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
Claim 1 (rest by dependency) is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “an association relationship exists between the first feature and the second feature”. This limitation is grammatically incorrect. 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.
Claim 1-20 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 (rest by dependency) recite “fitting the first feature and the second feature”. It is unclear what this means? The features numerical values being fitted to a graph? The scope of the claims is unclear.
Claim 1 (the rest by dependency) recites “brain map”. It is unclear what a “brain map”. There are many different types of brain maps known in the art. The specification fails to provide any context as to what this is.
Claim 1 (the rest by dependency) recites “a semantic map”. It is unclear what this is. Semantic mapping has different definitions in computer programing and in statistics. Further clarification is required.
Claim 1 (the rest by dependency) recites “a cognitive training material” in line 15. Examiner notes that “a cognitive training material” has been previously recited in the preamble.
Claim 2 recites “a second feature”. Examiner notes that “a second feature” has already been recited in Claim 1. Is applicant referring to a different second feature?
Claim 4, 12, 19 (claim 5, 13, 20 by dependency) recites “a mapped signal feature” in line 6, 25 and 9, respectively. Examiner notes that mapping the signal feature was previously recited. Is Applicant referring to another mapped feature?
Claim 4, 12, 19 (claim 5, 13, 20 by dependency) recites “a cerebral cortex”. Who’s cerebral cortex? A user’s or a general/generic image of a cerebral cortex?
Claim 5 recites “structural-state”. It is unclear what this means. Is Applicant referring to sMRI, also known in the art as a structural MRI? The scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 5 recites “diffuse”. It is unclear what this means. Is Applicant referring to dMRI, also known in the art as a diffusion MRI? The scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 5 recites “taking the structural-state magnetic resonance signal and the diffuse magnetic resonance signal as the second feature”. It is unclear what this means. How are two separate signals being used as a single feature? Is some value being generated from the signals to be used as a feature?
Claim 6 recites “each target point”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner notes Claim 1 only recites “a target point”.
Claim 7 recites “shallow” and “deep” weights. It is unclear what these are. Is Applicant referring to shallow and deep learning?
Claim 8 recites “a target point”. Is this the same target point recited in claim 1? It is unclear what a target point is in this context.
Claim 8 recites “semantic information”. Is this the same semantic information recited in claim 1? It is unclear what semantic information is in this context.
Claim 8, 14 recites “semantic map”. Is this the same semantic map recited in claim 1? It is unclear what a semantic map is in this context.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “fitting the first feature and the second feature, obtaining a semantic map according to a fitting result and a preset brain map”; “taking the first feature as an input of a deep learning model and the second feature as a constraint of the deep learning model, training the deep learning model, and determining a weight parameter of the deep learning model when the deep learning model satisfies a convergence condition; and generating a cognitive training material according to the target semantic information and the weight parameter of the deep learning model”. The abstract idea is part of the Mathematical Concepts group(s) identified in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer; data-gathering steps do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity; there is no improvement to a computer or other technology; does not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine. The additional elements are identified as follows: a memory and processor and computer-readable storage medium. 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, when considered both individually and as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional computer and data-gathering elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer and data-gathering functions that do not add meaningful limitations to practicing the abstract idea.
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by Zhang et al. Connecting concepts in the brain by mapping cortical representations of semantic relations. NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | (2020) 11:1877 Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The Federal Circuit has held that combining additional elements for data-gathering with abstract ideas does not make a claim patent-eligible. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Regarding the dependent claims, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data gathering that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry. Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known data-gathering equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Purushottam et al. US 11263749 B1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY B SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-0686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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.
JAY SHAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/JAY B SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights