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 1, 4 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, in line 8, --- the --- should be added before “reflections”.
In claim 1, in line 10, --- the --- should be added before “reflected”.
In claim 1, in line 14, --- the --- should be inserted before “reflection”.
In claim 1, in line 23, “brain” should be replaced with – the brain of the individual ---.
In claims 4 and 8, in the last line, the word --- the --- should be added before “brain”.
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 1-10 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 individual" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the array of coherent radio waves” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that the claim previously refers to “array of coherent radio wave emitters and detectors”.
With regards to claim 1, in line 24, it appears that “the distance” is referring to the same “distance” set forth in line 13 of claim 1. However, the “distance” set forth in lines 24-25 refers to a “distance from the array of coherent radio wave emitters and where the coherent radio waves are reflected from the ions” whereas the “distance” set forth in line 13 refers to “distance from the array of coherent radio wave emitters to the ion channels causing [the] reflection of the array of coherent radio waves”. There appears to be inconsistency with regards to defining the same “distance”, thus rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
With regards to claim 1, in the last two lines, the limitation “where the coherent radio waves are reflected from the ions that distance pinpoints the area from where an ion activity happens in the brain” is recited. It is unclear as to what is meant by “from the ions that distance pinpoints the area from where an ion activity happens”. For examination purposes, Examiner assumes Applicant meant to set forth ---from the ions [[that]] and wherein the distance pinpoints the area from where an ion activity happens ---
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Libove et al. (US Patent No. 10,660,531), as evidenced by Arad (US Pub No. 2021/0378540), in view of Xia (US Pub No. 2016/0278687) and Elsinger et al. (US Pub No. 2005/0197561).
With regards to claims 1 and 9, Libove et al. disclose a method and system to determine the mind thoughts using coherent radio waves to detect ion transport within ion channels of individual neurons to analyze brain activity by determining neuron level details of the ion channels of the individual, the system comprising:
a headgear (“helmet shell”) comprising an array (i.e. 100) of coherent radio wave emitters and detectors configured for placement on a human's head, and coherent radio waves emitted from the headgear are reflected from ions moving through in the ion channels of neurons (Abstract, referring to providing biomedical images of both anatomical structure and real-time changes in neuronal function in humans and animals, wherein such “changes in neuronal function” is inherently a result of ions moving through ion channels of neurons; column 3, lines 32-58, referring to “The present invention consists of a configuration of interconnected small and low cost assemblies that each can provide microwave pulses, through either an antenna or radio-frequency (RF) probe [which would thus emit radio waves], and have an antenna or RF probe and an electrical sampler to receive microwave energy” and “The microwave pulse trains from these assemblies, termed “pulser-antenna-sampler” (PAS) assemblies herein…”, wherein the PAS assemblies correspond to an array of coherent radio wave emitters and detectors; column 22, lines 9-31, referring to an image being made by sequentially enabling the pulser (100) on one PAS assembly 100 at a time, while the samplers (120) on all N PAS assemblies (100) collect the reflected signal in response to the pulser (110); column 22, lines 50-57, referring to the imager system (900) comprising an array of PAS assemblies (100) and a substrate (910) which can comprise a helmet shell; column 23, line 26-column 24, line 8, referring to the “adjustable phase shifters 1110 in pulser select controller 1020 are configured to individually delay the pulser clock provided to each pulser by an amount needed to achieve a specified phase shift, which …then effects the needed superposition of electromagnetic radiation from a given cluster of adjacent pulsers 110 to form a steered beam from those pulsers 110 to target a specific region of the body”, and thus the radio wave emitters/antennas (100) are necessarily “coherent” radio wave emitters since successful superposition or radiation to form a steered beam inherently requires that the sources/emitters are coherent sources/emitters [as evidenced by Arad, see paragraph [0140], referring to the successful superposition (i.e. constructive interference) of two or more waves requiring that the waves are correlated or coherent with each other]; column 31, lines 15-55, referring to the invention being used to provide a real-time image of transmission and reflection data of microwave pulse as they traverse the brain tissue and provide a visual image of spatially relevant thoughts; Figures 9-10, 16);
a processor (column 7, lines 10-21; column 28, lines 40-52, referring to the processor) configured to:
compare reflected coherent radio waves and non-reflected (i.e traversed) radio waves to identify an exact location of neuron activity to a single neuron or an area of neurons where the individual neurons are active (column 12, lines 10-20, column 13, lines 15-53, referring to the reflected energy associated with the region M4; column 14, lines 44-56, column 24, lines 33-39; referring to a separate TDT PAS assembly (100””) receiving transmitted energy that traverses (and thus non-reflected) the region in which the pulse from TDR PAS assembly (100) travels, such as through the tissue in functional region M7, to reach a TDT PAS assembly 100”; column 21, lines 32-44, referring to “a boundary of a known-functionally-active region can be used as the registration point, from which… a boundary in a different functional region, could be subtracted, to more precisely study the relationship between functional changes in different areas of the brain. This concept can be extended to where hundreds of differential registration points are used as baselines for hundreds or even thousands of other functional boundaries enabling a robust and powerful instrument for studying neural function…”, wherein the subtraction from a boundary in a different functional region (i.e. such as in a M7 region which is associated with traversed (i.e. non-reflected) pulses would correspond to a comparison (via the subtraction) of the reflected radio waves (i.e. reflected signals, such as associated with M4 or M6 region) and non-reflected radio waves (i.e. traversed signals associated with the M7 region); column 14, line 44-column 15, lines 5, referring to detecting functional changes in regions that are located along a path between transmit and receive antennas (115), wherein the acquired signals can be combined to reconstruct a three-dimensional images, wherein such an image would provide an identification of the location of neuron activity to an area of neurons where neurons are active (i.e. associated with functional changes); Figures 2, 16);
determine a distance (i.e. such as a distance associated with depth) from the array of coherent radio wave emitters to the ion channels causing reflection of the array of coherent radio waves, using time-of-flight measurements (column 15, line 46-column 16, line 27, referring to determining times at which reflectivity changes occur, wherein “a later reflection, such as that seen at time TTR4, may indicate changes in E.sub.r at this increased depth. If the signal at time TTR4 is plotted over many trials, it will yield the plot shown as D(TTR4), showing metabolic changes deeper in the brain. Similarly, the arrival time at the M4-to-M5 boundary will change in response to changing dielectric and mechanical properties of the active brain tissue at region M4. In this way, a series of layered plots can be made, showing dielectric changes at, for example, 256 different depths, and therefore a depth/distance is determined using time-of-flight measurements (i.e. arrival times); column 27, lines 65-67, referring to “The present invention, being able to utilize the timing of received reflected microwave pulses to localize activity at various depths in the brain…”; column 9, lines 22-31; see claim 5, referring to calculating a time difference between a first time and a second time, the two times associated with different boundaries (i.e. first and second boundaries) and using the time difference to measure a distance between the first and second boundaries; Figures 2-7, 16);
calculate a time (i.e. arrival time) it takes for one of the reflected coherent radio waves to return to the detectors (column 15, line 46-column 16, line 27, referring to determining times at which reflectivity changes occur, wherein “a later reflection, such as that seen at time TTR4, may indicate changes in E.sub.r at this increased depth. If the signal at time TTR4 is plotted over many trials, it will yield the plot shown as D(TTR4), showing metabolic changes deeper in the brain. Similarly, the arrival time at the M4-to-M5 boundary will change in response to changing dielectric and mechanical properties of the active brain tissue at region M4. In this way, a series of layered plots can be made, showing dielectric changes at, for example, 256 different depths”, and therefore a depth/distance is determined using time-of-flight measurements (i.e. arrival times); column 27, lines 65-67, referring to “The present invention, being able to utilize the timing of received reflected microwave pulses to localize activity at various depths in the brain…”; column 9, lines 22-31; see claim 5, referring to calculating a time difference between a first time and a second time, the two times associated with different boundaries (i.e. first and second boundaries) and using the time difference to measure a distance between the first and second boundaries ; Figures 2-7, 16);
combine information from the detectors and the array of coherent radio wave emitters (column 14, lines 9-17, “By combining the acquired signals from one or more TDR PAS assemblies 100 assemblies with the acquired signals from one or more OFFSET TDR PAS assemblies 100′, a two or three-dimensional image may be reconstructed. This image contains reflection data that is largely from internal structures directly in front of each antenna 115, as well as from internal structures of different depths, that all reside laterally between the two antennae 115”; Figures 2, 16); and
create a three-dimensional brain activity model of the brain activity, highlighting regions with active neurons known as brain regions associated with particular cognitive functions serving as a reference for interpreting the three-dimensional brain activity model (column 14, lines 9-17, “By combining the acquired signals from one or more TDR PAS assemblies 100 assemblies with the acquired signals from one or more OFFSET TDR PAS assemblies 100′, a two or three-dimensional image may be reconstructed. This image contains reflection data that is largely from internal structures directly in front of each antenna 115, as well as from internal structures of different depths, that all reside laterally between the two antennae 115”; column 15, lines 39-43, “The addition of larger numbers of distributed PAS elements and appropriate signal processing of the returned signals can provide three dimensional images that show changes in reflectivity in real time in response to localized changes in brain activity”, wherein such changes in brain/neural activity depicted in images corresponds to showing/highlighting brain regions with active neurons; column 28, lines 4-9, “FIG. 14 illustrates how the present invention can acquire a real-time image of mental activity in a selected region of the brain, in this case, the motor cortex and associated regions of the brain, and this real-time image data can then be computer-processed and used to control electrodes 1400 that stimulate muscles 1410 such as in limbs”; column 31, lines 15-55, referring to providing a real-time image of transmission and reflection data of microwave pulses as they traverse the brain tissues, wherein the processed data can be used to externally portray a visual image of spatially relevant thoughts; column 27, lines 28-27, referring to metabolic changes/functional activity being displayed with the structural baseline image by overlaying the changes in a different color or pattern, thus highlighting regions with active neurons; Figures 2, 13-14, 16);
wherein the coherent radio waves from multiple direction are sent to brain from the headgear (see Figures 6, 8, 10, 11-14, 16, wherein the radio waves are sent to the brain from multiple directions) and
the reflected coherent radio waves are analyzed to find out the distance (i.e. associated with depth) from the array of coherent radio wave emitters and where the coherent radio waves are reflected from the ions (column 15, line 46-column 16, line 27, referring to determining times at which reflectivity changes occur, wherein “a later reflection, such as that seen at time TTR4, may indicate changes in E.sub.r at this increased depth. If the signal at time TTR4 is plotted over many trials, it will yield the plot shown as D(TTR4), showing metabolic changes deeper in the brain. Similarly, the arrival time at the M4-to-M5 boundary will change in response to changing dielectric and mechanical properties of the active brain tissue at region M4. In this way, a series of layered plots can be made, showing dielectric changes at, for example, 256 different depths, and therefore a depth/distance is determined using time-of-flight measurements (i.e. arrival times); column 27, lines 65-67, referring to “The present invention, being able to utilize the timing of received reflected microwave pulses to localize activity at various depths in the brain…”; column 9, lines 22-31; see claim 5, referring to calculating a time difference between a first time and a second time, the two times associated with different boundaries (i.e. first and second boundaries) and using the time difference to measure a distance between the first and second boundaries; Figures 2-7, 16)
that distance pinpoints the area from where an ion activity (i.e. “brain activity”/”mental activity”) happens in the brain (column 27, lines 65-67, referring to “The present invention, being able to utilize the timing of received reflected microwave pulses to localize activity at various depths in the brain…”;”; column 15, lines 39-43, “The addition of larger numbers of distributed PAS elements and appropriate signal processing of the returned signals can provide three dimensional images that show changes in reflectivity in real time in response to localized changes in brain activity”, wherein such changes in brain/neural activity depicted in images corresponds to showing/highlighting brain regions with active neurons; column 28, lines 4-9, “FIG. 14 illustrates how the present invention can acquire a real-time image of mental activity in a selected region of the brain, in this case, the motor cortex and associated regions of the brain, and this real-time image data can then be computer-processed and used to control electrodes 1400 that stimulate muscles 1410 such as in limbs”; column 31, lines 15-55, referring to providing a real-time image of transmission and reflection data of microwave pulses as they traverse the brain tissues, wherein the processed data can be used to externally portray a visual image of spatially relevant thoughts; column 27, lines 28-27, referring to metabolic changes/functional activity being displayed with the structural baseline image by overlaying the changes in a different color or pattern, thus highlighting regions with active neurons; Figures 2, 13-14, 16).
However, Libove et al. do not specifically disclose that the coherent radio waves emitted from the headgear and reflected from the ions moving through in the ion channels are specifically those of “individual” neurons and the reflections from the ions moving in the ion channels [of the “individual” neurons] are received by the detectors.
Further, Libove et al. do not specifically disclose that the three-dimensional brain activity model of the brain activity is created by using linear or bilinear interpolation techniques.
Xia discloses methods and apparatus for detecting, imaging, monitoring and modulating of brain activities and neuronal activities in the brain using radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic (EM) waves, wherein ion concentration in the brain varies with local neuronal activation and synchronized neuronal activations give rise to immense transmembrane ion flows which change the ion concentration and therefore changes the permittivity (Abstract; paragraph [0004]). A sensitive frequency method is used for using RF EM wave selectively detecting, imaging and monitoring of a targeted brain functional site, wherein there is a sensitive frequency associated with the ion concentration, shape and dimensions of the brain site and each of the brain sites must have a sensitive frequency for the RF EM propagating through it (paragraphs [0005], [0031]-[0033], note that the sensitive frequency method targets ion concentration of a particular brain site, and thus detection of reflections from ion channels of individual neurons occurs due to the selective detection). The sensitive frequency of a brain functional site is used for selectively sensing and modulating the brain site, in which the RF EM wave frequency is set at the sensitive frequency (paragraph [0005]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the coherent radio waves emitted from the headgear and reflected from the ions moving through in the ion channels of Libove e tal. be specifically those of “individual” neurons and the reflections from the ions moving in the ion channels [of the “individual” neurons] are received by the detectors [via the use of an RF EM wave frequency set at the sensitive frequency for selectively sensing the brain site], as taught by Xia, in order to selectively detect, image and monitor a targeted brain functional site (paragraphs [0004]-[0005]).
However, the above combined references do not specifically disclose that the three-dimensional brain activity model of the brain activity is created by using linear or bilinear interpolation techniques.
Elsinger et al. disclose using linear interpolation to create volume/three-dimensional images (paragraph [0029]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the three-dimensional brain activity model of the brain activity of the above combined references be created by using linear or bilinear interpolation techniques, as the above combined references require creating a three-dimensional model and Elsinger et al. teach a known technique for creating a three-dimensional/volume model using linear interpolation techniques. That is, using the known technique for creating a three-dimensional model, as desired by the above combined references, by using linear interpolation techniques, as taught by Elsinger et al., would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regards to claim 2, Libove et al. disclose that by identifying highlighting regions with active neurons, the system is configured to determine a type of cognitive process occurring in those areas, such as thinking, memory retrieval or motor planning (column 28, lines 4-9, “FIG. 14 illustrates how the present invention can acquire a real-time image of mental activity in a selected region of the brain, in this case, the motor cortex and associated regions of the brain, and this real-time image data can then be computer-processed and used to control electrodes 1400 that stimulate muscles 1410 such as in limbs” [i.e. motor planning]; column 31, lines 15-55, referring to providing a real-time image of transmission and reflection data of microwave pulses as they traverse the brain tissues, wherein the processed data can be used to externally portray a visual image of spatially relevant thoughts, which corresponds to “thinking”; Figures 13-16).
With regards to claim 3, Libove et al. disclose that the system is configured to detect the ion transport in all biological organisms (Abstract; column 32, lines 6-10, referring to the use of the invention for humans as well as for animals).
With regards to claim 4, Libove et al. disclose that the system is configured to read the brain activity in vertebrates (i.e. humans, animals) using the coherent radiowaves to detect the ion transport in brain (Abstract; column 32, lines 6-10, referring to the use of the invention for humans as well as for animals; Figures 10-11, 13-16, 18).
With regards to claims 5, 6 and 8, Libove et al. disclose that the system is configured to read the mind thoughts using coherent radio waves to detect the ion transport in brain (column 31, lines 15-55, referring to providing a real-time image of transmission and reflection data of microwave pulses as they traverse the brain tissues, wherein the processed data can be used to externally portray a visual image of spatially relevant thoughts, which corresponds to reading “mind thoughts”). With regards to the limitations concerning reading the mind thoughts specifically “for a human machine interface for creating art and music and controlling other devices like driving car” [claim 5], “for accessing thoughts and memory of the accused and witnesses for crime investigation and court proceedings” [claim 6] and “for enhancement of human communication ability and for helping physically disabled to perform tasks using thoughts in brain” [claim 8], Examiner notes that the limitations are directed to an intended use and/or manner of operating the claimed system/apparatus. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Since the system of Libove et al. is capable of providing the output (i.e. such as the image of “spatially relevant thoughts”) to any interface, including a human machine interface for creating art and music and controlling other devices and/or is capable of being used for accessing thoughts and memory of the accused and witnesses for crime investigation and court proceedings or for enhancement of human communication ability and for helping physically disabled to perform tasks using thoughts in brain, Libove et al. meet the above limitations.
With regards to claim 7, Libove et al. disclose that the system is configured to read brain activities in vertebrates (i.e. humans) using the coherent radio waves to detect the ion transport in brain (Abstract; column 32, lines 6-10, referring to the use of the invention for humans as well as for animals; column 31, lines 15-55, referring to providing a real-time image of transmission and reflection data of microwave pulses as they traverse the brain tissues, wherein the processed data can be used to externally portray a visual image of spatially relevant thoughts; Figures 10-11, 13-16, 18). With regards to the limitations concerning reading the brain activities “for neuroscience and other medical research”, Examiner notes that the limitations are directed to an intended use and/or manner of operating the claimed system/apparatus. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Since the system of Libove et al. is capable of providing the read brain activities for any use, including for neuroscience and other medical reserach, Libove et al. meet the above limitations.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Libove et al. in view of Xia and Elsinger et al. as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ma et al. (US Pub No. 2024/0331127).
With regards to claim 10, as discussed above, the above combined references meet the limitations of claim 9. Libove et al. further disclose that the method further comprises analyzing differences in intensities between a transmitted wave (i.e. corresponding to the wave that traverses the brain) and reflected wave to find the location of reflected spot to locate activities in neuron in brain (column 12, lines 10-20, column 13, lines 15-53, referring to the reflected energy associated with the region M4; column 14, lines 44-56, column 24, lines 33-39; referring to a separate TDT PAS assembly (100””) receiving transmitted energy that traverses (and thus corresponds to a transmitted wave) the region in which the pulse from TDR PAS assembly (100) travels, such as through the tissue in functional region M7, to reach a TDT PAS assembly 100”; column 21, lines 32-44, referring to “a boundary of a known-functionally-active region can be used as the registration point, from which… a boundary in a different functional region, could be subtracted, to more precisely study the relationship between functional changes in different areas of the brain. This concept can be extended to where hundreds of differential registration points are used as baselines for hundreds or even thousands of other functional boundaries enabling a robust and powerful instrument for studying neural function…”, wherein the subtraction from a boundary in a different functional region (i.e. such as in a M7 region which is associated with traversed (i.e. transmitted) pulses) would correspond to an analysis of the differences in intensities (via the subtraction) of the reflected radio waves (i.e. reflected signals, such as associated with M4 or M6 region) and transmitted radio waves (i.e. traversed signals associated with the M7 region); column 14, line 44-column 15, lines 5, referring to detecting functional changes in regions that are located along a path between transmit and receive antennas (115), wherein the acquired signals can be combined to reconstruct a three-dimensional images, wherein such an image would provide an identification of the location of neuron activity to an area of neurons where neurons are active (i.e. associated with functional changes); Figures 2, 16).
However, the above combined references do not specifically disclose that the method comprise a “refractometry-based approach” by, in addition to analyzing the differences in intensities between the transmitted wave and the reflected wave, further including a “refracted wave” in the analysis of the differences in intensities to fine the location of the reflected or refracted spot to locate the activities.
Ma et al. disclose a tomographic imaging system which receives measurements at frequencies of a wave-field scattered by an internal structure of an object, wherein the system can comprise a set of transmitters configured to transmit one or more probing pulses into the object and a set of receivers configured to measure, at each frequency from the set of frequencies, one or combination of reflections and refractions of propagation of the one or more probing pulses through the object to produce the measurements of the wave-field (Abstract; paragraph [0029]). The received signal result from multiple reflections and/or refractions of transmitted signals due to multiple scattering from the structures or materials in the object as well as structures or materials surrounding the object, wherein a reconstruction accounts for multiple scattering of the transmitted signals propagating through the object (paragraphs [0003]-[0004]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to, in addition to analyzing the differences in intensities between the transmitted wave and the reflected wave, further including a “refracted wave” in the analysis of the differences in intensities of the above combined references to find the location of the reflected or refracted spot to locate the activities, as taught by Ma e tal., in order to account for all the multiple scattering of the transmitted signals propagated through the object for reconstruction (paragraphs [0003]-[0004]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With regards to Libove, Applicant argues that Libove is configured for dielectric reflections at tissue boundaries rather than being specifically configured for ionic reflection in the ion channels. Applicant further argues that beam steering in microwave imaging does not equate to ionic reflection-based detection.
Examiner notes that Xia has been introduced to teach that the reflections from the ions moving in the ion channels “of the individual” neurons are received by the detectors and therefore Applicant’s arguments with regards to Libove concerning the ionic reflection in the ion channels is moot as Xia is being relied upon for this teaching. However, Examiner notes that, though Libove may be configured for dielectric reflections at tissue boundaries, those dielectric reflections, as is known in the art, are indicative of ions moving through in the ion channels (see paragraph [0004] of Xia for support of this known property of dielectric reflections, which discloses that varying the ion concentration results in a dynamic nature of the dielectric and detecting the variation of the dielectric in association with the neuronal activations is used to detect and monitor the brain activities). Therefore, though Libove may not teach that the detectors receive the reflections from the ions moving in the ion channels of the “individual” neurons, Libove does teach that the coherent radio waves emitted from the headgear are reflected from ions moving through the ion channels in a region of the brain, wherein Xia teaches that the reflections received by the detectors may be from ions moving in the ion channels of the “individual” neurons.
With regards to Libove, Applicant further argues that the PAS assemblies are designed to transmit and receive microwave pulse trains and not coherent, continuous low-frequency RF signals required for ionic reflection.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to column 1, lines 10-15, which refers to the transmission and reflection of radio-frequency pulses applied to the brain and column 3, lines 26-28, 36-41, which refer to the invention being based on the transmission and reflection of “radio-frequency waves” and the use of a RF probe, and therefore Libove does transmit RF signals (i.e. “radio waves”). However, if this is not persuasive, Xia does teach the use of RF EM waves (i.e. radio waves) for monitoring brain activity, wherein, in order to be able to detect the ions moving in the ion channels of the individual neurons, the selective RF EM energy taught by Xia would be relied upon, thus providing the emission of the claimed radio waves.
Applicant further argues that the present invention uses a wearable headgear , whereas Libove does not disclose a headset.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claim sets forth that their system comprises “a headgear”, wherein Libove specifically discloses the use of a helmet for providing the array of radio wave emitters and detectors (column 23, lines 27-38, referring to use of a cap or helmet or flexible wrap-around jacket assembly capable of conforming to the heads of a wide range of people; Figures 10-11), wherein such a helmet corresponds to the claimed “headgear”.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (i.e. there is no motivation to combine Libove and Ma), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Examiner respectfully refers Applicant to the above rejection for the motivation to modify Libove in view of Ma.
The claims therefore remain rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE L FERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (ET).
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/KATHERINE L FERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798