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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 and 26-31 in the reply filed on 22 January 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 16 January 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. References that have been lined through were not considered as no date was provided for the references.
Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDS have been considered by the examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP 609.05(b). Applicant is requested to point out any particular reference in the IDS which they believe may be of particular relevance to the instant claimed invention in response to this office action.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “data compression module” in claims 1 and 26, “data segmentation module” in claims 1 and 26, and “data segment analysis module” in claims 1 and 26.
According to the specification, each module is a processing component of a processor.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 7, 9, 12, 15, and 26-31 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 claim 7, the phrase “the predefined signal markers” lacks proper antecedent basis. While claim 4 provides proper antecedent basis for the phrase, claim 3, from which claim 7 depends, does not. For examination purposes, the phrase in claim 7 is being interpreted as “predefined signal markers”.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “the predefined signal markers” lacks proper antecedent basis. While claim 4 provides proper antecedent basis for the phrase, claim 3, from which claim 7 depends, does not. For examination purposes, the phrase in claim 9 is being interpreted as “a predefined signal marker”. Furthermore, the phrase “after said one or of the predefined signal markers” is being interpreted as “after said predefined signal marker”.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “the selected one of the plurality of windows” lacks proper antecedent basis. For this examination, the phrase is being interpreted as “the selected one or more of the displayed plurality of windows”.
Regarding claim 15, it is unclear what element of the system is configured to define groups of compressed EEG data, or if any element of the system is configured to define groups of compressed EEG data. It is also unclear how many groups are defined as the phrase “subsequent groups” is open ended and implies that an infinite amount of compressed EEG data groups may be defined by the system. Clarification is requested as to how the groups are defined, and how many groups are defined.
Regarding claim 26, use of the phrase “and is associated with” in each of the “based on the first/second selection” limitations renders the claim indefinite. As best understood by the specification, the first “version” of the EEG data is a compressed version of the EEG data (low-resolution version), the second “version” of the EEG data is the same EEG data, but in an uncompressed state (high-resolution version), and the third “version” of the EEG data is completely different data (high resolution parameter data other than the high resolution data shown in the second version). The first and second versions are of the same data, but with different resolutions (one low resolution, one high resolution), and the third version is of different data, but with the same high resolution as the second version. If the first and second versions are the same EEG data, how are they each associated with different parameters? If the third version is different EEG data than the first version EEG data, how is the third version associated with at least one of the first parameters of the first version? Clarification is requested.
Regarding claims 28 and 29, it is unclear how the client device itself “causes the first selection”. As best understood by the specification, the selection is performed by a user, not by the client device.
Claims 27, 30, and 31 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 26.
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 1, 2, 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nierenberg et al.’478 (US Pub No. 2016/0120478) in view of Jordan’967 (US Pub No. 2004/0077967) further in view of Gustafson’132 (US Pub No. 2011/0137132) further in view of Gunasekar et al.’770 (US Pub No. 2019/0059770).
Regarding claim 1, Figure 8 of Nierenberg et al.’478 discloses a system 20 for EEG data acquisition and presentation (see ABSTRACT, and section [0046]), the system comprising: a neuromonitoring medical system 30 configured to capture electrical activity of a patient’s brain as EEG signals via a plurality of EEG electrodes (section [0121]); a computer 40 coupled with the neuromonitoring medical system configured to receive and process the EEG signals, wherein the computer comprises: a data compression module configured to paginate the EEG signals into a plurality of pages, (sections [0049-0051], [0118-0120] - segment the EEG signals into epochs), wherein each of the plurality of pages is a predefined size that comprises EEG data derived from the EEG signals (see Figures 12 and 13, and sections [0049-0051], [0118-0120]); a data segment analysis module configured to analyze the EEG data to determine signals corresponding to EEG events (sections [0047], [0135]); and a client device 50 adapted to receive and display the analyzed EEG data for viewing by a clinician (see Figures 18-23), wherein the client device comprises at least one processor and programmatic instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor: sequentially displays a plurality of windows (see individually displayed EEG waveforms in Figures 19, 20, 22, and 23), wherein each of the plurality of windows is adapted to display a first version of the EEG data having a first resolution and wherein each of the plurality of windows is configured to display a predefined time range of the first version of the EEG data; receive a selection of one or more of the displayed plurality of windows (section [0137]); and based on the selection, display a second version of the EEG data (see Figures 21 and 22, and sections [0137-0138]).
Nierenberg et al.’478 discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed above, except for the computer comprising a data segmentation module configured to segment the paginated EEG data into groups, wherein each group is defined by a predefined frequency range. Jordan’967 teaches determining EEG signals that correspond specifically to seizure events. Seizure events are determined by segmenting paginated EEG data into groups, each group being defined by a predefined frequency range, and analyzing power ratios between two different frequency groups (sections [0006], [0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Nierenberg et al.’478 to include a data segmentation module configured to segment the paginated EEG data into predefined frequency groups, as Jordan’967 teaches that analyzing ratios between different predefined frequency groups can be used to detect seizure events.
Nierenberg et al.’478 in view of Jordan’967 discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed above, except for the client device being configured to, based on the selection of one or more of the displayed plurality of windows, fetch a second version of the EEG data, wherein the second version has a second resolution greater than the first resolution. Gustafson’132 teaches using a compressed image format to provide an acceptable resolution for a thumbnail (smaller) image for an initial investigation in order to require less storage space than a high-resolution image format, and then allowing a full-sized high-resolution image to be obtained to make a diagnostic assessment ([0100]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the client device of Nierenberg et al.’478 in view of Jordan’967 to provide an initial, lower-resolution view of the EEG data, and then provide an enlarged, higher-resolution view of the selected EEG data. As taught by Gustafson’132, use of a compressed image format provides an acceptable resolution for an initial investigation while requiring less storage space than a high-resolution image format. When a diagnostic assessment needs to be made, a higher resolution image could be provided for the expanded view shown in Figure 21 of Nierenberg et al.’478. It is noted that Nierenberg et al.’478 in view of Jordan’967 further in view of Gustafson’132 discloses receiving, analyzing, and displaying compressed EEG data derived from the EEG signals.
Nierenberg et al.’478 in view of Jordan’967 further in view of Gustafson’132 discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed above, except for the computer being a server. Gunasekar et al.’770 teaches a system comprising a neuromonitoring medical system configured to capture electrical activity of a patient’s brain as EEG signals via a plurality of EEG electrodes, and a server coupled with the neuromonitoring medical system configured to receive, process, and analyze the EEG signals, wherein the server comprises a data compression module, a data segmentation module, and a data segment analysis module, and further wherein the server is configured to transmit compressed EEG data to a client device for display of the analyzed EEG data (sections [0022-0030], [0034], [0036-0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have substituted a server for the computer of Nierenberg et al.’478 as it would merely be the simple substitution of one known processing device (a server) for another (a computer) to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, in the combination of Nierenberg et al.’478 in view of Jordan’967 further in view of Gustafson’132 further in view of Gunasekar et al.’770, the second version of the EEG data is an uncompressed (high resolution) version of the EEG data and the first version of the EEG data is a compressed (lower resolution) version of the EEG data.
Regarding claim 8, while Nierenberg et al.’478 does not disclose the length of the predefined time ranges shown in Figures 19-23, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to have determined an optimum predefined time range for the display of the EEG data of Nierenberg et al.’478.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Official notice is being taken that it is well known in the art for a server to comprise a cache memory configured to store acquired, processed, and analyzed data (see, for example, section [0014] of Rahn et al.’454 -- US Pub No. 2007/0247454). In the combination of Nierenberg et al.’478 in view of Jordan’967 further in view of Gustafson’132 further in view of Gunasekar et al.’770, the stored data would include the second version of the EEG data corresponding to the selected one of the plurality of windows.
Regarding claim 11, Official notice is being taken that it is well known for a cache memory to be coupled to a controller that controls transmission of the stored acquired, processed, and analyzed data to a separate device.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nierenberg et al.’478 in view of Jordan’967 further in view of Gustafson’132 further in view of Gunasekar et al.’770, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Elwood et al.’672 (US Pub No. 2021/0307672).
Regarding claim 3, Nierenberg et al.’478 discloses marking a signal of interest (sections [0133], [0137] – signals of interest are highlighted red).
Nierenberg et al.’478 in view of Jordan’967 further in view of Gustafson’132 further in view of Gunasekar et al.’770 discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed in paragraph 10 above, except for the data segment analysis module being configured to mark the EEG events with signal markers. Elwood et al.’672 teaches a processing element of a system automatically annotating EEG events with signal markers (start/stop times of seizure events). The annotations allow a clinician to review the annotations and make clinical decisions (sections [0073-0074]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the data segment analysis module of Nierenberg et al.’478 in view of Jordan’967 further in view of Gustafson’132 further in view of Gunasekar et al.’770 to be configured to also mark the EEG events with signal markers (start/stop annotations of detected seizure events), as this would allow a clinician to review the annotations and make clinical decisions.
Regarding claim 4, the signals of interest are marked using a first type of predefined signal marker (red highlight), and the EEG events are marked using a second type of predefined signal marker (text, as mentioned in section [0049]).
Regarding claim 6, Jordan’967 teaches analyzing EEG data in EEG frequency bands outside of the ranges of 80 Hz to 250 Hz and 250 Hz to 500 Hz (alpha, beta, theta, and delta waves are all outside of those ranges).
Regarding claim 9, the system of Nierenberg et al.’478 in view of Jordan’967 further in view of Gustafson’132 further in view of Gunasekar et al.’770 further in view of Elwood et al.’672 is capable of displaying data of the first version of the EEG data occurring before one of the predefined signal markers and is capable of displaying data of the first version of the EEG data occurring after said one of the predefined signal markers. While Nierenberg et al.’478 does not disclose the length of the pre and post event data that is displayed, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to have determined an optimum pre and post event data time period for the display of the EEG data of Nierenberg et al.’478.
Regarding claim 14, the client device of Nierenberg et al.’478 in view of Jordan’967 further in view of Gustafson’132 further in view of Gunasekar et al.’770 further in view of Elwood et al.’672 is capable of enabling a user to stop a display of the first version of the EEG data upon encountering one or more of the signal markers (the user can turn the client device off at any time, including upon encountering one or more of the signals markers; furthermore, the user can stop a display of the first version of the EEG data by left double-clicking on any window – section [0137] of Nierenberg et al.’478 (left double-clicking stops display of the first version and begins display of the second version)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nierenberg et al.’478 in view of Jordan’967 further in view of Gustafson’132 further in view of Gunasekar et al.’770 further in view of Elwood et al.’672, as applied to claim 3, further in view of Wu et al.’457 (US Pub No. 2016/0120457).
Nierenberg et al.’478 in view of Jordan’967 further in view of Gustafson’132 further in view of Gunasekar et al.’770 further in view of Elwood et al.’672 discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed in paragraph 11 above, except for at least some of the signals of interest comprising high frequency oscillations. Wu et al.’457 teaches that analyzing high frequency oscillations in EEG signals can be used to localize epileptogenic tissue (section [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Nierenberg et al.’478 in view of Jordan’967 further in view of Gustafson’132 further in view of Gunasekar et al.’770 further in view of Elwood et al.’672 to include analyzing and marking EEG signals comprising high frequency oscillations, as this would help in localizing epileptogenic tissue.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nierenberg et al.’478 in view of Jordan’967 further in view of Gustafson’132 further in view of Gunasekar et al.’770 further in view of Elwood et al.’672, as applied to claim 3, further in view of Soper et al.’295 (US Pub No. 2005/0182295).
Nierenberg et al.’478 in view of Jordan’967 further in view of Gustafson’132 further in view of Gunasekar et al.’770 further in view of Elwood et al.’672 discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed in paragraph 3 above, except for the predefined signal markers comprising audible signal markers. Soper et al.’295 teaches that annotations may be either textual or audible (section [0129]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have substituted audible signal markers for the textual signal markers as it would merely be substituting one known signal marker (audible) for another (textual) to obtain predictable results.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nierenberg et al.’478 in view of Jordan’967 further in view of Gustafson’132 further in view of Gunasekar et al.’770, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Wu et al.’457.
Regarding claim 13, Nierenberg et al.’478 in view of Jordan’967 further in view of Gustafson’132 further in view of Gunasekar et al.’770 discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed in paragraph 10 above, except for the client device being configured to generate a three dimensional display of the first version of the EEG data, wherein the three dimensional display comprises signal markers visually indicating where high frequency oscillations occur in the EEG signals. Wu et al.’457 teaches a client device configured to generate a three dimensional display of EEG data, wherein the three dimensional display comprises signal markers visually indicating where high frequency oscillations occur in EEG signals. The three dimensional display can be used to determine epileptogenic tissue in a subject and to help surgeons plan resective surgery (sections [0042], [0044], [0068], [0072]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the client device of Nierenberg et al.’478 in view of Jordan’967 further in view of Gustafson’132 further in view of Gunasekar et al.’770 to be configured to generate a three dimensional display of the first version of the EEG data with signal markers visually indicating where high frequency oscillations occur in the EEG signals, as Wu et al.’457 teaches that this would help to determine epileptogenic tissue.
Examiner’s Note
The following is a statement of reasons for the lack of prior art rejections against claims 26-31:
Regarding claim 26, none of the prior art discloses or suggests, either alone or in combination, a system wherein at least one processor is configured to perform the following steps: sequentially display a plurality of windows, each window having a first resolution; based on a first selection of one or more of the displayed plurality of windows, fetch a second version of the EEG, wherein the second version has a second resolution greater than the first resolution; display the second version of the EEG data; and based on a second selection of the one or more of the displayed plurality of windows chosen by the first selection, fetch a third version of the EEG data, wherein the third version has the second resolution, in combination with the other claimed elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Echauz et al.’917 (US Pub No. 2003/0073917) teaches providing different annotations for different types of detected events (sections [0135], [0142-0146]). Espina et al.’157 (US Pub No. 2010/0121157) teaches automatically marking events of interest on a physiological display. Fahey’303 (US Pub No. 2012/0262303) teaches transmitting a low resolution physiological signal from a data collector to a remote device, determining whether the low resolution signal contains clinically significant data, and if the low resolution signal contains clinically significant data, the remote device signals to the data collector to send higher resolution data of the previously analyzed low resolution data (see ABSTRACT). Drew’968 (US Pub No. 2006/0094968) teaches that it is well-known in the art to compress data obtained by implantable medical devices in order to conserve power and memory space, and to transmit the stored data to an external device more efficiently (sections [0002-0003]). Odame’147 (US Pub No. 2010/0217147) teaches converting an electrographic waveform into a high resolution signal if the electrographic waveform is determined to represent a clinically significant event in order to facilitate analysis by an expert clinician (sections [0012], [0015], [0026]). Odame’147 also teaches that storing a signal at a low resolution when no clinically significant event is determined, and storing a signal at a high resolution when a clinically significant event is determined results in a reduction of power consumption of an implantable EEG monitoring device (section [0013]). Corcoran et al.’305 (US Pub No. 2007/0110305) teaches maintaining a high level of resolution on image regions of importance and a low level of resolution on image regions of low importance ([0180]). Cover et al.’881 (US Pub No. 2008/0139881) teaches compressing medical image data into JPEGs, wherein regions of the image considered to be significant are encoded at a higher rate for better image quality ([0050-0054]). Konig’408 (US Pub No. 2007/0192408) teaches initially transferring medical image data at reduced resolution, and then, if required, loading the further image data at a later time until a higher resolution has been achieved ([0009]). Wang et al.’379 (US Pub No. 2007/0098379) teaches that there is an advantage in using a different resolution or compression ratio for a portion of an image used in detection than the resolution or compression ratio in storage ([0079]). Bennett et al.’595 (US Pub No. 2011/0190595) teaches first downloading a low resolution image, and then requesting a higher resolution image be downloaded in order to arrive at a proper diagnosis ([0139]). Fuchs’873 (US Pub No. 2013/0267873) teaches using a lower-resolution image on a multi-window screen, and then allowing a medical practitioner to select an individual window of the multi-window screen to display a higher resolution version of the selected window (sections [0030], [0032]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETSUB D BERHANU whose telephone number is (571)270-5410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:30pm 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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/ETSUB D BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791