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 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 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: “an acquisition unit,” “an associated data generation unit,” and “an estimation unit” in claims 1 and 6.
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.
A review of the specification as filed shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structures, materials, or acts described in the specification as filed for the above 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) limitations: a processor, a central processing unit, a computer, a program, software, or an fNIRS machine.
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 1-5 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the acquired functional image and brain activity information indicating states of Wernicke area and Broca area are associated with each other " in line 7. It is unclear from the language of the claim if both “the acquired functional image” and “brain activity information” indicate the states of Wernicke area and Broca area or if only the “brain activity information” indicates the states. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what is required by the claim. For the purposes of examination the recited limitation shall be interpreted as requiring that the brain activity information indicates the states of the Wernicke area and Broca area. This rejection could be overcome by amending the claim language to clarify what the brain activity information comprises. For example the claims could recite “an associated data generation unit configured to generate associated data in which the acquired functional image and brain activity information are associated with each other, wherein the brain activity information indicates brain activity states of a Wernicke area and a Broca area”.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1 the limitation(s):
an acquisition unit configured to acquire a functional image that is based on a measurement result obtained by measuring a brain activity state of a subject by functional near-infrared spectroscopy; and
an associated data generation unit configured to generate associated data in which the acquired functional image and brain activity information indicating states of Wernicke area and Broca area are associated with each other,
the brain activity information being information indicating the brain activity state of the subject at a time of measurement by the functional near-infrared spectroscopy and being based on information different from the measurement result obtained by the functional near-infrared spectroscopy.
These limitation(s) highlighted in (bold) is/are directed to an abstract idea and would fall within the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. The above portion(s) of the claim(s) constitute(s) an abstract idea because:
The limitation(s) regarding “an associated data generation unit configured to generate associated data in which the acquired functional image and brain activity information indicating states of Wernicke area and Broca area are associated with each other”, as drafted, is an act of observation and evaluation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than reciting “an associated data generation unit,” nothing in the claim language precludes the Step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “an associated data generation unit” language, “associated” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually associating a functional image and brain activity information.
Further, referring to the MPEP 2106.04, the claim limitations are analogous to a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the non- abstract additional elements of the claims do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s) recited in the preceding claim(s). In particular, the claims recited the additional elements of:
The limitation(s) regarding “an acquisition unit configured to acquire a functional image that is based on a measurement result obtained by measuring a brain activity state of a subject by functional near-infrared spectroscopy” and “the brain activity information being information indicating the brain activity state of the subject at a time of measurement by the functional near-infrared spectroscopy and being based on information different from the measurement result obtained by the functional near-infrared spectroscopy” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to. Rather the limitation is recited at such a high-level of generality that it amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e. data gathering. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are regarded as data gathering steps necessary or routine to implement the abstract idea.
The limitation(s) regarding “an acquisition unit” and “an associated data generation unit” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim limitation is a generic computer component performing the generic computer function of receiving, storing, and comparing data such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims:
-Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field;
-Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b);
-Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c); or
-Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) data gathering functions.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of “an acquisition unit configured to acquire a functional image” and “the brain activity information being information indicating the brain activity state of the subject” is/are viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, such as mere data gathering in a conventional way and, therefore, does not provide an inventive concept. Similarly, with regards to the additional element(s) of “an acquisition unit” and “an associated data generation unit” is/are view as a generic computer component performing the generic computer function of receiving, storing, and comparing data such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well- understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) as evidenced by: Zhang et al. (Zhang, X., et al. "Signal processing of functional NIRS data acquired during overt speaking. Neurophotonics. 2017; 4 (4): 041409."); Hiroyasu et al. (JP 2018089142 A); Hall et al. (Hall, Michael, et al. "Fronto-temporal mapping and connectivity using NIRS for language-related paradigms." Journal of Neurolinguistics 26.1 (2013): 178-194.); and Phillips et al. (US 10071245 B1).
Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, because the claims fails to recite clearly how the judicial exception is applied in a manner that does not monopolize the exception because the limitation regarding “an acquisition unit configured to acquire a functional image,” “the brain activity information being information indicating the brain activity state of the subject,” and “an associated data generation unit” can be viewed as a field of use, necessary data gathering, and any device and do not impose a meaningful limitation describing what problem is being remedied or solved.
Independent claim 6 is also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additionally recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an Abstract idea. Claim 6 recite(s) the additional elements of:
The limitation(s) regarding “an estimation unit configured to estimate a brain activity state of the subject based on the functional image acquired by the acquisition unit and a trained model that is generated in advance by machine learning with respect to a correlation between the functional image and brain activity information indicating states of Wernicke area and Broca area of the subject”, as drafted, is an act of observation and evaluation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than reciting “an estimation unit,” nothing in the claim language precludes the Step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “an estimation unit” language, “estimate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually estimate a brain activity state.
Further, the limitation regarding “an estimation unit configured to estimate a brain activity state of the subject based on the functional image acquired by the acquisition unit and a trained model that is generated in advance by machine learning with respect to a correlation between the functional image and brain activity information indicating states of Wernicke area and Broca area of the subject”, as drafted, falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. This interpretation is supported by the recitation of a mathematical operation acting on one or more variables to determine another. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Dependent claims 2-5 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additionally recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there are no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claims significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea).
Claims 2 and 4-5 recite limitations regarding data gathering steps and insignificant application necessary or routine to implement the abstract idea and thus are not significantly more than the abstract idea and viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by the prior art shown above.
Claim 3 further limits the abstract idea with an abstract idea, such as an “Mental Process” or “Mathematical Concept”, and thus the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (Zhang, X., et al. "Signal processing of functional NIRS data acquired during overt speaking. Neurophotonics. 2017; 4 (4): 041409.").
Regarding Claim 1. Zhang teaches:
A learning apparatus comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire a functional image that is based on a measurement result obtained by measuring a brain activity state of a subject by functional near-infrared spectroscopy (See Abstract and Page 041409-2: In this study, we applied the previously developed PCA spatial filter to fNIRS signals recorded during an overt picture-naming task, which was similar to the classic Boston Naming Test.); and
an associated data generation unit configured to generate associated data in which the acquired functional image and brain activity information indicating states of Wernicke area and Broca area are associated with each other (See Abstract and Page 041409-2: In addition, we compared recorded fNIRS signals with fMRI data previously acquired during silent speech25 to evaluate the spatial correlation of results between these two methods using similar tasks and paradigms.),
the brain activity information being information indicating the brain activity state of the subject at a time of measurement by the functional near-infrared spectroscopy and being based on information different from the measurement result obtained by the functional near-infrared spectroscopy (See Fig. 1, Page 041409-5, and Page 041409-10: The result obtained from the spatially filtered deoxyHb signals was compared with the fMRI data set, Fig. 1(a), and the Neurosynth map of Broca’s area (Fig. 1). Wernicke’s area.).
Regarding Claim 4. Zhang teaches:
The learning apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the information different from the measurement result obtained by the functional near-infrared spectroscopy is information that is based on a measurement result obtained by measuring the brain of the subject by functional magnetic resonance imaging at a time of the measurement by the functional near-infrared spectroscopy (See Abstract and Page 041409-2: In addition, we compared recorded fNIRS signals with fMRI data previously acquired during silent speech25 to evaluate the spatial correlation of results between these two methods using similar tasks and paradigms.).
Regarding Claim 5. Zhang teaches:
The learning apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the information indicating the brain activity state of the subject is information that is based on characteristics of optical fibers at a time of the measurement by the functional near-infrared spectroscopy (See Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and Page 041409-2: Thirty emitter and 29 detector optodes were positioned 3 cm apart, providing a grid of 98 acquisition channels [Fig. 2(a)]. Each emitter optode connected to laser diodes at three wavelengths (780, 805, and 830 nm) used to measure changes in concentration of deoxyHb and oxyHb. Signals were acquired every 0.093 s.).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (Zhang, X., et al. "Signal processing of functional NIRS data acquired during overt speaking. Neurophotonics. 2017; 4 (4): 041409.") as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hall et al. (Hall, Michael, et al. "Fronto-temporal mapping and connectivity using NIRS for language-related paradigms." Journal of Neurolinguistics 26.1 (2013): 178-194.).
Regarding Claim 2. Zhang teaches:
The learning apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the brain activity information indicates a low activity state in Wernicke area and Broca area and a high activity state in Wernicke area and Broca area (See Fig. 4, Fig. Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, and Pages 041409-3 – 041409-4: A reduction in deoxyHb concentration and an increase in oxyHb concentration both correspond to “positive” fNIRS activity as represented by the figures and the reverse was true for “negative” activity.).
Zhang is silent as to the language of:
wherein the brain activity information indicates a Broca area dominant state and a Wernicke area dominant state.
Nevertheless Hall teaches:
wherein the brain activity information indicates a Broca area dominant state and a Wernicke area dominant state (See Abstract and Page 191: It was observed that Broca’s region plays a major role and Wernicke’s region plays a supporting role when responding to word expression paradigm (as observed in past NIRS studies). On the contrary, it is the right homolog of Wernicke’s (and partly right homolog of Broca’s region) that plays a major role during word reception of comprehensible text (as observed from fMRI studies).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang wherein the brain activity information indicates a Broca area dominant state and a Wernicke area dominant state such as that of Hall. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Zhang because using brain states of a Broca area dominant state or a Wernicke area dominant state would have helped to recognized word expression or reception to comprehensible text, as recognized by Hall.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (Zhang, X., et al. "Signal processing of functional NIRS data acquired during overt speaking. Neurophotonics. 2017; 4 (4): 041409.") as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Phillips et al. (US 10071245 B1).
Regarding Claim 3. Zhang is silent as to the language of:
The learning apparatus according to claim 1,
further comprising:
a trained model generation unit configured to generate a trained model by performing machine learning on a correlation between the functional image and the brain activity information based on the associated data generated by the associated data generation unit.
Nevertheless Phillips teaches:
a trained model generation unit configured to generate a trained model by performing machine learning on a correlation between the functional image and the brain activity information based on the associated data generated by the associated data generation unit (See Col. 15 line 60 - Col. 16 line 8: This functional-anatomical model 308 must be initialized from a user's fMRI scan, but during the training regimen it is adapted based on fNIRS sensing, which provides a lower-cost rough approximation to fMRI data.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang by a trained model generation unit configured to generate a trained model by performing machine learning on a correlation between the functional image and the brain activity information based on the associated data generated by the associated data generation unit such as that of Phillips. Phillips teaches, “Functional-anatomical models 308 associate functional brain regions for the target brain state (element 406) to specific physical locations within the skull and provide a means to determine the HD-tCS electrode currents needed to reach these regions effectively.” (See Col. 15 line 60 – Col. 16 line 8). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Zhang, because training a model using a correlation between brain activity information and associated data would have helped to determine the physical locations within the skull of fNIRS images, as recognized by Phillips.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (Zhang, X., et al. "Signal processing of functional NIRS data acquired during overt speaking. Neurophotonics. 2017; 4 (4): 041409.") in view of Hiroyasu et al. (JP 2018089142).
Regarding Claim 6. Zhang teaches:
An estimation apparatus comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire a functional image that is based on a measurement result obtained by measuring a brain activity state of a subject by functional near-infrared spectroscopy (See Abstract and Page 041409-2: In this study, we applied the previously developed PCA spatial filter to fNIRS signals recorded during an overt picture-naming task, which was similar to the classic Boston Naming Test.); and
an estimation unit configured to estimate a brain activity state of the subject based on the functional image acquired by the acquisition unit (See Page 041409-3: Transforming fNIRS data into a 3-D volume is done with triangulation-based linear interpolation (using the grid data command in MATLAB).) and
a trained model that is generated in advance with respect to a correlation between the functional image and brain activity information indicating states of Wernicke area and Broca area of the subject (See Abstract and Page 041409-2: In addition, we compared recorded fNIRS signals with fMRI data previously acquired during silent speech25 to evaluate the spatial correlation of results between these two methods using similar tasks and paradigms.).
Zhang is silent as to the language of:
a trained model that is generated in advance by machine learning.
Nevertheless Hiroyasu teaches:
a trained model that is generated in advance by machine learning (See Abstract: A human's brain activity state is estimated by: inputting brain function imaging data from a data set composed of pieces of brain function imaging data arranged in time series, to each channel of a convolutional layer of a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) in time series.)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang by a trained model that is generated in advance by machine learning such as that of Hiroyasu. Hiroyasu teaches, “The filter is automatically optimized so that the feature quantity necessary for the final identification of the image can be accurately extracted in the learning process of the CNN” (See Page 3). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Zhang, because using machine learning would have helped to accurately identify brain activity state, as recognized by Hiroyasu.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Forbes et al. (Forbes, Samuel H., et al. "Processing pipeline for image reconstructed fNIRS analysis using both MRI templates and individual anatomy." Neurophotonics 8.2 (2021): 025010-025010.) discloses using MRI templates to reconstruct fNIRS data (See Abstract.).
Sereshkeh (Sereshkeh, Alborz Rezazadeh. Development of a Hybrid Brain-Computer Interface Based on Imagined Speech Using Electroencephalography and Near-Infrared Spectroscopy. University of Toronto (Canada), 2018.) discloses classifying fNIRS signals into different classes based on the Broca and Wernicke areas (See Abstract and Page 65).
Hirsch (US 20170311803 A1) discloses determining correlation between the Broca and Wernicke areas of one patient with the Broca and Wernicke areas of another patient using fNIRS images (See Abstract and para[0075]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARTER W FERRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 am - 8 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine T. Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/CARTER W FERRELL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights