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
No information disclosure statements (IDS) has been submitted by the Applicant.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 6 recites the limitation “the execution includes”. Examiner notes this should read “the execution result includes”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a method for providing digital feedback for activation or inhibition of target brain regions. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The following limitations set forth a judicial exception:
performing physiological feedback training based on a physiological signal
executing a training configuration according to the physiological feedback training
outputting an execution result, wherein the execution includes a physiological signal and a behavioral data
analyzing whether the execution result is as expected
These limitations set forth a judicial exception. These steps describe a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
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 recites analyzing whether the execution result is as expected, if the execution result is as expected, maintain the training configuration; if the execution result is not as expected, change to another training configuration and execute the other training configuration, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The maintaining the training configuration if the execution result is as expected, and changing to another training configuration and execute the other training configuration if the execution result is not as expected does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the system does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the model, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
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 steps of:
a digital interface
Additionally, claims 5 and 6 recite the additional limitations
a brainwave collection device
a mobile communication device
The providing and recording steps are well-understood, routine and conventional activities for those in the field of medical diagnostics. Further, the providing and recording steps are each 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 obtaining and comparing steps do 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.
Dependent claims 2-4, 7 and 8 also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-8 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Mark (US 2025/0025092)
Regarding claim 1, Mark teaches a method for providing digital feedback for activation or inhibition of target brain regions [par. 108, 117], comprising: Step SA: performing physiological feedback training based on a physiological signal through a digital interface [par. 108, 117]; Step SB: executing a training configuration according to the physiological feedback training [par. 120, 121]; Step SC: outputting an execution result, wherein the execution includes a physiological signal and a behavioral data [par. 122, 129]; and Step SD: analyzing whether the execution result is as expected, if the execution result is as expected, maintain the training configuration [par, 122, 127]; if the execution result is not as expected, change to another training configuration and execute the other training configuration [par. 122-124].
Regarding claim 4, Mark further teaches the execution result includes a signal result, a physical and mental status, and a performance index [par. 118, 128, 129; Examiner notes the physiological and neurological status of a subject is assessed to determine the performance metric].
Regarding claim 5, Mark further teaches using a brainwave collection device to capture the physiological signal of a subject before the step SA, wherein the physiological signal is channel brainwave data captured from different brain areas of the subject [par. 173, 174].
Regarding claim 6, Mark further teaches the digital interface is a mobile communication device [par. 188]
Regarding claim 8, Mark further teaches returning to step SB for multiple cycles after the step SD [par. 122-126]
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark and in further view of Miller (US 9927940)
Regarding claim 2, Mark teaches a method for providing digital feedback for activation or inhibition of target brain regions, as disclosed above.
However, Mark does not teach the physiological feedback training includes a game training
Miller teaches the physiological feedback training includes a game training [col. 41: lines 30-52] Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Mark, to incorporate the physiological feedback training includes a game training, for increasing the amount of information learned at a time, as evidence by Miller [col. 41: lines 30-52]
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark and in further view of Santarnecchi (US 2026/0112487) and Miller
Regarding claim 3, Mark teaches a method for providing digital feedback for activation or inhibition of target brain regions, as disclosed above, and the training configuration includes attention [par. 122], working memory [par. 169, 173], emotional stimulation [par. 175, 176]
However, Mark does not teach the training configuration includes perceptual processing, visual space, language semantics, logical reasoning, and social cognition
Santarnecchi teaches the training configuration includes perceptual processing [par. 322], language semantics [par. 322], logical reasoning [par. 322], and social cognition [par. 322, 323]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Mark, to incorporate the training configuration includes perceptual processing, language semantics, logical reasoning, and social cognition, for cognitive enhancement of the individual, as evidence by Santarnecchi [par. 322]
Miller teaches the training configuration includes visual space [col. 1: lines 50-62]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Mark and Santarnecchi, to incorporate the training configuration includes visual space, for maintaining cognitive capacity performance, as evidence by Miller [col. 1: lines 50-62]
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark and in further view of Santarnecchi
Regarding claim 3, Mark teaches a method for providing digital feedback for activation or inhibition of target brain regions, as disclosed above, and the physiological signal includes, a brainwave frequency, a brain region location and a pattern characteristic [par. 102, 103]
However, Mark does not teach the physiological signal includes a brainwave amplitude
Santarnecchi teaches the physiological signal includes a brainwave amplitude [par.271]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Mark, to incorporate the physiological signal includes a brainwave amplitude, for analyzing specific brainwaves generated in specific time windows, as evidence by Santarnecchi [par. 271]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE L ROZANSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm, alt F 8:30am-5pm.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on (571)272-4233. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of publish
ed 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.
/GRACE L ROZANSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights