DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-10 are pending.
This action is Non-Final.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [0011] “huma” should be “human”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
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: noise detector configured to in claim 2.
In review of the disclosure as filed, it is not clear what the corresponding structure of the “noise detector” is as it is not included in the processor, and is merely described as a black box element in the Figures, and based on presentation of [0011] exemplar structures, it appears such corresponds to “or the like” as a processor is a processor, a storage is a memory, so naturally noise detector is “or the like”. There is nothing here clear to the structure in [0011] as filed.
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
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, the claim invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the limitation “noise detector configured to”. In review of the disclosure as filed, it is not clear what the corresponding structure of the “noise detector” is as it is not included in the processor, and is merely described as a black box element in the Figures, and based on presentation of [0011] exemplar structures, it appears such corresponds to “or the like” as a processor is a processor, a storage is a memory, so naturally noise detector is “or the like”. When there is not a clear correspondence to the structure of a limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the claims should be rejected under 112a and b. As such, one of ordinary skill would not have recognized applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. It may be better for the claim to be amended to remove such structure (noise detector configured to) and include the functions under the processor structure already set forth.
The dependent claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, the limitations:
“a processor configured to generate a second biological signal by performing a noise reduction process on a basis of the first biological signal; and
a storage configured to store a processing result of the noise reduction process,
wherein the processor is configured to perform the noise reduction process using the processing result stored in the storage on the basis of the first biological signal” (Emphasis added, claim 1 representative)
render the claims indefinite. The claimed functions in both the process and product both generate and store the same result in an apparent simultaneous mechanism at an initial point in the algorithm. How is the data generated which is stored used to generate the data to be stored? It seems there is a missing function which must be present to allow for such cyclical features and an initialization. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear which renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 2, the claim invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) for the limitation “noise detector configured to”. In review of the disclosure as filed, it is not clear what the corresponding structure of the “noise detector” is as it is not included in the processor, and is merely described as a black box element in the Figures, and based on presentation of [0011] exemplar structures, it appears such corresponds to “or the like” as a processor is a processor, a storage is a memory, so naturally noise detector is “or the like”. When there is not a clear correspondence to the structure of a limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the claims should be rejected under 112a and b. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear which renders the claim indefinite.
The dependent claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 1
generate a second biological signal by performing a noise reduction process on a basis of the first biological signal (mathematical concepts, mental process including pen and paper analysis)
perform the noise reduction process using the processing result on the basis of the first biological signal (mathematical concepts, mental process including pen and paper analysis)
Claim 10
generating a second biological signal by performing a noise reduction process on a basis of the first biological signal (mathematical concepts, mental process including pen and paper analysis)
wherein the noise reduction process is performed using the stored processing result on the basis of the first biological signal (mathematical concepts, mental process including pen and paper analysis)
These claim limitations fall within the identified groupings of abstract ideas:
Mathematical Concepts:
mathematical relationships
mathematical formulas or equations
mathematical calculations
Mental Processes
concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Under the step 2A, analysis is conducted on the additional features of the claim. Under this analysis, the additional features beyond the judicial exception are:
Claim 1:
a sensor configured to generate a first biological signal that is based on first biological information (insignificant extra solution activities related to data gathering)
a processor configured to (computer structures used as a tool for implementation)
a storage configured to store a processing result of the noise reduction process (insignificant extra solution activities related to data storage in computer structures used as a tool)
Claim 10
generating a first biological signal that is based on first biological information (insignificant extra solution activities related to data gathering)
storing a processing result of the noise reduction process (insignificant extra solution activities related to data storage)
These features in the claim do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception as the additional elements in the claim do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Limitation concepts that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitation concepts that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Under Step 2B, the claim limitations are evaluated for an inventive concept. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. Analyzing the additional claim limitations individually, the additional limitation that is not directed to the abstract idea are the same as those identified in step 2A above. Such limitations related to the generation of signals are recognized by the courts as routine data gathering in order to input data to the mathematical algorithm, and thus, do not add a meaningful limitation to the product/method as it would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the mathematical algorithm. The method does not contain any computing structure directly, such that the steps can all be analog/mental processing of the equation from the data gathered which further supports that the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The computer structures cited above are claimed as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims are directed to further exceptions related to the data processing (A more specific abstraction is still an abstraction). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Therefore, analyzing the claims as an ordered combination under the Mayo/Alice analysis the features claimed are directed to patent ineligible limitations.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beker et al. (Beker, US 2007/0066907).
Regarding claim 1, Beker teaches a measurement device, comprising:
a sensor configured to generate a first biological signal that is based on first biological information (see at least [0244]);
a processor configured to generate a second biological signal by performing a noise reduction process on a basis of the first biological signal (see at least [0212]); and
a storage configured to store a processing result of the noise reduction process (see at least [0212], [0215]),
wherein the processor is configured to perform the noise reduction process using the processing result stored in the storage on the basis of the first biological signal (see at least [0212]).
Regarding claim 2, Beker teaches further comprising a noise detector configured to calculate a noise degree of inclusion, in the first biological signal, of a noise that is based on second biological information, wherein the processor is configured to: perform the noise reduction process using the processing result stored in the storage on the basis of the first biological signal in a case where the noise degree is greater than a predetermined value; and perform the noise reduction process on the basis of the first biological signal in a case where the noise degree is smaller than the predetermined value (see at least [0214], [0215], [0297]).
Regarding claim 7, Beker teaches wherein the storage is configured to store the processing result of the noise reduction process in the case where the noise degree is smaller than the predetermined value (see at least [0214], [0215], [0297]).
Regarding claim 8, Beker teaches wherein the second biological information comprises activity information regarding a muscle fiber (see at least [0003], [0214], [0215], [0235], [0297]-[0298]).
Regarding claim 10, Beker teaches a measurement method, comprising:
generating a first biological signal that is based on first biological information (see at least [0244]);
generating a second biological signal by performing a noise reduction process on a basis of the first biological signal (see at least [0212]); and
storing a processing result of the noise reduction process, wherein the noise reduction process is performed using the stored processing result on the basis of the first biological signal process (see at least [0212], [0215]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beker et al. (Beker, US 2007/0066907) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of WO 2002/017782A2 (“Steinberg”, cited by applicant on IDS filed 11/17/2024; see Machine Translation) and JP2002034944A (“Rikagaku”; cited by applicant on IDS filed 4/2/2024; see Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 3, the limitations are met by Beker except the limitations of wherein during the noise reduction process, the processor is configured to: generate a first matrix by separating the first biological signal into a plurality of signals; perform a matrix separation process to separate the first matrix into a second matrix and a third matrix, the second matrix including a component less changeable in a time-axis direction, the third matrix including a component discrete in the time-axis direction; and generate the second biological signal on a basis of the second matrix are not directly taught.
Steinberg teaches a related system for reducing noise in physiological signals (see abstract), and teaches that noise reduction techniques can be equally used among various different physiological signals including ECG and EEG (see Machine translation “Thus, when measuring electrocardiographic (EKG) signals or magnetocardiographic (MKG) signals from a patient, the sensors measure not only the electrical or magnetic activity of the heart, but also the electrical or magnetic signals generated by other sources. The signal of interest and the undesired measured signals are then contained in the measurement signal, the undesired components of the measured signal generally being referred to as "noise components" or in short as "noise"…The following detailed description describes the method and the device for adaptively reducing the noise using the example of an EKG signal, but it should be noted that the techniques of the present invention. Invention for reducing the noise components are applicable to a wide variety of signals, for example other physiological signals such as MKG, EEG (electroencephalography) and MEG (magnetoencephalography) signals.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that noise reduction techniques can be used on any desired physiological signal as an obvious substitution.
Rikagaku teaches a related system for noise reduction in physiological signals (see abstract), and teaches a process of using linear algebra processes in reducing biological signal noise from a biological signal of interest, which reasonably teaches the claimed features of wherein during the noise reduction process, the processor is configured to: generate a first matrix by separating the first biological signal into a plurality of signals; perform a matrix separation process to separate the first matrix into a second matrix and a third matrix, the second matrix including a component less changeable in a time-axis direction, the third matrix including a component discrete in the time-axis direction; and generate the second biological signal on a basis of the second matrix (see at least [0005]-[0013]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of using linear algebra functions of recorded signals to further reduce noise in desired signals caused by undesirable signals also captured in the recorded data in order to improve a signal to noise of a desired signal.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations are met by Beker in view of Steinberg and Rikagaku, where Rikagaku teaches wherein, during the matrix separation process, the processor is configured to generate a fourth matrix by performing an emphasis process to emphasize the third matrix and separate the first matrix into the second matrix and the third matrix to cause the second matrix and the fourth matrix to satisfy a predetermined condition (see at least [0005]-[0013]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of using linear algebra functions of recorded signals to further reduce noise in desired signals caused by undesirable signals also captured in the recorded data in order to improve a signal to noise of a desired signal.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations are met by Beker in view of Steinberg and Rikagaku, where Beker teaches wherein the processing result stored in the storage comprises the second biological signal generated through the noise reduction process in a past, and in the case where the noise degree is greater than the predetermined value, the processor is configured to: update the first biological signal by combining the first biological signal with the processing result stored in the storage; and perform the noise reduction process on a basis of the updated first biological signal (see at least [0214], [0215], [0297]).
Regarding claim 6, the limitations are met by Beker in view of Steinberg and Rikagaku, where the combination teaches wherein the processing result stored in the storage comprises the second matrix generated through the noise reduction process in a past, and in the case where the noise degree is greater than the predetermined value, the processor is configured to: update the first matrix by combining the first matrix with the processing result stored in the storage; and separate the updated first matrix into the second matrix and the third matrix (see Beker at least [0214], [0215], [0297]; see Rikagaku at least [0005]-[0013]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of using linear algebra functions of recorded signals to further reduce noise in desired signals caused by undesirable signals also captured in the recorded data in order to improve a signal to noise of a desired signal.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beker et al. (Beker, US 2007/0066907) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of WO 2002/017782A2 (“Steinberg”, cited by applicant on IDS filed 11/17/2024; see Machine Translation) and JP2002034944A (“Rikagaku”; cited by applicant on IDS filed 4/2/2024; see Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations are met by Beker except the limitations of wherein the first biological information comprises brain wave information are not directly taught.
Steinberg teaches a related system for reducing noise in physiological signals (see abstract), and teaches that noise reduction techniques can be equally used among various different physiological signals including ECG and EEG (see Machine translation “Thus, when measuring electrocardiographic (EKG) signals or magnetocardiographic (MKG) signals from a patient, the sensors measure not only the electrical or magnetic activity of the heart, but also the electrical or magnetic signals generated by other sources. The signal of interest and the undesired measured signals are then contained in the measurement signal, the undesired components of the measured signal generally being referred to as "noise components" or in short as "noise"…The following detailed description describes the method and the device for adaptively reducing the noise using the example of an EKG signal, but it should be noted that the techniques of the present invention. Invention for reducing the noise components are applicable to a wide variety of signals, for example other physiological signals such as MKG, EEG (electroencephalography) and MEG (magnetoencephalography) signals.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that noise reduction techniques can be used on any desired physiological signal as an obvious substitution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R BLOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3252. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571)272-3672. 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.
/MICHAEL R BLOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791