DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-15, specifically independent claims 1, 6 & 11, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Please see the below analysis providing the details as to why the invention is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim falls within a statutory category of invention.
Claim 6 is directed to a system, which is a product. Therefore, the claim falls within a statutory category of invention.
Claim 11 is directed to a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage, which is a product. Therefore, the claim falls within a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, prong 1:
Each of claims 1, 6 & 11 recites the method steps of:
“…receiving at least one photonic signal from at least one read modality…”
“…determining action potentials based on the photonic signals…”
“…determining frequency oscillations based on the photonic signals…
“…determining neuron networks structures based on the photonic signals…determined using a Maximum Entropy model…”
“…mapping brain region activation…using the Maximum Entropy model.”
Under the broadest interpretation, claims 1, 6 & 11 recite a series of steps that are practically performable in the human mind. A human could receive at least one photonic signal, determine action potentials/oscillations based on said signal, determine neuron network structures using a Maximum Entropy model and map brain region activation using said model. Therefore, it would be practical to perform the steps in a human’s mind, or with a pen and paper, to utilize the claimed signals.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claims 1, 6 & 11 recite method steps comprising mental processes (i.e. receiving, determining, mapping) and mathematical concepts (i.e. using a Maximum Entropy model). Thus, since claims 1 and 11 recite limitations that fall within the mental processes and mathematical concepts of abstract ideas, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2:
Claims 1 and 11 do not recite additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The examiner also notes that there are not any elements recited in claims 1 & 11 do not apply or use the judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. The above claims are silent to providing any treatment at all to a patient.
Claim 6 recite the following additional elements, which for the reasons set forth below, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
“…a processor…” (mere instructions to apply an exception MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“…memory accessible by the processor…” (mere instructions to apply an exception MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner also notes that the additional elements recited in claim 6 do not apply or use the judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. The above claims are silent to providing any treatment at all to a patient.
Step 2B
The claims as a whole fails to recite an inventive concept. The additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons as set forth above in Step 2A, Prong 2. Upon re-evaluating the limitation that was previously identified as insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong 2, the following evidence to show that the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional:
producing at said computer processor a human-readable output (i.e. processor) of the analysis of the gathered data, this is also WURC, as evidenced by Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed.Cir. 2016), which discusses “conventional computer, network, and display technology” and states that “nothing in the patent contains any suggestion that the displays needed for that purpose are anything but readily available. We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are “insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application” of an abstract idea”.” Similarly, there is nothing in Applicant’s specification that indicates that the device that is “producing at said computer processor a human-readable output indicating” the findings of the analysis is anything but readily available.
The examiner also notes that the limitations of the dependent claims, claims 2-10 & 12-15, define determining axiological structures and determining linguistic structures, etc. which further limit claim limitations already indicated above as being directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, the above dependent claims are directed to patient-ineligible subject matter.
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 1-15, specifically claims 1, 6 & 11, 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 regards to claims 1, 6 and 11, it is unclear as to what is being claimed due to the claim limitation “…mapping brain region activation by S+/R event to observable linguistic events…” are inferentially included, i.e. it is unclear if the S+/R events and/or linguistic events are functionally or positively recited.
Specifically, the claims do not define what constitutes S+/R events and/or linguistic events, how such events relate to brain region activation, or how the activation is mapped to “observable linguistic events.” As such, the metes and bounds of the claim limitations are unclear.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE F JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm 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, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/NICOLE F JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796