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 .
Response to Amendment
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 has been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims filed on 3 June 2026.
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 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 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Meer et al. (“Carbon-wire loop based artifact correction outperforms post-processing EEG/fMRI corrections—A validation of a real-time simultaneous EEG/fMRI correction method,” (January 2016), NeuroImage, Volume 125, 15 January 2016, Pages 880-894; hereinafter "VDM") in further view of Laustsen et al. (“Tracking of rigid head motion during MRI using an EEG system,” (25 April 2022), Magn Reson Med. 2022 Aug;88(2):986-1001; hereinafter " Laustsen").
With regards to Claim 13, VDM discloses a system for acquiring electroencephalogram (EEG) data and position data from a subject, the system comprising:
a substrate configured to engage a head of the subject (four carbon wire loops (CWL) {i.e. coils} with an internal resistance of 160Ω/m, sewn into the outer surface of an 32-channel EEG {i.e. electrodes} cap {i.e. substrate}; see VDM pg. 882, ¶ 3 & FIG. 1A);
a plurality of EEG electrodes coupled to the substrate to be positioned about the head of the subject to acquire EEG data (four carbon wire loops (CWL) {i.e. coils} with an internal resistance of 160Ω/m, sewn into the outer surface of an 32-channel EEG {i.e. electrodes} cap {i.e. substrate}; see VDM pg. 882, ¶ 3 & FIG. 1A; wherein only 30 EEG channels are utilized; see VDM pg. 892, ¶ 1);
a plurality of coils, wherein each coil of the plurality of coils is (four carbon wire loops (CWL) {i.e. coils} with an internal resistance of 160Ω/m, sewn into the outer surface of an 32-channel EEG {i.e. electrodes} cap {i.e. substrate}; see VDM pg. 882, ¶ 3 & FIG. 1A; wherein only 30 EEG channels are utilized; see VDM pg. 892, ¶ 1);
a controller configured to receive an electrical signal corresponding to an induced voltage from each coil and use the electrical signal to reduce motion artifacts in the EEG data (regression algorithm {i.e. controller} for compensating for motion artifacts in EEG signals based on the CWL motion signals; see VDM 883, ¶ 2-4).
While VDM discloses disclose four CWLs sewn into the cap proximate to the 30 EEG electrodes, it appears VDM may be silent to wherein each coil of the plurality of coils is paired with and secured proximate to a respective one of the plurality of EEG electrodes.
However, previously disclosed Laustsen teaches of tracking of head motion during EEG-fMRI via induced voltages from the gradient system of the MRI which permits motion tracking (see Laustsen Abstract and pg. 987, ¶ 6). In particular, Laustsen teaches of “For tracking purposes, a subset of 8 electrodes on the MR-conditional EEG cap (64-Channel, Easycap, Herrsching, Germany) were interconnected to the reference electrode using resistive wire consisting of insulated bundles of carbon fibers” which is clearly illustrated in FIG. 1A which shows a 1:1 correspondence between the eight CWLs and the eight electrodes. It should be appreciated that the claim does not limit the claimed invention to having only electrodes paired with a corresponding coil, therefore, the reference and ground electrode does not render Laustsen’s teachings as non-obvious.
VDM and Laustsen are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of motion compensation in EEG/fMRI. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified VDM to incorporate the above teachings of Laustsen to provide at least wherein each coil of the plurality of coils is paired with and secured proximate to a respective one of the plurality of EEG electrodes. Doing so would aid in better accuracy can be achieved using more loops, making the estimation problem overdetermined (see Laustsen pg. 989, ¶ 6).
With regards to Claim 1413, modified VDM teaches of wherein the controller is configured to communicate with a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system to determine a gradient field applied by the MRI system proximate to each of the plurality of EEG electrodes (the EEG data acquired simultaneously with the fMRI data were corrected for artifacts related to the gradient switching {i.e. determine a gradient field applied by the MRI system proximate to each of the plurality of EEG electrodes}, following a previously published template subtraction procedure that takes into account head motions; see VDM pg. pg. 883, ¶ 7-8; the gradient field must be determined to compensate for the resultant motion; see VDM pg. 883, ¶ 8).
With regards to Claim 1514, modified VDM teaches of wherein the controller is configured to register the EEG data with MRI data acquired by the MRI system or register the MRI data with the EEG data (hardware synchronization of the EEG system with the MRI clock; see ref VDM; see also VDM pg. 881, ¶ 1 for EEG clock & MRI clock synchronization).
With regards to Claim 1614, modified VDM teaches of wherein the controller is configured to filter movement determined from the induced voltage from the EEG data (FIG. 7 of VDM illustrates CWL compensation of EEG data) or MRI data acquired by the MRI system (FIG. 8 of VDM illustrates CWL compensation of MRI data).
With regards to Claim 1714, modified VDM teaches of wherein the substrate forms a cap configured to be attached to the subject to position the EEG electrodes and respective coils about the head of the subject (four carbon wire loops (CWL) {i.e. coils} with an internal resistance of 160Ω/m, sewn into the outer surface of an 32-channel EEG {i.e. electrodes} cap {i.e. substrate}; see VDM pg. 882, ¶ 3 & FIG. 1A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: neither the cited prior art of VDM, Laustsen, Bhuiyan, or the searched prior art teaches of the coils and electrodes being disposed on opposite sides of the substrate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 June 2026 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) with respect to Claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In particular, Applicant contends that none of the cited art of van Der Meer, Bhuiyan, and Laustsen does not teach of a “one-to-one pairing” between the CWLs and electrodes. While van der Meer and Bhuiyan clearly don’t teach of 1:1 pairing, the Office disagrees that Laustsen does not. Applicant argues that “Laustsen discloses a "CapTrack" system using only 8 CWLs distributed around a 64-channel EEG cap-far from a one-to-one pairing.” It appears that Applicant is misinterpreting the teachings of Laustsen. While the commercially available CapTrack MR-conditional EEG cap from Easycap is capable of accepting up to 64 electrodes, Laustsen only utilizes eight electrode positions for EEG inspection, one electrode position as a reference, and one electrode position for ground. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that Laustsen is only using the eight EEG electrodes attached to the cap as illustrated in FIG. 1A. Moreover, Laustsen teaches that only a subset of eight electrodes were interconnected. As Applicant indicated, Laustsen relies on 8 CWLs and, as illustrated, EEG electrodes 1-8 which one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize as a 1:1 correspondence between the coils and electrodes.
Applicant's arguments filed 3 June 2026 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) with respect to Claim 18 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. As Applicants points out, the CWLs are connected to the cap via a conductive resin and there is no teaching, explicit or implicit, which would obviate wherein each coil and electrode are disposed on opposite surfaces of the substrate.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHISH S. JASANI whose telephone number is (571)272-6402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 4:00 pm (CST).
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, Keith M. Raymond can be reached on (571) 270-1790. 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.
/ASHISH S. JASANI/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH RAYMOND/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights