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 .
Claims 1-13 are present for examination.
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: “collateral information drawing unit”, “waveform extraction unit”, “representative time determination unit”, “waveform classification unit” in claims 1-10.
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 § 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 III provides a flowchart for the subject matter eligibility test for product and processes. The claim analysis following the flowchart is as follows:
Regarding claim 1, it recites:
A waveform display apparatus comprising:
a collateral information drawing unit configured to draw collateral information on waveforms with respect to the waveforms in accordance with a predetermined time, the waveforms being acquired by a plurality of sensors and displayed on a screen;
a waveform extraction unit configured to extract a characteristic waveform from waveform data;
a representative time determination unit configured to determine a representative time of the characteristic waveform extracted by the waveform extraction unit; and
a waveform classification unit configured to classify the characteristic waveform extracted by the waveform extraction unit,
wherein the collateral information drawing unit is configured to display collateral information corresponding to the representative time of the characteristic waveform in accordance with a classification result by the waveform classification unit, the representative time being determined by the representative time determination unit.
Claim 1 has invoked 35 USC 112(f) as noted above. Specification, para. [0214], disclosing the functional units are implemented by execution of a program, the program is provided by being incorporated in a ROM or the like, and para. [0216], discloses the functional units are loaded and generated on a main storage device by causing a CPU to read and execute the program. Therefore, the units recited in the claims have been interpreted as implemented by a processor or CPU.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes. It recites an apparatus, which is interpreted as a machine or manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon?
Yes.
The limitations “a waveform extraction unit configured to extract a characteristic waveform from waveform data” can be interpreted as reciting a mental process because extracting a characteristic waveform from waveform data can be performed mentally by a person looking at the waveform data and extract the characteristic waveform from it. The waveform extraction unit as being interpreted as a processor to perform the extraction is considered as a generic computer component. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The extraction can be performed in the human mind and claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process. (See MPEP 2106.04()(1) III.C.) Therefore, this limitation recites an abstract idea of mental process.
The limitations “a representative time determination unit configured to determine a representative time of the characteristic waveform extracted by the waveform extraction unit” can be interpreted as reciting a mental process because determining a representative time of the characteristic waveform can be performed mentally by a person looking at the characteristic waveform and finding a presentative time. The representative time determination unit as being interpreted as a processor to perform the determination is considered as a generic computer component. According to the discussion above, this limitation recites an abstract idea of mental process.
The limitation “a waveform classification unit configured to classify the characteristic waveform extracted by the waveform extraction unit” can be interpreted as reciting a mental process because classifying the characteristic waveform can be performed mentally by a person looking at the characteristic waveform and determining the classification. The waveform classification unit as being interpreted as a processor to perform the classification is considered as a generic computer component. According to the discussion above, this limitation recites an abstract idea of mental process.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The limitations “a collateral information drawing unit configured to draw collateral information on waveforms with respect to the waveforms in accordance with a predetermined time, the waveforms being acquired by a plurality of sensors and displayed on a screen” and “the collateral information drawing unit is configured to display collateral information corresponding to the representative time of the characteristic waveform in accordance with a classification result by the waveform classification unit, the representative time being determined by the representative time determination unit” are insignificant extra solutions such as data gathering (acquiring waveforms by sensors), data output (displaying the waveforms and collateral information on the screen). Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The units recited in the claims have invoked 35 USC 112(f) and been interpreted as a processor or CPU implementing the functions of the units. Therefore they are considered as generic computer components and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.04(d) I.)
Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely insignificant extra-solution activities or generic computer components.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above, the additional elements are merely insignificant extra-solution activities or generic computer components. Therefore, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05.)
Regarding claim 2, it depends from claim 1 and further recites: wherein the waveform extraction unit is configured to compare each piece of waveform data acquired by the plurality of sensors with at least one piece of characteristic waveform information, the representative time determination unit is configured to: determine appearance accuracy of the characteristic waveform information in at least a fixed interval in the waveform data, based on a correlation ratio between a peak interval of the waveform data and the characteristic waveform information; and identify a time at which an interval matching the characteristic waveform information appears, and a corresponding sensor, based on the appearance accuracy, and the waveform classification unit is configured to determine a class of the characteristic waveform in accordance with the appearance accuracy information corresponding to the time determined by the representative time determination unit and the corresponding sensor. (Emphasis added.)
The “comparing … waveform data”, “determining appearance accuracy”, “identifying a time”, and “determining a class of the characteristic waveform” can all be performed as mental process because a person can look at the waveform data and make comparison, determination, and identifications. In addition, the comparing and the determining appearance accuracy can also be interpreted as mathematical concept because they expressly recite mathematical operations such as waveform data comparison and determining appearance accuracy based on correlation ratio respectively. The units recited in claim 2 have again been interpreted as a processor/CPU implementing the corresponding functions and therefore generic computer components. Therefore, similar to the analysis with respect to claim 1, they do not integrate the abstract ideas into practical application and do not add significantly more to the abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 3, it depends from claim 2 and further recites: wherein the collateral information drawing unit is configured to draw a number of the corresponding sensor corresponding to the time determined as the collateral information.
Drawing a number can be either considered as a mental process with the simple aid of pen and paper or an additional element of insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting the number. The unit is an additional element but a generic computer component. Therefore, similar to the analysis with respect to claim 1, they do not integrate the abstract ideas into practical application and do not add significantly more to the abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 4, it depends from claim 3 and further recites: wherein the collateral information drawing unit is configured to perform highlighted display in accordance with the number of the corresponding sensor corresponding to the time determined as the collateral information.
Highlighting a portion of the data can be either considered as a mental process with the simple aid of pen and paper or an additional element of insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting the information. The unit is an additional element but a generic computer component. Therefore, similar to the analysis with respect to claim 1, they do not integrate the abstract ideas into practical application and do not add significantly more to the abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 5, it depends from claim 1 and further recites: wherein the collateral information drawing unit is able to selectively perform display or highlighted display in accordance with a waveform classification result by the waveform classification unit.
Highlighting a portion of the data can be either considered as a mental process with the simple aid of pen and paper or an additional element of insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting the information. The unit is an additional element but a generic computer component. Therefore, similar to the analysis with respect to claim 1, they do not integrate the abstract ideas into practical application and do not add significantly more to the abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 6, it depends from claim 5 and further recites: wherein a class determined by the waveform classification unit includes a positive, a negative, a false negative candidate, and a false positive candidate.
Limiting the class types can be considered as mathematical concept because they expressly recites mathematical values/comparisons. The unit is an additional element but a generic computer component. Therefore, similar to the analysis with respect to claim 1, they do not integrate the abstract ideas into practical application and do not add significantly more to the abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 7, it depends from claim 2 and further recites: wherein the representative time determination unit is configured to determine the time at which the interval appears and the corresponding sensor from a plurality of candidate times, and the collateral information drawing unit is configured to display the collateral information to be displayed, while including, in the collateral information, appearance accuracies and the plurality of candidate times in a predetermined range determined by the representative time determination unit. (Emphasis added.)
Determining the time can be a mental process because a person can look at the data and determine the time mentally. Displaying the collateral information can be considered as an additional element of insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting the information. The units are additional elements but a generic computer components. Therefore, similar to the analysis with respect to claim 1, they do not integrate the abstract ideas into practical application and do not add significantly more to the abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 8, it depends from claim 7 and further recites: wherein the collateral information drawing unit is configured to display the collateral information to be displayed, in colors corresponding to probability values and times determined as the plurality of candidate times.
Displaying the collateral information can be considered as an additional element of insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting the information. The units are additional elements but a generic computer components. Therefore, similar to the analysis with respect to claim 1, they do not integrate the abstract ideas into practical application and do not add significantly more to the abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 9, it depends from claim 8 and further recites: wherein the collateral information drawing unit is configured to adopt complementary colors of colors of the probability values, for the plurality of candidate times.
Displaying information in colors can be considered as an additional element of insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting the information. The units are additional elements but a generic computer components. Therefore, similar to the analysis with respect to claim 1, they do not integrate the abstract ideas into practical application and do not add significantly more to the abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 10, it depends from claim 9 and further recites: wherein the collateral information drawing unit is configured to display the collateral information to be displayed with line styles changed corresponding to the probability values and times determined as the plurality of candidate times.
Displaying information in line styles can be considered as an additional element of insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting the information. The units are additional elements but a generic computer components. Therefore, similar to the analysis with respect to claim 1, they do not integrate the abstract ideas into practical application and do not add significantly more to the abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 11, it recites A waveform display system comprising: the waveform display apparatus according to claim 1; and the plurality of sensors.
The plurality of sensors can be considered as generic computer components and/or tools for data gathering. Therefore, they do not integrate the abstract ideas into practical application and do not add significantly more to the abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 12, it recites similar limitations discussed above with respect to claim 1 but in a method form. Therefore, it does not recite additional elements that can integrate the abstract ideas into practical application or add significantly more to the abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 13, it recites similar limitations discussed above with respect to claim 1 but in a non-transitory computer-readable medium form. The non-transitory computer-readable medium is a generic computer component. Therefore, it does not recite additional elements that can integrate the abstract ideas into practical application or add significantly more to the abstract ideas.
Therefore, claims 1-13 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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 1-13 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.
Regarding claim 1, it recites “a collateral information drawing unit configured to draw collateral information on waveforms with respect to the waveforms in accordance with a predetermined time, the waveforms being acquired by a plurality of sensors and displayed on a screen; a waveform extraction unit configured to extract a characteristic waveform from waveform data…” (Emphasis added.) It is not clear whether the “waveforms” and the “waveform data” are the same or different. For example, does the waveform data the same as waveforms or include collateral information and/or sensor information? Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite.
Claims 2-11 depend from claim 1 but fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claims 12 and 13 recite similar limitations discussed above with respect to claim 1 but fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
In addition, claim 2 recites “the characteristic waveform information” while claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, only recites “characteristic waveform”. It is not clear whether they are the same or different. Claim 2 also recites “appearance accuracy” and “the appearance accuracy information”. It is not clear whether they are the same or different. Claims 3, 4, and 7-10 depend from claim 2 but fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 2.
Therefore, claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as being indefinite.
For examination purposes, “waveform data” has been interpreted as “waveforms” and “appearance accuracy information” has been interpreted as “appearance accuracy”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 5, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Publication No. 20230034939 A1 to Asai et al.
Regarding claim 1, Asai discloses A waveform display apparatus (Asai, para. [0035], disclosing the biological signal measurement system includes an information processing apparatus, para. [0038], disclosing the information processing apparatus displays waveform data) comprising:
a collateral information drawing unit configured to draw collateral information on waveforms with respect to the waveforms in accordance with a predetermined time (Asai, FIG. 4, showing a measurement and recording screen displaying the waveforms and additional information, para. [0051], disclosing a region in the measurement recording screen shown in FIG. 4 for displaying monitor information other than the signal waveform, para. [0081], disclosing the region 201A including displaying time information, region 204 for displaying a plurality of signal waveforms around the sampling time point, region 205 for displaying peak point, para. [0084], disclosing each of the signal waveforms is displayed in association with a channel number at which the corresponding signal is acquired, in particular, identification information on the electrode or the sensor, these information can correspond to collateral information drawn on waveforms with respect to the waveforms in accordance with sampling time point as a predetermined time), the waveforms being acquired by a plurality of sensors and displayed on a screen (Asai, para. [0038], disclosing the information processing device displays waveform data, which are obtained from a plurality of sensors and electrodes);
a waveform extraction unit configured to extract a characteristic waveform from waveform data (Asai, para. [0087], disclosing adding a mark to the portion of interest on the signal waveforms, the portion of interest is displayed in an emphasizing manger, the portion of interest can be a signal waveform at as certain point or a signal waveform in a certain range, indication the portion of interest as a signal can correspond to a characteristic waveform extracted from the waveform data);
a representative time determination unit configured to determine a representative time of the characteristic waveform extracted by the waveform extraction unit (Asai, para. [0087], disclosing adding a mark to the portion of interest on the signal waveforms, the portion of interest is displayed in an emphasizing manger, the portion of interest can be a signal waveform at as certain point or a signal waveform in a certain range, indication the portion of interest as a signal can correspond to a characteristic waveform extracted from the waveform data, and the certain point or range can correspond to a representative time of the extracted characteristic waveform); and
a waveform classification unit configured to classify the characteristic waveform extracted by the waveform extraction unit (Asai, para. [0087], disclosing recognizing waveform disturbance, amplitude singularity, or the like on the signal waveform and adding a mark to the portion of interest on the signal waveforms, indicating the adding the mark can correspond to classify the portion of interest on the signal waveforms as the extracted characteristic waveform),
wherein the collateral information drawing unit is configured to display collateral information corresponding to the representative time of the characteristic waveform in accordance with a classification result by the waveform classification unit, the representative time being determined by the representative time determination unit (Asai, para. [0087], disclosing recognizing waveform disturbance, amplitude singularity, or the like on the signal waveform and adding a mark to the portion of interest on the signal waveforms, para. [0088], disclosing the portion of interest is displayed by being emphasized by a mark, FIG. 7, showing the annotations corresponding to the marks on the portion of interest on the signal waveforms, indicating the annotations as collateral information corresponding to the determined representative time of the portion of interest as the characteristic waveform in accordance with the adding the mark as the classification result).
Regarding claim 5, Asai discloses the waveform display apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the collateral information drawing unit is able to selectively perform display or highlighted display in accordance with a waveform classification result by the waveform classification unit (Asai, para. [0087], disclosing recognizing waveform disturbance, amplitude singularity, or the like on the signal waveform and adding a mark to the portion of interest on the signal waveforms, para. [0088], disclosing the portion of interest is displayed by being emphasized by a mark, FIG. 7, showing the annotations corresponding to the marks on the portion of interest on the signal waveforms, para. [0102], disclosing a peak point of a waveform in a time interval can be displayed as being colored in the display region, indicating the displayed waveforms can be selectively displayed in accordance with the waveform classification result (waveform disturbance, amplitude singularity, or the like) with added marks and annotations).
Regarding claim 11, Asai a waveform display system comprising: the waveform display apparatus according to claim 1 (see the claim 1 rejection above); and the plurality of sensors (Asai, para. [0037], disclosing sensors for measurement, para. [0038], disclosing the waveform data obtained from a plurality of sensors).
Regarding claim 12, it recites similar limitations of claim 1 but in a method form. The rationale of claim 1 rejection is applied to reject claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, it recites similar limitations of claim 1 but in a non-transitory computer-readable medium form. The rationale of claim 1 rejection is applied to reject claim 13. In addition, Asai discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Asai, para. [0170]).
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) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asai in view of US Patent Publication No. 20210132125 A1 to Hirano et al.
Regarding claim 2, Asai discloses the waveform display apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the waveform extraction unit is configured to compare each piece of waveform data acquired by the plurality of sensors with at least one piece of characteristic waveform information (Asai, para. [0102], disclosing extreme values of the waveform of each of the sensors are searched for to determine local maximum and minimum values as candidate peak points, if a point at which the value of a waveform is maximum among the local maximum values is adopted as a peak, a point of a local maximum value a (a point) is adopted as the peak, indicating the extreme values can correspond to at least one piece of characteristic waveform information).
However, Asai does not disclose the representative time determination unit is configured to: determine appearance accuracy of the characteristic waveform information in at least a fixed interval in the waveform data, based on a correlation ratio between a peak interval of the waveform data and the characteristic waveform information; and identify a time at which an interval matching the characteristic waveform information appears, and a corresponding sensor, based on the appearance accuracy, and the waveform classification unit is configured to determine a class of the characteristic waveform in accordance with the appearance accuracy information corresponding to the time determined by the representative time determination unit and the corresponding sensor.
On the other hand, Hirano discloses the representative time determination unit is configured to: determine appearance accuracy of the characteristic waveform information in at least a fixed interval in the waveform data, based on a correlation ratio between a peak interval of the waveform data and the characteristic waveform information (Hirano, para. [0008], disclosing determining appearance probability of characteristic waveform information in at least a certain section of the waveform data, based on a degree of correlation between a peak section of the waveform data and the characteristic waveform information (the appearance probability can indicate the appearance accuracy)); and identify a time at which an interval matching the characteristic waveform information appears, and a corresponding sensor, based on the appearance accuracy (Hirano, para. [0008], disclosing identifying a time when a section matching with the characteristic waveform information appears and a concerned sensor, based on the appearance probability), and the waveform classification unit is configured to determine a class of the characteristic waveform in accordance with the appearance accuracy information corresponding to the time determined by the representative time determination unit and the corresponding sensor (Hirano, para. [0097], disclosing the drawing according to a color map according to the probability, a color map of linear color variation can be used, when the color is black at the probability of “0”, changes from blue to red as the probability increase, and is white at the probility of “1”, indicating the characteristic waveform can be classified in accordance with the appearance probability as the appearance accuracy information corresponding to the determined time by colors, such as black at the probability of “0” and white at the probility of “1”).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Asai and Hirano. The suggestion/motivation would have been to allow a more accurate diagnosis of the localization of the epilepsy lesion, as suggested by Hirano (see Hirano, para. [0096]).
Regarding claim 3, Asai in view of Hirano discloses the waveform display apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the collateral information drawing unit is configured to draw a number of the corresponding sensor corresponding to the time determined as the collateral information (Asai, FIG. 4, showing a measurement and recording screen displaying the waveforms and additional information, para. [0051], disclosing a region in the measurement recording screen shown in FIG. 4 for displaying monitor information other than the signal waveform, para. [0081], disclosing the region 201A including displaying time information, region 204 for displaying a plurality of signal waveforms around the sampling time point, region 205 for displaying peak point, para. [0084], disclosing each of the signal waveforms is displayed in association with a channel number at which the corresponding signal is acquired, in particular, identification information on the electrode or the sensor, the channel number and identification information on the sensor corresponding to sampled time points including the determined times can be displayed as the collateral information).
Regarding claim 4, Asai in view of Hirano discloses the waveform display apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the collateral information drawing unit is configured to perform highlighted display in accordance with the number of the corresponding sensor corresponding to the time determined as the collateral information (Asai, para. [0086], disclosing measurement information is collected from different sensors and corresponding signal waveforms are displayed horizontally in order of measurement time in each of the display regions 101 to 103 (see FIG. 7), para. [0087], disclosing adding a mark to the portion of interest on the signal waveforms and display the portion of interest in an emphasized manner by displaying the mark on the signal waveforms in the display regions 101 to 103, para. [0092], disclosing displaying designated portion in an emphasized manner with marks, the emphasized display can correspond to highlighted display in accordance with the number of the corresponding sensor corresponding to the time determined as the collateral information (display regions 101 to 103 with added marking to the point of interests corresponding to the number of corresponding sensors and the marking added at the time determined as the collateral information)).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asai in view of International Patent Application No. WO 2011036809 A1 to Ueno et al.
Regarding claim 6, Asai discloses the waveform display apparatus according to claim 5. However, Asai does not expressly disclose wherein a class determined by the waveform classification unit includes a positive, a negative, a false negative candidate, and a false positive candidate.
On the other hand, Ueno discloses a class determined by the waveform classification unit includes a positive, a negative, a false negative candidate, and a false positive candidate (Ueno, translation, para. [0449], referring to para. [0181], disclosing the partial waveforms are classified, such as true positive, true negative, false positive, and false negative, indicating the classification of the partial waveforms can correspond to classes including a positive, a negative, a false negative as a false negative candidate, and a false positive as a false positive candidate).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Asai and Ueno. The suggestion/motivation would have been to calculate classification statistics, as suggested by Ueno (see Ueno, Translation, para. [0449], referring to para. [0181]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, Asai in view of Hirano discloses the waveform display apparatus according to claim 2. However, none of the prior art references on the record discloses wherein the representative time determination unit is configured to determine the time at which the interval appears and the corresponding sensor from a plurality of candidate times, and the collateral information drawing unit is configured to display the collateral information to be displayed, while including, in the collateral information, appearance accuracies and the plurality of candidate times in a predetermined range determined by the representative time determination unit.
Claims 8-10 depend from claim 7 with respective additional limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIXIA DU whose telephone number is (571)270-5646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am-4:00 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, Kee Tung can be reached at 571-272-7794. 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.
/HAIXIA DU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611