CTNF 18/581,741 CTNF 90275 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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: The “units” in claims 1-7. Pages 42-43 of the instant Specification provide corresponding structure in at least the form of general-purpose computer elements. 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 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 3 is 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 3 recites “the segment is decided.” The term “the segment” lacks antecedent basis. Further, it is not clear what the scope of “is decided” would be here; it seems likely the Applicant is referring to “the setting of the length of” the segments from Claim 1 and examination is being performed under that understanding. Claim 7 recites the term “the signal processing device.” This term lacks antecedent basis. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-8 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) the abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm for denoising a magnetocardiogram signal or electrocardiogram signal through use of a reference sensor signal. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because changing data from one form into another is the recitation of an abstract idea itself. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited sensors and reference sensors are necessary in the performance of the algorithm and amount to extra-solution data gathering elements. The recited computer components amount to the recitation of a general-purpose computer and do not serve to amount to the recitation of significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Harvey et al. (US 20170108569 A1)[hereinafter “Harvey”] . Regarding Claims 1 and 8 , Harvey discloses an information processing device [ Fig. 1, magnetic resonance imaging system (100) ](and corresponding computer-readable medium [ Paragraph [0076], computer memory 138 – “The control module 160 may contain computer-executable code which enables the processor to perform any one of the methods illustrated in FIG. 2, 3 or 4. The computer storage 138 is shown as optionally containing an image reconstruction module 162 which enables the processor 133 to reconstruct magnetic resonance images 154 from the magnetic resonance data 152.” ]) comprising: an acquisition unit [ Fig. 1, transceiver 116 and hardware interface 132 ] configured to acquire signal measurement results [ Paragraph [0073] – “The transceiver 116 and the magnetic field gradient coil power supply 112 are shown as being connected to a hardware interface 132 of a computer 130.” ] of one or more signal sensors for measuring a mixed signal in which an objective signal and noise are mixed [ Paragraph [0071] – “The transceiver 116 is shown as being connected to a magnetic resonance imaging coil 124. In this example the magnetic resonance imaging coil 124 is a surface coil comprising multiple antenna elements 126 .”Paragraph [0074] – “The signal that the RF noise detection coils 122 would measure would be predominantly noise or external RF noise as opposed to the coil 114 or 124 which measure noise plus magnetic resonance signals from the subject 118 .” ] and noise measurement results of a plurality of reference sensors for measuring the noise [ Paragraph [0072] – “The transceiver 116 is shown as being further connected to several RF noise detection coils . The transceiver is a multi-channel transceiver. In some embodiments the transceiver may be split into several different units. However, it may be beneficial to use additional channels of the transceiver 116 for the RF noise detection coils as the signals acquired will be handled in the same way as data acquired using the antennas 114, 124.”Paragraph [0074] – “The signal that the RF noise detection coils 122 would measure would be predominantly noise or external RF noise as opposed to the coil 114 or 124 which measure noise plus magnetic resonance signals from the subject 118.” ]; and a signal processing unit [ Paragraph [0076] – “The computer memory 138 is shown as containing a control module 160. The control module contains computer-executable code which enables the processor 133 to control the operation and function of the magnetic resonance imaging system 100. The control module 160 may contain computer-executable code which enables the processor to perform any one of the methods illustrated in FIG. 2, 3 or 4.” ] configured to divide the signal measurement results and the noise measurement results acquired by the acquisition unit into a plurality of frequency bands for each of a plurality of division segments in a time domain [ Paragraph [0080] – “After step 208 the method proceeds in step 400 where the noise radio-frequency data 148 is divided into noise temporal frames. Next in step 402 the imaging magnetic resonance data 142 is divided into data temporal frames. … Next in step 410 each short-time calculated noise spectrum is binned into noise frequency bins. Next in step 412 each short-time data spectrum is binned into data frequency bins.” ] and perform signal processing for removing the noise included in the mixed signal [ Paragraph [0080] – “Next in step 414 corrected data frequency bins are calculated by subtracting the noise frequency bins from the data frequency bins using the identical frequency bins. Next in step 416 the imaging magnetic resonance data is re-synthesized using the corrected data frequency bins and an original phase spectrum of the imaging magnetic resonance data. For each temporal frame the various portions of the frequency spectrum are reassembled by recombining the noise frequency bins. For example a Fourier transform can be performed.” ]. Regarding Claim 5 , Harvey discloses that at least one reference sensor and at least one signal sensor are the same type of sensors [ Paragraphs [0121]-[0122], both sensors are coils ]. Regarding Claim 6 , Harvey discloses that at least one reference sensor and at least one signal sensor are different types of sensors [ Paragraphs [0121]-[0122], 122 measures RF noise and 124 measures magnetic resonance ]. Regarding Claim 7 , Harvey discloses a measurement system [ Fig. 1 ] comprising: the signal processing device according to claim 1 [ Paragraph [0076] – “The computer memory 138 is shown as containing a control module 160. The control module contains computer-executable code which enables the processor 133 to control the operation and function of the magnetic resonance imaging system 100. The control module 160 may contain computer-executable code which enables the processor to perform any one of the methods illustrated in FIG. 2, 3 or 4.” ]; the signal sensors [ Paragraph [0071] – “The transceiver 116 is shown as being connected to a magnetic resonance imaging coil 124. In this example the magnetic resonance imaging coil 124 is a surface coil comprising multiple antenna elements 126 .” ]; and the reference sensors [ Paragraph [0072] – “The transceiver 116 is shown as being further connected to several RF noise detection coils . The transceiver is a multi-channel transceiver. In some embodiments the transceiver may be split into several different units. However, it may be beneficial to use additional channels of the transceiver 116 for the RF noise detection coils as the signals acquired will be handled in the same way as data acquired using the antennas 114, 124.” ] . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey et al. (US 20170108569 A1)[hereinafter “Harvey”] and Al Salman et al., K-complexes Detection in EEG Signals using Fractal and Frequency Features Coupled with an Ensemble Classification Model, IBRO, 2019 [hereinafter “Al Salman”] . Regarding Claim 2 , Harvey discloses the use of the segments [ See Paragraphs [0046]-[0047], particularly – “In Hoeldrich and Lorber it is assumed that a continuous stream of time domain data and performs a Fourier Transform (FT) on a selected window size as the data passes through. Thus, while the window size is fixed, the data from two successive FTs on the window can contain part of the same data. This is typically how real-time FT is performed (using the overlap and add method).” ], but fails to disclose that the signal processing unit uses segments in which 1/2 of a segment length overlaps in two adjacent segments having the same segment length as the segments. However, Al Salman discloses such a scheme [ See Fig. 3 and corresponding text ]. It would have been obvious to use such an approach because doing so would have been an effective manner of segmenting the data. Regarding Claim 3 , Harvey fails to disclose that the segment is decided on the basis of the number of reference sensors and a signal data length of a signal processing target, and that a length of the segment is shorter when the number of reference sensors is larger if the signal data length is uniform. However, Al Salman discloses experimenting with different segment sizes and evaluating the corresponding impact of the different segment sizes [ See Figs. 3 and 10 and corresponding text ]. It would have been obvious to tailor the window size as appropriate given a particular application as a design choice. It would have been obvious to shorten the segment size in the recited conditions because shorter segment sizes can improve processing accuracy [ See Fig. 10 of Al Salman ] and because processing shorter segments when more sensors are present would allow a computer to effectively process larger amounts of data produced by a larger number of sensors . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey et al. (US 20170108569 A1)[hereinafter “Harvey”] and Amemiya (US 20200073375 A1) . Regarding Claim 4 , Harvey fails to disclose that the signal processing unit performs the signal processing according to a calculation process using a covariance matrix, and that a regularization parameter for adjusting a regularization degree when the covariance matrix is regularized is decided on the basis of the number of reference sensors and the segments. However, Amemiya discloses the determination of such a covariance matrix [ See Paragraph [0025] ]. It would have been obvious to determine such a covariance matrix for the purpose of more accurately denoising sensor data relative to the reference data. The combination would disclose that the signal processing unit performs the signal processing according to a calculation process using a covariance matrix [ Paragraph [0025] of Amemiya – “variance-covariance matrix” ], and that a regularization parameter for adjusting a regularization degree when the covariance matrix is regularized [ Paragraph [0025] of Amemiya – “Next, the variance-covariance matrix is converted into sparse by L1 regularization in accordance with the following formula (1). Conversion into sparse means that matrix elements which are not important are treated as zero. In the following formula (1), λ ∥ Σ.sup.−1 ∥ a regularization term. By the conversion into sparse, a correlation structure among data of each sensor is obtained.” ] is decided on the basis of the number of reference sensors [ Paragraph [0025] of Amemiya – ““D” means the number of the sensor.” ] and the segments [ Paragraph [0080] of Harvey – “After step 208 the method proceeds in step 400 where the noise radio-frequency data 148 is divided into noise temporal frames. Next in step 402 the imaging magnetic resonance data 142 is divided into data temporal frames.” ] . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : US 20110181290 A1 – RECEIVER COIL ASSEMBLY FOR AIRBORNE GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYING WITH NOISE MITIGATION US 11083401 B2 – Electric Field Encephalography: Electric Field Based Brain Signal Detection And Monitoring Peng et al., Gesture Recognition by Ensemble Extreme Learning Machine Based on Surface Electromyography Signals, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2022 Lei et al., LOW-POWER AUDIO KEYWORD SPOTTING USING TSETLIN MACHINES, arXiv, 2021 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4879. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM 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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. 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. /KYLE R QUIGLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/581,741 Page 2 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/581,741 Page 3 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/581,741 Page 4 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/581,741 Page 5 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/581,741 Page 6 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/581,741 Page 7 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/581,741 Page 8 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/581,741 Page 9 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/581,741 Page 10 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/581,741 Page 11 Art Unit: 2857
Prosecution Insights