DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication dated 25 December 2025 concerning Application No. 18/277,566 filed on 16 August 2023.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability; claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 8 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments (pp. 2-5) and arguments (pp. 6-11), filed on 25 December 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4 and 8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The corresponding rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 5-7 and 9 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 5-7 and 9, Applicant argues that “as amended, the claims include limitations not disclosed by the cited reference,” and “the claims depended from an amended claim that further clarifies the novelty and non-obviousness of the claims” (Arguments, p. 9). The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as no substantial amendments have been proposed for independent claim 5, nor does claim 5 depend from any other amended claim. Therefore, the Examiner respectfully maintains that Wagner discloses the claimed limitations.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the electrical signal data” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the electrical signals” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office Action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office Action.
This application contains the following limitations which use the word “means” or “step” modified with functional language without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The Examiner has identified possible structures disclosed in the Specification that support the recited function.
Claim 5: means for storage of electrical signal data, for example random access memory as disclosed in paragraph [0037]
Claim 6: means for storing the transformed data, for example random access memory as disclosed in paragraph [0037]
Claim 7: means for displaying the transformed data, for example a screen on an analogue or digital monitor as disclosed in paragraph [0036]
Claim 9: means for displaying the transformed data, for example a screen on an analogue or digital monitor as disclosed in paragraph [0036]
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 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more. The claims recite mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations) as evidenced by the claim language of “collecting,” “transforming,” “implementing,” and “modifying.” This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements of a microprocessor and a computer file do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, as they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations only collect, store, retrieve, and otherwise manipulate stored data, all of which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized in court decisions (please see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wagner (US 2009/0082688 A1). The Examiner respectfully notes that the Wagner reference is a previously published application submitted by the same inventor as the current application.
Regarding claim 5, Wagner describes an apparatus for collecting, transforming and displaying electrical signal data ([0017]: “apparatus for collecting, transforming and displaying electrical signal data”), comprising
sensors for collecting electrical signals ([0017]: “sensors for collecting electrical signals”)
means for storage of electrical signal data ([0017]: “means for storage of electrical signal data”)
at least one microprocessor having a computer program implementing
an existing method of choice ([0017]: “at least one microprocessor having a computer program implementing an inverse problem solver”)
an algorithm to determine a direction of cortical current flow ([0017]: “an sLORETA algorithm”)
a diagonal weighting matrix algorithm or an algorithm for modifying a distribution of activity-indicating values, for transforming stored electrical signal data ([0017]: “a diagonal weighting matrix algorithm for transforming stored electrical signal data)
Regarding claim 6, Wagner describes means for storing transformed data (0017]: “means for storing transformed data”).
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Wagner describes means for displaying the transformed data ([0017]: “means for displaying the transformed data”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 8 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance.
The prior art of record does not disclose or suggest a method for transforming electrical signal data from sensors, including the steps of “determining cortical locations, corresponding neuronal orientations, noise covariances Cn, lead field A and prior source covariances Cp, computing the current density vector Xopt and the final weighting matrix Wfinal based on the measured data b, noise covariances Cn, lead field A and prior source covariances Cp, and computing the diagonal weighting matrix W so that its entries (one per location) are determined by a function of their corresponding values in Xopt, such that locations of non-inward-pointing current flow obtain smaller weights that locations of inward-pointing current flow are included to determine the cortical source current vector Xopt of the cortical current vector” as recited in claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Statement on Communication via Internet
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. Where a written authorization is given by the applicant, communications via Internet e-mail, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used. USPTO employees are NOT permitted to initiate communications with applicants via Internet e-mail unless there is a written authorization of record in the patent application by the applicant. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please refer to MPEP 502.03 for guidance on Communications via Internet.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Ankit D. Tejani, whose telephone number is 571-272-5140. The Examiner may normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30AM through 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, Carl Layno, can be reached by telephone at 571-272-4949. 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 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.
/Ankit D Tejani/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792