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 .
Specification
Content of Specification
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421 - 2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01.
See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74 is missing for Fig. 4.
Claim Objections
Claims 13, and 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 13, “lo-cation” should be rewritten as “location”.
Regarding claims 17-19, “comprise” should be rewritten as “comprises” for consistency.
Regarding claim 20, in “wherein the computing of activation parameter statistics…”, remove “the” to maintain consistency with claims 14-15.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16-19, 26-28, and 30 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.
Regarding claims 16-18 and 26, they recite the limitation "each activation location", however in claim 13, it is referred to as “the activation location”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 19, 27 and 28, the limitation, “a unique “activation location-preferred direction of activation-- activating EFT”—triple” is unclear on what that entails. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner interprets this to be different activation parameters, such as activation location, preferred direction, and activating EFT.
Regarding claim 30, in line 3, it is unclear if “response signals” are the same as or different from “response signals” which is recited at line 3 of claim 19, from which claim 30 depends on.
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 13-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, claims 13-31 have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 1
Claims 13-31 recites a series of steps or acts for a computer-implemented method, executed using a computer processor, for localizing activation under transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Thus, the claims are directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of claims 13-31 recites at least one step or instruction for a computer-implemented method for localizing activation under TMS, which is grouped as an abstract idea under the 2019 PEG. The claimed steps of localizing activation under TMS with a computer-implemented method, can be practically performed in the human mind using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas.
Accordingly, each of claims 13-31 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 13 recites a computer-implemented method, executed using a computer processor, for localizing activation under transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), the method comprising:
Computing activation parameter statistics with activation location as an activation parameter, wherein the activation parameter statistics includes a probabilities distribution of the activation location (observation, judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
Further, dependent claims 14-31 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in independent Claim 13 (and its respective dependent claims 14-31) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claim 13) either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of a computer processor are generically recited computer elements in independent Claim 13 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 13 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., a computer processor). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 13 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claim 13 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
Claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more
than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a computer processor.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, the computer processor, activation parameters, activation locations, probability distribution is described in pages 1-4, However, these limitations are generically described without structure or detailed drawings. Such computer components are well understood, routine, and conventional.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed terms: a computer processor, are reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the computer processor. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claim 13 amounts to mere
instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon
conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical
solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatus of Claim 13 is directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 13-31 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claim 13 (and its dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 13-31 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 13-31 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 13-31 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 13, 14, 18, 21, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang (Targeting brain functions from the scalp: Transcranial brain atlas based on large-scale fMRI data synthesis).
Regarding claim 13, Jiang teaches a computer-implemented method, executed using a computer processor, for localizing activation (“portable scalp-navigation system…to localize the probe arrangement and placement”, chapter 2.3, page 3) under transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) (“TMS targeting”, chapter 2.2, page 3), the method comprising:
Computing activation parameter statistics with activation location as an activation parameter, wherein the activation parameter statistics includes a probability distribution of the activation location (“the cranial-cortical mapping P(b/s) gives the probability of accessing brain voxel b from a given scalp location s”, chapter 2.2, page 3).
Regarding claim 14, Jiang teaches wherein computing of the activation parameter statistics comprises:
Computing with a preferred direction of activation as an additional activation parameter (“identified head landmarks…which can specify any point on the scalp surface by a pair of coordinates”, chapter 2.2, page 3).
Regarding claim 18, Jiang teaches the activation parameter statistics comprising:
The preferred direction of activation at each activation location (“a constant participant-specific intensity was delivered at different scalp sites on the grid”, chapter 2.6.3, page 6).
Regarding claim 21, Jiang teaches wherein the computing of the activation parameter statistics comprises:
Computing with prior information including accuracy information about response signals (“accuracies were defined as the distances from two widely accepted sites calculated from an actual TMS motor mapping result”, chapter 2.6, page 4).
Regarding claim 22, Jiang teaches wherein the activation is localized within one or more threshold probability volumes for which an integral of the probability distribution exceeds a threshold probability (“all peak coordinates (foci) from the selected studies are extracted…meta-analysis is conducted based on these extracted peak coordinates to establish the activation likelihood estimation of each function X for each voxel…processing, a threshold ALE map”, chapter 2.1, page 2-3).
Regarding claim 24, Jiang teaches a computer program product implemented on a computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, will cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 13 (“scalp navigation system…magnetic 3D digitizer and software written in python…virtual head model in the software”, Fig. 2, page 3; computer with virtual head model in software shown in Fig. 2 on page 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 15-17, 19, 20, 23, and 25-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jiang in view of Tervo (Automated search of stimulation targets with closed-loop transcranial magnetic stimulation).
Regarding claim 15, Jiang teaches all the limitations of claim 14, but does not teach computing with an activating electric field threshold as an additional activation parameter.
However, Tervo teaches a computer-implemented method for localizing activation under TMS (“TMS session starts with searching for the optimal stimulation parameters, such as location and orientation of the coil”, paragraph 2, page 2) wherein computing with an activating electric field threshold (EFT) (“manually varied stimulation parameters…intensity…maximum E-field”, paragraph 3, page 2) as an additional activation parameter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Jiang with Tervo and compute with an activating electric field threshold in order to make the TMS treatment further optimizable for the needs of the patient.
Regarding claim 16, Jiang in view of Tervo teaches wherein the activation parameter statistics comprises:
A conditional expectation of the preferred direction of activation divided (“cranial-cortical mapping, function-relevant regions are divided into accessible…and inaccessible parts”, page 5, Fig. 3; Jiang) by the activating EFT at each activation location (“grid was marked on the cap using the scalp navigation system”, chapter 2.6.3, page 5; divided parts shown in Fig. 5 where red is locations of the brain most accessible to activation; Jiang).
Regarding claim 17, Jiang in view of Tervo teaches the activation parameter statistics comprise:
A conditional expectation of the activating EFT at each activation location (“a constant participant-specific intensity was delivered at different scalp sites on the grid”, chapter 2.6.3, page 6; Jiang).
Regarding claim 19, Jiang in view of Tervo teaches the wherein the activation parameter statistics comprise:
A likelihood measures that response signals originate from a unique “activation location – preferred direction of activation – activating EFT” – triple (“meta analysis can synthesize results from human functional brain mapping studies…meta analysis is conducted based on these extracted peak coordinates to establish the activation likelihood estimation of function X for each voxel”, chapter 2.1, pages 2-3; Jiang).
Regarding claim 20, Jiang in view of Tervo teaches wherein the activation parameter statistics comprises:
Computing with prior information including a minimal value of electric field modulus at which activation may occur (“with our previously established probabilistic cranial-cortical mapping…gives the probability of accessing brain voxel b from a given scalp location s”, chapter 2.2, page 3; Jiang).
Regarding claim 23, Jiang teaches all the limitations of claim 22, but does not teach the threshold probability being 90 percent or more.
Tervo does teach the threshold probability being 50% (“the motor threshold (MT) is often defined as the stimulation intensity that produces an MEP exceeding a predefined amplitude with a probability of 50%”, lines 54-55, page 2; MEP described as largest motor evoked potentials).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized that the range of the threshold probability of being 90 percent or more would be subject to optimization within the claimed range by routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to only target TMS treatment where areas of the brain have a higher likelihood of activation. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 II and in re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (1980). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Jiang with Tervo in order to make the threshold probability at 90 percent or more, targeting areas of the brain with the highest percentage of activation during TMS treatment.
Regarding claim 25, Jiang teaches all the limitations of claim 13, but does not teach computing with an activating electric field threshold as an additional activation parameter.
However, Tervo teaches computing with an activating electric field threshold (EFT) (“manually varied stimulation parameters…intensity…maximum E-field”, paragraph 3, page 2) as an additional activation parameter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Jiang with Tervo and compute with an activating electric field threshold in order to make the TMS treatment further optimizable for the needs of the patient.
Regarding claim 26, Jiang in view of Tervo teaches the activation parameter statistics comprising:
The preferred direction of activation at each activation location (“a constant participant-specific intensity was delivered at different scalp sites on the grid”, chapter 2.6.3, page 6; Jiang).
Regarding claim 27, Jiang in view of Tervo teaches wherein the activation parameter statistics comprise:
A likelihood measures that response signals originate from a unique “activation location – preferred direction of activation – activating EFT” – triple (“meta analysis can synthesize results from human functional brain mapping studies…meta analysis is conducted based on these extracted peak coordinates to establish the activation likelihood estimation of function X for each voxel”, chapter 2.1, pages 2-3; Jiang).
Regarding claim 28, Jiang in view of Tervo teaches wherein the activation parameter statistics comprise:
A likelihood measures that response signals originate from a unique “activation location – preferred direction of activation – activating EFT” – triple (“meta analysis can synthesize results from human functional brain mapping studies…meta analysis is conducted based on these extracted peak coordinates to establish the activation likelihood estimation of function X for each voxel”, chapter 2.1, pages 2-3; Jiang).
Regarding claim 29, Jiang in view of Tervo teaches wherein the activation parameter statistics comprises:
Computing with prior information including a minimal value of electric field modulus at which activation may occur (“with our previously established probabilistic cranial-cortical mapping…gives the probability of accessing brain voxel b from a given scalp location s”, chapter 2.2, page 3; Jiang).
Regarding claim 30, Jiang in view of Tervo teaches wherein the computing of the activation parameter statistics comprises:
Computing with prior information including accuracy information about response signals (“accuracies were defined as the distances from two widely accepted sites calculated from an actual TMS motor mapping result”, chapter 2.6, page 4; Jiang).
Regarding claim 31, Jiang in view of Tervo teaches all the limitations of claim 29.
Furthermore, Tervo teaches wherein the activation is localized within one or more threshold probability volumes for which an integral of the probability distribution exceeds a threshold probability (“probability distribution of f(x) at any point x given the measured N responses in vector y and the corresponding stimulation parameters X”, lines 149-151, page 5, “e-field…may serve as a reference when adjusting the stimulation intensity at any cortical site”, lines 55-57, page 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method Jiang with the method of Tervo and localize activation sites in the brain where likelihood for activation is high.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARA LINH TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3598. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5:00pm M-F.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 5712724233. 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.
/L.L.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights