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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on May 15, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15 – 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 15, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “where wherein” should read “wherein”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
According to Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, the claim(s) are directed to a “method” and a “system” which are each within a statutory category of invention.
According to Revised Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis, the claims recite(s) details of mathematical processing: “segmenting…” data; “extracting… features” from data segments; “creating” a meta-feature from at least one feature; “detecting” a seizure event based on the meta-feature (in some instances the final item could be considered as implementing a ‘mental step’ which is also a recognized type of judicial exception) and thus recite abstract ideas.
According to Revised Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, this judicial exception (abstract ideas: mathematical concepts) is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only provide details drawn to generic processing aspects beyond the judicial exception, as no other detail of the claims materially influence or is influenced by the judicial exception. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as indicated, additional elements are not recited or required for the details of the exception to be able to provide the processing results. That is, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as indicated, any additional elements in the claims are merely recited in a generalized/high level manner or do not positively limit execution of the exception.
Further, no details in any dependent claim are sufficient to show integration of the judicial exception, nor do any of those claims recite details that are considered to amount to significantly more under the eligibility analysis Step 2B, since they merely recite aspects of the judicial exception and/or mere generalized details that do not impact the exception.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 6 – 11, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elwood et al. (USPGPub 2021/0307672 – cited by Applicant). Elwood et al. teach an EEG measurement system and method where wireless sensors may be positioned on a subject’s head at various positions (Figure 2) to collect data. The measured values may be analyzed (Figure 5; paragraphs [0063] – [0073]), wherein EEG segments are created from the data, features are extracted therefrom, and in a first instance the data is used to train a model and once trained, and further the model (which can be a machine learning model – paragraphs [0058] - [0061]) can be used for detecting seizures in further collected measurements. At least some of the features discussed by Elwood et al. (paragraph [0065]) are consistent with the claimed “extracting” and “creating a meta-feature from at least one feature” details, and thus, one would recognize the teaching as encompassing the corresponding claim requirements. The resulting features would also be understood to be providing a “pooling” of values, as understood in light of the specification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC FRANK WINAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4736. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 am - 6 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, Chuck Marmor, II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/ERIC F WINAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights