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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/19/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-6 are objected to for using numerals to denote the steps (i.e., step (1), step (2)). The use of numerals to denote the steps can be confusing in combination with the claim numerals. It is suggested that the step numerals are replaced with letters such as (a) and (b).
Claim 1 recites “An EEG recognition method” in line 1. Before the use of acronyms, the word/phrase should be fully written followed by the acronym. This should read “An electroencephalography (EEG) recognition method”.
Claim 3, line 21 recites the formula “
A
j
=
(
X
j
T
X
j
)
-
1
X
j
T
Y
”. This formula is the end of step (3.2), and therefore should conclude with a semicolon and read “
A
j
=
(
X
j
T
X
j
)
-
1
X
j
T
Y
;”.
Claim 3 recites “a final parameter matrix” in line 28. This should read “a final parameter matrix;”.
Claim 6 recites “
F
j
is node flexibility of a node”. This should read “
F
j
is a node flexibility of a node”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 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, the claim recites “adding a weighted term to an autoregressive (AR) model based on a hypothesis that the closer a time distance is, the greater an impact becomes” in lines 11-12. This recitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what the hypothesis is relative to. The recited time distance must be between two different times, but it would be unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art what the two times are referring to. It is also unclear what the impact is referring to. The lack of clarity of what the time distance refers to and what the impact refers to renders the hypothesis indefinite. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination the claim is interpreted as “adding a weighted term to an autoregressive (AR) model”.
Further regarding claim 1, the claim recites “the improved wSAR model” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim limitation. The claim recites constructing the wSAR model in line 11, but it is unclear whether the “improved wSAR model” is a different model of the previously constructed wSAR model. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, “the improved wSAR model” is interpreted as “the wSAR model”.
Further regarding claim 1, the claim recites “processing data of each frequency band” in line 4. It is unclear which frequency bands are being referred to, as there is no prior recitation of frequency bands in the claims. Examiner posits that the frequency bands being referred to may correspond with the extracted waves recited in lines 4-6. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as “processing data of each frequency band corresponding to the δ wave, the θ wave, the α wave, a β wave, and the γ wave”.
Further regarding claim 1, the claim recites “performing Hilbert transform on the EEG signal of each frequency” in line 17. It is unclear what is meant by each frequency. There are no previously defined frequencies in the claim. Examiner posits that each frequency is intended to refer to each frequency band. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as “performing Hilbert transform on the EEG signal of each frequency band”.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, the claims recite “between every two frequencies” in line 18 and 6, respectively. These limitations render the claims indefinite, as it is unclear which frequencies can be selected for every two frequencies. An infinite number of frequencies can be determined, as there are no previously defined frequencies in the claims. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as “between every two frequency bands”.
Further regarding claim 1, the claim recites “in the standardized form, brain regions are abstracted into a z-axis” in lines 24-25. It is unclear what it means for brain regions to be abstracted into a z-axis, and there is no definition of the term “abstracted” in the specification. The following definitions (obtained from Dictionary.com) of abstract in the verb form include to summarize, remove, divert, steal, or consider general. The use of any of these definitions of abstract would not clarify what is being done to the brain regions. Clarification is requested.
PNG
media_image1.png
363
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as “in the standardized form, brain regions are represented in a z-axis”.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “in the formula, …” in lines 7, 19, and 26 prior to describing the variables in various formulas. While it is understood that the descriptions of the variables following a formula apply to the preceding formula, some formulas as recited in claim 3 have similar variables (e.g.,
x
i
j
), and therefore it is unclear whether the recitations of variable representations apply to only the preceding formula, or all formulas. It is suggested that Applicant number each formula with Roman numerals, and refer to the formulas by their respective Roman numerals in the claims, so as to avoid confusion between the formulas. It is also suggested to include claim language to indicate that representations of variables in multiple formulas maintain the same representation across those formulas where appropriate. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted such the representation of all variables across formulas remains the same.
Further regarding claim 3, the claim recites the term
x
i
-
s
j
T
in line 34. This term is rendered indefinite as it is unclear what the variable “s” refers to. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, “s” represents any time lag parameter.
Further regarding claim 3, the claim recites “performing z transformation to obtain a system transfer function
H
i
j
(
f
)
”. The term “z transformation” is rendered indefinite as it is unclear what this transformation comprises. The specification does not define “z transformation” or provide any additional context on what a “z transformation” is. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, any transformation will read on the claim limitation of “z transformation”.
Further regarding claims 3 and 4, claim 3 recites “taking 60% of a threshold to remove false connections” in line 41 and “60% of the threshold is taken to remove false connections” in line 43. It is unclear what is means to take 60% of a threshold to remove false connections. To take a percentage of a parameter, would mean multiplying the parameter (i.e., threshold) by 60%. It is unclear how this method step can remove false connections. Similar recitations are present in line 19 of claim 4. Examiner posits that the intended meaning of the claim is to only retain values above a threshold of 60% of a parameter. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, the claim limitations are interpreted as “removing false connections below a threshold of 60% of a parameter related to the connections”.
Further regarding claim 4, the claim recites “the threshold” in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this claim limitation. The threshold appears to be referencing the threshold first recited in line 41 of claim 3, however, claim 4 is not dependent on claim 3. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, claim 4 is interpreted as being dependent on claim 3.
All claims not explicitly addressed above are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected base 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
Step 1
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a series of steps or acts. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception.
The steps of (2) preprocessing the multi-channel EEG signal, (3) processing data of the each time point and constructing a time-domain multi-layer brain network, (4) processing data of each frequency band and calculating cross-frequency inter-layer coupling, (5) combining the time-domain and frequency-domain multi-layer brain networks into a 3D standardized form, and (6) calculating metrics of the multi-layer brain network and inputting the standard form into a graph convolutional network for classification and identification set forth judicial exceptions. These steps describe the use of mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations. Thus, the claim is drawn to Mathematical Concepts, which is an Abstract Idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 1, step (6) recites inputting the standardized form into a graph convolutional network (GCN) for classification and identification, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The input of the standardized form value does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the method does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the inputted standardized form, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea. It is noted that the input of the standardization form for classification and identification only comprises the step of inputting the form, but does not include obtaining a classification or identification and using the classification or identification such that it provides an improvement to the technological field, effects a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the classification or identification. It is further noted that the step of inputting the standardized form into a GCN is considered a mathematical concept, as it comprises inputting variables (the standard form) into a mathematical framework (GCN).
Step 2B
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional step of acquiring multi-channel EEG data. Obtaining multi-channel EEG data in order to process the data for classification is well-understood, routine and conventional activity for those in the field of medical diagnostics. Further, the acquiring step is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the acquiring step does not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
The dependent claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they generally recite method steps pertaining to the mathematical concepts. Claims 2-6 recite details pertaining to the mathematical concepts recited in steps (2)-(6) respectively, and are therefore also drawn to judicial exceptions.
Examiner’s Note
The following is a statement of reasons for the lack of prior art rejections of claims 1-6:
The closest identified prior art to claim 1 is US Patent Publication 2022/0354411 by Xu et al. – cited by Applicant, hereinafter “Xu”.
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches an EEG recognition method for a natural movement based on a time-domain and frequency-domain multi-layer brain network (Abstract, EEG recognition method), comprising following steps: (1) acquiring a multi-channel EEG signal of the natural hand movement (Fig. 1, first step); (2) preprocessing the multi-channel EEG signal, extracting an EEG signal at each time point by using a sliding time window, and extracting a δ wave, a θ wave, a α wave, a β wave, and a γ wave at the each time point (Fig. 2, second step. The subsequent actions are performed for data at each time point, therefore the data must be determined at each time point); and (3) processing data of the each time point (See the method steps of step (2)), and constructing a time-domain brain network ([0007]; the sub-steps of Step (3) include creating a model in the time-domain) by taking an electrode as a node ([0014]; “This present disclosure establishes brain networks by using the sources as nodes”); (4) processing data of each frequency band (Processing data of each frequency band is performed in step (2), performing Hilbert transform on the EEG signal ([0010]; In step (4), the Hilbert transform is performed on the source vector).
Xu does not teach step (3) including a directed transfer function (DTF) as an intra-layer connection, and parameters of a weighted quadratic autoregressive (wSAR) model as an inter-layer connection; wherein a method for calculating a time-domain inter-layer connection is as follows: constructing the wSAR model: adding a weighted term to an autoregressive (AR) model based on a hypothesis that the closer a time distance is, the greater an impact becomes, and processing a constant term, and calculating parameters of the improved wSAR model as the inter-layer connection; step (4) including a method for calculating a frequency-domain inter-layer connection is as follows: calculating cross-frequency coupling (CFC) between every two frequencies, and selecting an average value of phase-amplitude coupling (PAC), phase-phase coupling (PPC), and amplitude-amplitude coupling (AAC) as a final inter-layer connection; or any limitations of steps (5) or (6).
Therefore, the limitations of claim 1 are patentably distinct over the prior art cited in this Office action and any other prior art. By virtue of their dependency from claim 1, claims 2-6 are also patentably distinct over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication 2024/0122524 by He et al. teaches a method of classifying EEG data by collection EEG data based on directional flow information gathered from a directed transfer function or cross-frequency coupling.
US Patent Publication 2018/0199848 by Wendling et al. – cited by Applicant teaches a method of determining a sequence of activations of a set of brain networks during a predetermined cognitive task.
US Patent 9,107,595 by Smyth teaches a method of estimating brain activity by using a network analysis of EEG signals by determining coefficients (i.e., parameters) of a weighted autoregressive process and a directed transfer function.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON A GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)270-0971. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Jason Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/NELSON ALEXANDER GLOVER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ADAM J EISEMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights