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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, drawn to a method for providing motor impairment-related information of claims 1, 3, and 15 in the reply filed on 8/6/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims “share the overaching (sic) technical feature of performing a comparative evaluation of the measured brain network index against a specific baseline or control index.” This is not found persuasive because unity of invention has to be between all independent claims (see MPEP 1850(II)). Claim 10 is an independent claim and does not share the overarching technical feature of comparing the brain network index against a specific baseline or control index. Therefore, the wrong standard is applied in the response.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 10-14 and 16 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/6/26.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 1 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 1 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “a step of measuring a brain network index according to movement performance of an affected side part of a subject,” and “a step of comparing the brain network index measured in step (a) with a brain network index according to movement performance of an unaffected side part of the subject.” This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. That is, there appears to be no tangible improvement in a technology, effect of a particular treatment or prophylaxis, a particular machine or manufacture that is integrated, or transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing as a result of this claimed subject matter. As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. That is, there are no additional elements recited in claim 1.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 1 fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claim(s) 3 and 15 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1 by merely reciting additional abstract ideas and/or further limitations on abstract ideas already recited. It is noted that the generic computer structure in claim 15 has been held to not be significantly more in view of Bilski and Alice. Thus, claim(s) 1, 3, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2017-127499 to Yanagisawa et al. (hereinafter “Yanagisawa”) in view of “The Effect of EEG Changes From a Tactile Exploration and the Affected Site of a Stroke Patient,” by Ahn et al. (hereinafter “Ahn”).
For claim 1, Yanagisawa discloses a method for providing motor impairment-related information (Abstract) (para [0017]), comprising:
a step of measuring a brain network index according to movement performance of an affected side part of a subject (see claims 1, 9, and/or 10).
Yanagisawa does not expressly disclose a step of comparing the brain network index measured with a brain network index according to movement performance of an unaffected side part of the subject.
However, Ahn teaches a step of comparing the brain network index measured with a brain network index according to movement performance of an unaffected side part of the subject (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Yanagisawa to include a step of comparing the brain network index measured with a brain network index according to movement performance of an unaffected side part of the subject, in view of the teachings of Ahn, for the obvious advantage of diagnosing neurological conditions of the subject so that such conditions can be taken into account when performing the occupational therapy disclosed in Yanagisawa.
For claim 3, Yanagisawa further discloses wherein the brain network index comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of strength, clustering coefficient, path length, and small-worldness; or wherein the brain network index is measured in one or more of an alpha wave region and a low-beta wave region; or wherein the subject is measured from a subject performing a preset task in the above step; or wherein the above step is performed by electroencephalography (para [0028]); or wherein the motor impairment is a stroke; or wherein the subject in the above step has upper limb paralysis following a stroke; or wherein the motor impairment-related information comprises information regarding one or more of prognosis prediction for the motor impairment, motor impairment-related diagnosis, and motor impairment-related rehabilitation (Abstract) (para [0018]).
For claim 15, Yanagisawa further discloses a computer-readable recording medium that is readable by a computer and stores program instructions operable by the computer (para [0021]), wherein the program instructions are executed by a processor of the computer, the computer-readable recording medium causes the processor to perform the method for providing motor impairment-related information according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PT.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights