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 statements (IDS) submitted on 02/05/26 and 09/19/24 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 6-8 ,14-16, 19, 21, 63-65, 68, 76-78 and 125 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitations
“given features of the features” in line 4. Examiner notes this should read “given features of the plurality of features”.
“each avalanche of the avalanches” in line 5. Examiner notes this should read “each avalanche of the neuronal avalanches”.
“one or more of the neural signals” in line 7. Examiner notes this should read “the one or more neural signals”
Claims 2 and 64 recite the limitation
“in a respective neural signal of the neural signals” in line 2. Examiner notes this should read “in a respective neural signal of the one or more neural signals”
Claims 3 and 64 recite the limitation
“consecutive avalanches of the avalanches” in line 3. Examiner notes this should read “consecutive avalanches of the neuronal avalanches”
Claims 6 and 68 recite the limitation
“the avalanches” in line 3. Examiner notes this should read “the neuronal avalanches”
Claim 14 recites the limitations
“each avalanche of the avalanches” in lines 1-2. Examiner notes this should read “each avalanche of the neuronal avalanches”
“a number of the events that are associated with the respective avalanche” in line 2. Examiner notes this should read “a number of events that are associated with a respective avalanche”
“the avalanches” in line 3, and again in line 4. Examiner notes this should read “the neuronal avalanches”
Claim 15 recites the limitation
“the avalanche features” in lines 2-3. Examiner notes this should read “the one or more avalanche features”
Claim 16 and 78 recite the limitations
“each avalanche of the avalanches” in lines 1-2. Examiner notes this should read “each avalanche of the neuronal avalanches”
“a number of the events that are associated with the respective avalanche” in line 2. Examiner notes this should read “a number of events that are associated with a respective avalanche”
“consecutive avalanches of the avalanches” in line 6. Examiner notes this should read “consecutive avalanches of the neuronal avalanches”
Claim 21 recites the limitation
“the actions” in line 1. Examiner notes this should read “the one or more actions”
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 1-3, 6-8, 14-16, 19, 21, 22, 63-65, 68, 76-78 and 125 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 detecting or predicting a given instance of an abnormal neural activity in a brain of a monitored person. 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:
extracting a plurality of features based on one or more neural signals that are indicative of given neural activity in the brain during a given time interval
wherein given features of the features are extracted based on neuronal avalanches, each avalanche of the avalanches being one or more consecutive sub-periods of distinct sub-periods within the given time interval in which one or more events associated with one or more of the neural signals are detected
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 detecting the given instance or predicting the given instance within a given time duration of the given time interval, based on the plurality of features, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The detecting or predicting of an instance of neural activity 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. Claims 19, 21 and 22 recite in response to detecting or predicting the given instance, the method further comprises: automatically performing one or more actions, wherein the actions include providing a treatment plan for the monitored person for suppressing the given instance or subsequent instances of the abnormal neural activity, the subsequent instances being subsequent to the given instance, and wherein the abnormal neural activity is an epileptic seizure, which also is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g), does not provide an improvement to the technological field, and the system does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the model.
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 brain of a monitored person
Additionally, claim 63 recites
a processing circuity
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
Independent claims 63 and 125 are also not patent eligible for substantially similar reasons
Dependent claims 2, 3, 6-8, 14-16, 64, 65, 68, and 76-78 also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-3, 6-8 ,14-16, 19, 21, 63-65, 68, 76-78 and 125 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 1-3, 6-8, 16, 19, 21, 63-65, 68, 78 and 125 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Plenz (US 2016/0198968)
Plenz was applied in Applicant’s IDS filed on 09/19/24
Regarding claim 1, Plenz teaches a method for detecting or predicting a given instance of an abnormal neural activity in a brain of a monitored person [par. 8], the method comprising: extracting a plurality of features based on one or more neural signals that are indicative of given neural activity in the brain during a given time interval [par. 11, 106], wherein given features of the features are extracted based on neuronal avalanches [par. 8, 47, 58], each avalanche of the avalanches being one or more consecutive sub-periods of distinct sub-periods within the given time interval in which one or more events associated with one or more of the neural signals are detected [par. 49, 51, 52]; and detecting the given instance or predicting the given instance within a given time duration of the given time interval, based on the plurality of features [par. 8, 106]
Regarding claims 2 and 64, Plenz further teaches one or more of the events are associated with a peak amplitude in a respective neural signal of the neural signals that is greater than or equal to a threshold [par. 59].
Regarding claims 3 and 65, Plenz further teaches the given features include one or more inter- avalanche features that are extracted based on durations of inter-avalanche intervals between consecutive avalanches of the avalanches [par. 92, 106]
Regarding claims 6 and 68, Plenz further teaches the given features include one or more multi- scale criticality features that are extracted by analyzing one or more basic features that are associated with the avalanches for different divisions of the given time interval into the distinct sub-periods [par. 53, 54]
Regarding claim 7, Plenz further teaches for one or more of the basic features, the multi- scale criticality features include an offset and a slope for a linear model that indicates a dependence of the respective basic feature on the different divisions [par. 11, 53, 54]
Regarding claim 8, Plenz further teaches for one or more pairs of the basic features including a first basic feature and a second basic feature, the multi-scale criticality features include an offset and a slope for a linear model that indicates a dependence of a relationship between the first basic feature and the second basic feature of the respective pair on the different divisions [par. 11, 53, 54]
Regarding claims 16 and 78, Plenz further teaches a respective size of each avalanche of the avalanches is defined by a number of the events that are associated with the respective avalanche [par. 52]; and wherein the given features include one or more additional avalanche features that are extracted by analyzing a function that estimates a relation between: (a) a difference in a size between consecutive avalanches of the avalanches and (b) a duration of an inter-avalanche interval between the consecutive avalanches [par. 8, 11, 92]
Regarding claim 19, Plenz further teaches in response to detecting or predicting the given instance, the method further comprises: automatically performing one or more actions [par. 9]
Regarding claim 21, Plenz further teaches the actions include providing a treatment plan for the monitored person for suppressing the given instance or subsequent instances of the abnormal neural activity, the subsequent instances being subsequent to the given instance [par. 47, 122]
Regarding claim 63, Plenz teaches a system for detecting or predicting a given instance of an abnormal neural activity in a brain of a monitored person [par. 8], the system comprising a processing circuitry [par. 77] configured to: extract a plurality of features based on one or more neural signals that are indicative of given neural activity in the brain during a given time interval [par. 11, 106], wherein given features of the features are extracted based on neuronal avalanches [par. 8, 47, 58], each avalanche of the avalanches being one or more consecutive sub-periods of distinct sub-periods within the given time interval in which one or more events associated with one or more of the neural signals are detected [par. 49, 51, 52]; and detect the given instance or predict the given instance within a given time duration of the given time interval, based on the plurality of features [par. 8, 106]
Regarding claim 125, Plenz teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied therewith [], the computer readable program code, executable by processing circuitry of a computer to perform a method for detecting or predicting a given instance of an abnormal neural activity in a brain of a monitored person [par. 8], the method comprising: extracting a plurality of features based on one or more neural signals that are indicative of given neural activity in the brain during a given time interval [par. 11, 106], wherein given features of the features are extracted based on neuronal avalanches [par. 8, 47, 58], each avalanche of the avalanches being one or more consecutive sub-periods of distinct sub-periods within the given time interval in which one or more events associated with one or more of the neural signals are detected [par. 49, 51, 52]; and detecting the given instance or predicting the given instance within a given time duration of the given time interval, based on the plurality of features [par. 8, 106]
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.
Claims 14, 22 and 76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plenz and in further view of Frei (US 2008/0064934)
Frei was applied in Applicant’s IDS filed on 09/19/24
Regarding claims 14 and 76, Plenz teaches a method for detecting or predicting a given instance of an abnormal neural activity in a brain of a monitored person, as disclosed above, and a respective size of each avalanche of the avalanches is defined by a number of the events that are associated with the respective avalanche [par. 52]
However, Plenz does not teach wherein the avalanches consist of main avalanches and secondary avalanches, the main avalanches being the avalanches of a first size greater than or equal to a size threshold; and wherein the given features include one or more avalanche features that are extracted by analyzing a secondary avalanche rate distribution representing rates of secondary avalanches as a function of time that has elapsed since a preceding main avalanche of the main avalanches immediately preceding the secondary avalanches
Frei teaches wherein the avalanches consist of main avalanches and secondary avalanches, the main avalanches being the avalanches of a first size greater than or equal to a size threshold [par. 7, 122-124, claims 7, 8]; and wherein the given features include one or more avalanche features that are extracted by analyzing a secondary avalanche rate distribution representing rates of secondary avalanches as a function of time that has elapsed since a preceding main avalanche of the main avalanches immediately preceding the secondary avalanches [par. 7, 122-124]
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 Plenz, to incorporate wherein the avalanches consist of main avalanches and secondary avalanches, the main avalanches being the avalanches of a first size greater than or equal to a size threshold; and wherein the given features include one or more avalanche features that are extracted by analyzing a secondary avalanche rate distribution representing rates of secondary avalanches as a function of time that has elapsed since a preceding main avalanche of the main avalanches immediately preceding the secondary avalanches, for preventing interpreting multiple closely-spaced detections as separate events, as evidence by Frei [par. 122].
Regarding claim 22, Frei teaches the abnormal neural activity is an epileptic seizure [par. 45, 47]
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 Plenz, to incorporate the abnormal neural activity is an epileptic seizure, for determining when to deliver treatment therapy, as evidence by Frei [par. 47].
Claims 15 and 77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plenz and Frei and in further view of Plenz (US 2009/0036791), herein referred to as “Plenz 2009”
Plenz 2009 was applied in Applicant’s IDS filed on 09/19/24
Regarding claims 15 and 77, Plenz and Frei teach a method for detecting or predicting a given instance of an abnormal neural activity in a brain of a monitored person, as disclosed above
However, Plenz and Frei do not teach the secondary avalanche rate distribution includes a regime that is characterized by a power law having an exponent, and wherein the avalanche features include at least one of: an estimate of the exponent; or a deviation of the rates of the secondary avalanches fitted to the power law from the power law
Plenz 2009 teaches the secondary avalanche rate distribution includes a regime that is characterized by a power law having an exponent, and wherein the avalanche features include at least one of: an estimate of the exponent; or a deviation of the rates of the secondary avalanches fitted to the power law from the power law [fig. 13; par. 147]
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 Plenz and Frei, to incorporate the secondary avalanche rate distribution includes a regime that is characterized by a power law having an exponent, and wherein the avalanche features include at least one of: an estimate of the exponent; or a deviation of the rates of the secondary avalanches fitted to the power law from the power law, as the emergence of the power law distribution indicates an important principle of the organization of synchronized activity in the cortex, namely the existence of long-range spatiotemporal correlations that allows the formation of a large diversity of pattern sizes in a `scale invariant` manner, as evidence by Plenz 2009 [par. 150].
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