when given its/their broadest reasonable interpretation(s), describe(s) carrying out said step(s) mentally (i.e., a mental task in the human mind), and/or by a mathematical process (In re Grams) but for the recitation of generic computer components. In other words, absent the recitation of “[a] machine-implemented method for identifying for treatment an epileptogenic zone in a brain of a person diagnosed with epilepsy,” nothing precludes the claimed step from practically being performed mentally, and/or by a mathematical process (In re Grams). For example, absent the limitation(s) “[a] machine-implemented method” and “by… computing device” in the step(s), the “parameterizing,” “calculating…a corresponding node influence-to network score,” “calculating… a sink index, a source influence index for the each respective node, and a sink connectivity index for the each respective node,” “calculating…a score for the each respective node based on the source influence index, the sink index, and the sink connectivity index for the respective node,” and “determining, by the computing device, nodes of the plurality of nodes that are in the epileptogenic zone based on the calculated score for each of the plurality of nodes” in the step(s) involves the user mentally (by a mental task in the human mind, visually, and/or using pen and paper), and/or by a mathematical process (In re Grams) (using a mathematical algorithm, arithmetics, function(s) and/or equation(s)) “parameterizing,” “calculating,” and “determining.” In view of the foregoing, claim(s) 1 recite(s) an abstract idea.
For example, the following caselaw: Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A. (Fed. Cir. 2016) contains the following analysis: “Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12 (2007). Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon. com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 F. App’x 950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589–90 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). And we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, the claims are clearly focused on the combination of those abstract-idea processes. The advance they purport to make is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea.” [Emphasis added].
The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application. Particularly, the claim(s) recite(s) the following additional element(s):
” providing an indication of the nodes determined to be in the epileptogenic zone for clinicians to plan a surgical treatment involving the epileptogenic zone.”
Neither the arrangement of the additional elements, nor the additional elements themselves, apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception recited supra in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Rather, the additional element(s) is/are recited with a high level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing a generic computer function such as providing an indication) such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the additional element(s) does not integrate the exception(s) into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) include(s) the additional step(s)/element(s) recited above. The additional step(s)/element(s) are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) since such additional step(s)/element(s) are generically claimed to enable an insignificant extra-solution activity including the collection of data by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and/or calculating data, and/or (ii) automating mental tasks and/or a mathematical process. The courts have recognized these functions to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner. Therefore, the Office takes Official notice that the instantly claimed additional steps/elements are well-understood, routine and convention. Merely adding hardware that performs ‘“well understood, routine, conventional activities]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (In re TLI Communications LLC). In other words, the additional step(s)/element(s) amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception(s) using generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, Claim(s) 1 do(es) not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In regards to claim(s) 2-5 & 7, the claimed invention further describes the judicial exception in detail without however integrating said judicial exception into a practical application and/or providing additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons provided supra.
In regards to claim(s) 6, the claimed invention(s) further recite(s) additional element(s) that do(es) not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and is/are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons provided supra.
Claim(s) 8 recite(s), at least in part the following step(s):
“parameterize a dynamical network model by a plurality of state transition matrices based on a plurality of neural state vectors formed from interictal data generated by non-invasively monitoring each node of a plurality of nodes of the brain during each of a plurality of consecutive predefined time windows, each of the plurality of nodes corresponding to a respective area of the brain being monitored,”
“calculate, for each of the plurality of state transition matrices, a node influence- to network score and a node influenced-by network score, respectively, for each respective node of the plurality of nodes, the node influence-to network score indicating how influential the respective node is regarding the each of the plurality of nodes, and the node influenced-by network score indicating an amount by which a respective node is influenced by the plurality of nodes,”
“for each respective state transition matrix corresponding to a respective predefined time window: calculate a score for the each respective node, the respective score being calculated as a function, based on the respective state transition matrix, a source influence index for the respective node, a sink index for the respective node, and a sink connectivity index for the respective node to produce the respective score for the each respective node for the respective predefined time window, the sink index for the each respective node indicating how far the each respective node is from an ideal sink when one of rows and columns of a two-dimensional representation of the plurality of nodes is arranged according to a rank of the each respective node with respect to the node influence-to network score and another of the rows and the columns of the two-dimensional representation of the plurality of nodes is arranged according to a rank of the each respective node with respect to the node influenced-by network score, the source influence index for the each respective node being based on a sum of an influence of the plurality of nodes on a respective node weighted by a source index of each node, and the sink connectivity index of the each respective node being based on a sum of an influence of the plurality of nodes weighted by a sink index of each node,”
“calculate a mean score for each of the plurality of nodes based on the calculated score for each of the plurality of nodes over the each respective state transition matrix,”
“normalize the mean score for the each of the plurality of nodes,”
“count a number of nodes having mean scores greater than where the N is a total number of nodes, wherein:
when the count of the number of nodes is greater than a predefined percentage of the total number of nodes, epilepsy is indicated, and
when the count of the number of nodes is less than or equal to the predefined percentage of the total number of nodes, a healthy brain is indicated.”
These step(s), when given its/their broadest reasonable interpretation(s), describe(s) carrying out said step(s) mentally (i.e., a mental task in the human mind), and/or by a mathematical process (In re Grams) but for the recitation of generic computer components. In other words, absent the recitation of “at least one processor,” and “a memory connected to the at least one processor,” nothing precludes the claimed step from practically being performed mentally, and/or by a mathematical process (In re Grams). For example, absent the limitation(s) “at least one processor,” and “a memory connected to the at least one processor” in the step(s), the “parameteriz[ing],” “calculat[ing],” “normaliz[ing],” and “count[ing]” in the step(s) involves the user mentally (by a mental task in the human mind, visually, and/or using pen and paper), and/or by a mathematical process (In re Grams) (using a mathematical algorithm, arithmetics, function(s) and/or equation(s)) “parameteriz[ing],” “calculat[ing],” “normaliz[ing],” and “count[ing].” In view of the foregoing, claim(s) 8 recite(s) an abstract idea.
For example, the following caselaw: Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A. (Fed. Cir. 2016) contains the following analysis: “Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12 (2007). Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon. com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 F. App’x 950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589–90 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). And we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, the claims are clearly focused on the combination of those abstract-idea processes. The advance they purport to make is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea.” [Emphasis added].
The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application. Particularly, the claim(s) does not recite(s) the following additional element(s):
” at least one processor; and
a memory connected to the at least one processor.”
Neither the arrangement of the additional elements, nor the additional elements themselves, apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception recited supra in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Rather, the additional element(s) is/are recited with a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the additional element(s) does not integrate the exception(s) into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) include(s) the additional step(s)/element(s) recited above. The additional step(s)/element(s) are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) since such additional step(s)/element(s) are generically claimed to enable an insignificant extra-solution activity including the collection of data by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and/or calculating data, and/or (ii) automating mental tasks and/or a mathematical process. The courts have recognized these functions to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner. Therefore, the Office takes Official notice that the instantly claimed additional steps/elements are well-understood, routine and convention. Merely adding hardware that performs ‘“well understood, routine, conventional activities]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (In re TLI Communications LLC). In other words, the additional step(s)/element(s) amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception(s) using generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, Claim(s) 8 do(es) not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In regards to claim(s) 9-11, the claimed invention(s) further recite(s) additional element(s) that do(es) not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and is/are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons provided supra.
Claim(s) 12 recite(s), at least in part the following step(s):
“parameterizing a dynamical network model by a plurality of state transition matrices based on a plurality of neural state vectors formed from interictal data generated by invasive monitoring of each node of a plurality of nodes of the brain during each of a plurality of consecutive predefined time windows, each of the plurality of nodes corresponding to a respective probe implanted in a respective area of the brain”;
“calculating, based on the each respective state transition matrix, a sink index for each of the plurality of nodes, a source influence index for the each of the plurality of nodes, and a sink connectivity index for the each of the plurality of nodes, the sink index for the each respective node indicating how far the each respective node is from an ideal sink when one of rows and columns of a two-dimensional representation of the plurality of nodes is arranged according to a rank of the each respective node with respect to the influence-to score and another of the rows and the columns of the two-dimensional representation of the plurality of nodes is arranged according to a rank of the each respective node with respect to the influenced- by score, the source influence index for each respective node being based on a sum of an influence of the plurality of nodes on a respective node weighted by a source index of each node, and the sink connectivity index of the each respective node being based on a sum of an influence of the plurality of nodes on the each respective node weighted by a sink index of each node”;
“calculating a score for the each respective node based on an average of the source influence index, an average of the sink index, and an average of the sink connectivity index for the respective node over the plurality of state transition matrices”; and
“determining nodes of the plurality of nodes that are in the epileptogenic zone based on the calculated score for the each respective node of the plurality of nodes.”
These step(s), when given its/their broadest reasonable interpretation(s), describe(s) carrying out said step(s) mentally (i.e., a mental task in the human mind), and/or by a mathematical process (In re Grams) but for the recitation of generic computer components. In other words, absent the recitation of “[a]t least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer instructions stored thereon for identifying an epileptogenic zone in a brain of a person diagnosed with epilepsy…executed by at least one processor of a computing device,” nothing precludes the claimed step from practically being performed mentally, and/or by a mathematical process (In re Grams). For example, absent the limitation(s) “[a]t least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer instructions stored thereon for identifying an epileptogenic zone in a brain of a person diagnosed with epilepsy…executed by at least one processor of a computing device,” in the step(s), the “parameterizing,” “calculating,” and “determining nodes” in the step(s) involves the user mentally (by a mental task in the human mind, visually, and/or using pen and paper), and/or by a mathematical process (In re Grams) (using a mathematical algorithm, arithmetics, function(s) and/or equation(s)) “parameterizing,” “calculating,” and “determining nodes.” In view of the foregoing, claim(s) 12 recite(s) an abstract idea.
For example, the following caselaw: Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A. (Fed. Cir. 2016) contains the following analysis: “Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12 (2007). Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon. com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 F. App’x 950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589–90 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). And we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, the claims are clearly focused on the combination of those abstract-idea processes. The advance they purport to make is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea.” [Emphasis added].
The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application. Particularly, the claim(s) recite(s) the following additional element(s):
“[a]t least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer instructions stored thereon for identifying an epileptogenic zone in a brain of a person diagnosed with epilepsy…executed by at least one processor of a computing device.”
Neither the arrangement of the additional elements, nor the additional elements themselves, apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception recited supra in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Rather, the additional element(s) is/are recited with a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, the additional element(s) does not integrate the exception(s) into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) include(s) the additional step(s)/element(s) recited above. The additional step(s)/element(s) are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) since such additional step(s)/element(s) are generically claimed to enable an insignificant extra-solution activity including the collection of data by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and/or calculating data, and/or (ii) automating mental tasks and/or a mathematical process. The courts have recognized these functions to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner. Therefore, the Office takes Official notice that the instantly claimed additional steps/elements are well-understood, routine and convention. Merely adding hardware that performs ‘“well understood, routine, conventional activities]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (In re TLI Communications LLC). In other words, the additional step(s)/element(s) amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception(s) using generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, Claim(s) 12 do(es) not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In regards to claim(s) 13 & 15-17, the claimed invention further describes the judicial exception in detail without however integrating said judicial exception into a practical application and/or providing additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons provided supra.
In regards to claim(s) 14 & 18, the claimed invention(s) further recite(s) additional element(s) that do(es) not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and is/are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons provided supra.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art, US 2012/0265262 to Osorio, discloses a computing device, comprising at least one processor and a memory connected to the processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to carry out a machine-implemented method comprising parameterizing, by a computing device, a dynamical network model by a plurality of state transition matrices (e.g., network matrices, see par 0072) based on a plurality of neural state vectors formed from interictal data (e.g., parameters such as synchronization, entropy, absolute or relative power at certain frequencies and its variance and/or its rate of change, see par 0072) generated by monitoring each node of a plurality of nodes of the brain during each of a plurality of consecutive predefined time windows, each of the plurality of nodes corresponding to a respective area (e.g., cerebral sites) of the brain being monitored; and, calculating, by the computing device for each of a plurality of state transition matrices (e.g., network matrices, see par 0072), a corresponding node influence-to network score and a corresponding node influenced-by network score for each node of the plurality of nodes (see at least figs. 5, 7A-D & 11-12 and par 0088-0091, 0114-0115, 0137, 0141, 0150-0154 & 0175-0178); calculating, by the computing device, a score for the each respective node (see at least figs. 5, 7A-D & 11-12 and par 0088-0091, 0114-0115, 0137, 0141, 0150-0154 & 0175-0178);
determining, by the computing device, nodes of the plurality of nodes that are in the epileptogenic zone based on the calculated score for each of the plurality of nodes (see at least figs. 5, 7A-D & 11-12 and par 0088-0091, 0114-0115, 0137, 0141, 0150-0154 & 0175-0178); and providing an indication of the nodes determined to be in the epileptogenic zone for clinicians involving the epileptogenic zone (see at least figs. 5, 7A-D & 11-12 and par 0088-0091, 0114-0115, 0137, 0141, 0150-0154 & 0175-0178).
The prior art fails to disclose a computing device, comprising at least one processor and a memory connected to the processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to carry out a machine-implemented method calculating a sink index, a source influence index for the each respective node, and a sink connectivity index for the each respective node, the sink index for the each respective node indicating how far the each respective node is from an ideal sink when one of rows and columns of a two-dimensional representation of the plurality of nodes is arranged according to a rank of the each respective node with respect to the node influence-to network score and another of the rows and the columns of the two-dimensional representation of the plurality of nodes is arranged according to a rank of the each respective node with respect to the node influenced-by network score, the source influence index for the each respective node being based on a sum of an influence of the plurality of nodes on a respective node weighted by a source index of the node, and the sink connectivity index of the each respective node being based on a sum of an influence of the plurality of nodes weighted by a sink index of the each node; calculating, by the computing device, a score for the each respective node based on the source influence index, the sink index, and the sink connectivity index for the respective node; and providing an indication for clinicians to plan a surgical treatment.
Therefore, no prior art of record teaches or fairly suggest a computing device, comprising at least one processor and a memory connected to the processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to carry out a machine-implemented method calculating a sink index, a source influence index for the each respective node, and a sink connectivity index for the each respective node, the sink index for the each respective node indicating how far the each respective node is from an ideal sink when one of rows and columns of a two-dimensional representation of the plurality of nodes is arranged according to a rank of the each respective node with respect to the node influence-to network score and another of the rows and the columns of the two-dimensional representation of the plurality of nodes is arranged according to a rank of the each respective node with respect to the node influenced-by network score, the source influence index for the each respective node being based on a sum of an influence of the plurality of nodes on a respective node weighted by a source index of the node, and the sink connectivity index of the each respective node being based on a sum of an influence of the plurality of nodes weighted by a sink index of the each node; calculating, by the computing device, a score for the each respective node based on the source influence index, the sink index, and the sink connectivity index for the respective node; and providing an indication for clinicians to plan a surgical treatment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2012/0265262 to Osorio discloses a system and apparatus for early detection, prevention, containment or abatement of spread abnormal brain activity.
US 2021/0182681 to Markram et al. discloses distance metrics and clustering in recurrent neural networks.
US 2016/0287118 to Sarma et al. discloses computational tool for pre-surgical evaluation of patients with medically refractory epilepsy.
US 2014/0107521 to Galan discloses functional brain connectivity and background noise as biomarkers for cognitive impairment and epilepsy.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENE T TOWA whose telephone number is (313)446-6655. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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 M. 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.
/RENE T TOWA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights