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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 9, & 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regard to claims 3, 9, and 15, “wherein the window comprises a weighted average that is farthest from an initial threshold value obtains the highest priority…” should read -- wherein the window that comprises a weighted average that is farthest from an initial threshold value obtains the highest priority -- to show that the window is what is being assigned highest priority.
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 1 - 18 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 regard to claims 1, 7, & 13, the step of “measuring… an activity rate based on the one or more digital biomarkers,” includes the limitation that “the activity rate comprises a positive feedback provided to the user when an activity level of the brain is increased” However, it is not clear how a calculated rate based on the value of one or more digital biomarker could additionally include a positive feedback. Examiner is interpreting the limitation to mean that when the activity level of the brain is increased based on the calculated activity level, that positive feedback is provided to the user.
Additionally, in the step of “computing, by the one or more hardware processors, a threshold value at a plurality of time series,” it is unclear if the claim requires only one threshold value to be computed for a plurality of time series or if a threshold value should be computed for each time series in the plurality of times series.
Claims 2 - 6 are rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 1. Claims 8 - 12 are rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 7. Claims 14 - 18 are rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 13.
In regard to claims 2, 8, & 14, “computing, by the one or more hardware processors, mean and standard deviation for each window” includes the limitation “wherein the window in which the one or more digital biomarkers are stored,” but it is not clear what method should be performed with “the window” or how it relates to the stored “one or more digital biomarkers”. Further clarification is required.
Additionally, claims 2, 8, & 14 include the limitation of “determining, by the one or more hardware processors, whether the current biomarker continuously exceeds a second threshold value of a statistical range for more than recalibration count,” but it is not clear if the second threshold value is a secondary threshold computed for each of the plurality of time series in a neurofeedback session, or if the second threshold is a single value that is computed in succession to the first threshold value computed in a plurality of time series in the neurofeedback session as described in claims 1, 7, & 13.
Further, claims 2, 8, & 14 recite, “adding, by the one or more hardware processors, a real-time value of a current biomarker to the biomarker list wherein a list of differences between biomarker values in the biomarker list and a current threshold value, is determined using the adjacent factor,” but does not include a method step of determining “a list of differences between biomarker values in the biomarker list and a current threshold value”.
Further, claims 2, 8, & 14 include the step of “detecting, by the one or more hardware processors, a presence of an artifact in a biomarker list for the window, wherein the mean value and an adjacent factor are applied when the artifact is detected in the biomarker list…” but it is not clear how the mean value and adjacent factor are applied or what the mean value and adjacent factor are being applied to.
Claims 3 - 6 are rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 2. Claims 9 - 12 are rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 8. Claims 15 - 18 are rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 14.
In regard to claims 4, 10, & 16, which recite, “the initial threshold value is computed from a list of the one or more digital biomarkers in the baseline activity,” it is unclear how a value is computed from a list. Applicant should clarify if the threshold value is chosen from a list or computed using the values of the one or more digital biomarkers.
Claims 5 - 6 are rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 4. Claims 11 - 12 are rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 10. Claims 17 - 18 are rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1, 7, & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prat (US 20180368719 A1).
In regard to claims 1, 7, & 13, Prat discloses a computer-implemented method, a computer-implemented system, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions for generating a neurofeedback signal for a neurofeedback session, the computer-implemented method comprising:
capturing, by one or more hardware processors, one or more bio-signals from one or more electronic devices, comprising one or more digital biomarkers, wherein the one or more digital biomarkers indicates one or more brain activities of a user, and wherein the one or more brain activities of the user comprises rhythms and function of a brain; Prat discloses a computer-implemented method for biofeedback training of a subject that includes obtaining a series of biomarkers comprising EEG signals (FIG. 1, see “EEG”; paragraph [0117]) and computing a neuromarker, which corresponds to energy levels or ratios of energy levels within specific band frequencies or rhythms, including alpha, beta, theta, and sensorimotor rhythms that correspond to values representative of brain activity (paragraph [0022]).
measuring, by the one or more hardware processors, a baseline activity associated with the captured one or more digital biomarkers during a resting state of the brain; Prat discloses that initial values are computed from a captured EEG signal under a given condition, such as a resting state (paragraph [0061]).
measuring, by the one or more hardware processors, an activity rate based on the one or more digital biomarkers, wherein the activity rate comprises a positive feedback provided to the user when an activity level of the brain is increased; Prat discloses that their method includes measuring an activity rate that corresponds to energy levels or ratios of energy levels within specific band frequencies (paragraph [0022]) based on measured EEG signals (FIG. 1). A user is provided with a reward or positive feedback, such as a picture or specific tone (paragraph [0025]; FIG. 2, see “Reward 1”) when the activity rate increases past a calculated threshold (FIG. 1, see “Threshold”).
computing, by the one or more hardware processors, a threshold value at a plurality of time series in the neurofeedback session based on at least one of: the measured activity rate and the one or more digital biomarkers captured during the baseline activity of the brain, using an activity model; Prat discloses that their method includes the computation of threshold values at a variety of time windows or series based on the biomarkers measured in the time series (paragraph [0035]).
and outputting, by the one or more hardware processors, the neurofeedback signal corresponding to the neurofeedback session to the user, based on the computed threshold value. Prat discloses that their method includes outputting a reward signal in the form of a picture or specific tone (paragraph [0025]) to the user when the user’s activity level passes a threshold value (FIG. 1 & 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s reason for allowance: Prat discloses the invention as set forth for claim 1, and additionally discloses computing a moving average of measurement time windows, storing real-time values of current biomarkers measured by EEG, and comparing the values to a calculated threshold value to determine and adjust a reward ratio or difficulty level for neurofeedback training (paragraph [0018] & [0035]). Prat additionally discloses identifying artifacts in the data and removing artifacts from the bio-signal of the subject before computing the biomarker representative of the bio-signal in a time window using an artifact removal algorithm known in the field (paragraph [0062]), but does not specify that the mean value and an adjacent factor are applied when the artifact is detected in the biomarker list, wherein applying of the mean value and the adjacent factor is ignored when recalibration for the one or more digital biomarkers is performed, and wherein the adjacent factor is related to a list of weights computed for weighted average of the biomarker list. Prat additionally does not disclose determining a list of differences between biomarker values and a current threshold value, recalibrating one or more biomarkers, or computing mean and standard deviation for a next window when the current biomarker is within the second threshold of the statistical range.
Barthelemy (US 20170311832 A1) additionally discloses a computer implemented method and system of scoring self-paced modulation of brain activity that includes the generation of a score based on the distance between real-time measurements of neural signals measured via EEG and computing a covariance matrix of the neural signals for comparison with a covariance matrix of reference signals. However, like Prat, Barthelemy fails to disclose that the mean value and an adjacent factor are applied when the artifact is detected in the biomarker list, wherein applying of the mean value and the adjacent factor is ignored when recalibration for the one or more digital biomarkers is performed, and wherein the adjacent factor is related to a list of weights computed for weighted average of the biomarker list, or determining a list of differences between biomarker values and a current threshold value, recalibrating one or more biomarkers, or computing mean and standard deviation for a next window when the current biomarker is within the second threshold of the statistical range.
Claims 2 - 6, 8 - 12, and 14 - 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph set forth in this Office action and to include all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIENNA CHRISTINE PYLE whose telephone number is (703)756-5798. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 5:30 pm M - T; Off first Fridays; 8 am - 4 pm second Fridays.
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, Charles Marmor, II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/ERIC F WINAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/S.C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3791