DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: “conductive materials mimicking the typical (e.g., average) conductivities of the human brain, skull, and scalp, respectively” as disclosed in paragraph 0055 of the specification. This paragraph states that “[t]he phantom 105 must be constructed from” this material, as stated above. The term phantom is interpreted as synonymous with the term “simulated human head” as claimed. However, independent claims 1, 11, 20, and 30 do not define the claimed simulated human head as comprising “conductive materials mimicking the typical (e.g., average) conductivities of the human brain, skull, and scalp, respectively”. Therefore, the claims omit essential subject matter.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 102 (AIA )
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2020/0289005 A1 to RAO.
Regarding claim 11, RAO teaches A method, comprising:
stimulating, with electricity, a plurality of dipoles embedded within a simulated human brain of a simulated human head, wherein the electricity with which the plurality of dipoles are stimulated is based on a recording of an animate human head, and wherein stimulating the plurality of dipoles with the electricity causes the simulated human head to generate one or more electromagnetic properties that simulate same of the animate human head (par. 0023: head model 110 may be generated as follows. The MRI slices are first assembled into a three-dimensional volume model of the patient's head, for example a three-dimensional model that represents the patient's head as voxels 112. A surface model 114 of the relevant structure is generated from the three-dimensional volume model. The surface model 114 is used to generate 116 the head model, for example a single sphere head model (SSM) or an overlapping sphere head model (OSM); par. 0022; 0025: sources within the brain are typically modelled 120 as dipole sources. The synaptic electrical activity in the brain may be modelled as current dipoles. The model includes a distribution 122 of dipoles throughout the volume of the brain. Given a dipole at a certain location of the brain and given the model of the brain volume (e.g., OSM or SSM), the magnetic field created by each dipole is simulated 124); and
detecting the one or more electromagnetic properties from the simulated human head via: a first non-invasive technique; or a second non-invasive technique that is different from the first non-invasive technique; or both the first non-invasive technique and the second non-invasive technique simultaneously (par. 0022; 0025: The contributions of all dipoles are aggregated 130 to estimate the total magnetic field at each MEG sensor.).
Regarding claim 30, RAO teaches A system, comprising: a non-transitory computer readable medium; and a plurality of instructions stored on the non-transitory computer readable medium and executable by one or more processors (par. 0044: Implementations can be implemented in a computer program product tangibly embodied in a computer-readable storage device for execution by a programmable processor); wherein the instructions are executed by the one or more processors so that the following steps are executed:
stimulating, with electricity, a plurality of dipoles embedded within a simulated human brain of a simulated human head, wherein the electricity with which the plurality of dipoles are stimulated is based on a recording of an animate human head, and wherein stimulating the plurality of dipoles with the electricity causes the simulated human head to generate one or more electromagnetic properties that simulate same of the animate human head (par. 0023: head model 110 may be generated as follows. The MRI slices are first assembled into a three-dimensional volume model of the patient's head, for example a three-dimensional model that represents the patient's head as voxels 112. A surface model 114 of the relevant structure is generated from the three-dimensional volume model. The surface model 114 is used to generate 116 the head model, for example a single sphere head model (SSM) or an overlapping sphere head model (OSM); par. 0022; 0025: sources within the brain are typically modelled 120 as dipole sources. The synaptic electrical activity in the brain may be modelled as current dipoles. The model includes a distribution 122 of dipoles throughout the volume of the brain. Given a dipole at a certain location of the brain and given the model of the brain volume (e.g., OSM or SSM), the magnetic field created by each dipole is simulated 124.); and
detecting the one or more electromagnetic properties from the simulated human head via: a first non-invasive technique; or a second non-invasive technique that is different from the first non-invasive technique; or both the first non-invasive technique and the second non-invasive technique simultaneously (par. 0022; 0025: The contributions of all dipoles are aggregated 130 to estimate the total magnetic field at each MEG sensor.).
Regarding claim 12, RAO further teaches capturing said recording of the animate human head (par. 0023: head model 110 may be generated as follows. The MRI slices are first assembled into a three-dimensional volume model of the patient's head, for example a three-dimensional model that represents the patient's head as voxels 112. A surface model 114 of the relevant structure is generated from the three-dimensional volume model. The surface model 114 is used to generate 116 the head model, for example a single sphere head model (SSM) or an overlapping sphere head model (OSM); par. 0022; 0025: sources within the brain are typically modelled 120 as dipole sources. The synaptic electrical activity in the brain may be modelled as current dipoles. The model includes a distribution 122 of dipoles throughout the volume of the brain. Given a dipole at a certain location of the brain and given the model of the brain volume (e.g., OSM or SSM), the magnetic field created by each dipole is simulated 124).
Regarding claim 31, RAO further teaches wherein the instructions are executed by the one or more processors so that the following step is also executed: capturing said recording of the animate human head (par. 0023: head model 110 may be generated as follows. The MRI slices are first assembled into a three-dimensional volume model of the patient's head, for example a three-dimensional model that represents the patient's head as voxels 112. A surface model 114 of the relevant structure is generated from the three-dimensional volume model. The surface model 114 is used to generate 116 the head model, for example a single sphere head model (SSM) or an overlapping sphere head model (OSM); par. 0022; 0025: sources within the brain are typically modelled 120 as dipole sources. The synaptic electrical activity in the brain may be modelled as current dipoles. The model includes a distribution 122 of dipoles throughout the volume of the brain. Given a dipole at a certain location of the brain and given the model of the brain volume (e.g., OSM or SSM), the magnetic field created by each dipole is simulated 124).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 33, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over RAO in view of US 6,697,660 B1 to ROBINSON.
Regarding claim 1, RAO teaches A method, comprising:
stimulating, with electricity, a plurality of dipoles embedded within a simulated human brain of a simulated human head, wherein stimulating the plurality of dipoles with the electricity causes the simulated human head to generate one or more electromagnetic properties that simulate same of an animate human head (par. 0022; 0025: sources within the brain are typically modelled 120 as dipole sources. The synaptic electrical activity in the brain may be modelled as current dipoles. The model includes a distribution 122 of dipoles throughout the volume of the brain. Given a dipole at a certain location of the brain and given the model of the brain volume (e.g., OSM or SSM), the magnetic field created by each dipole is simulated 124.); and
detecting the one or more electromagnetic properties from the simulated human head via … a first non-invasive technique…(par. 0022; 0025: The contributions of all dipoles are aggregated 130 to estimate the total magnetic field at each MEG sensor.).
Regarding claim 20, RAO teaches A system, comprising: a non-transitory computer readable medium; and a plurality of instructions stored on the non-transitory computer readable medium and executable by one or more processors (par. 0044: Implementations can be implemented in a computer program product tangibly embodied in a computer-readable storage device for execution by a programmable processor); wherein the instructions are executed by the one or more processors so that the following steps are executed:
stimulating, with electricity, a plurality of dipoles embedded within a simulated human brain of a simulated human head, wherein stimulating the plurality of dipoles with the electricity causes the simulated human head to generate one or more electromagnetic properties that simulate same of an animate human head (par. 0022; 0025: sources within the brain are typically modelled 120 as dipole sources. The synaptic electrical activity in the brain may be modelled as current dipoles. The model includes a distribution 122 of dipoles throughout the volume of the brain. Given a dipole at a certain location of the brain and given the model of the brain volume (e.g., OSM or SSM), the magnetic field created by each dipole is simulated 124.); and
detecting the one or more electromagnetic properties from the simulated human head via … a first non-invasive technique… (par. 0022; 0025: The contributions of all dipoles are aggregated 130 to estimate the total magnetic field at each MEG sensor.).
To the extent RAO does not teach a second non-invasive technique that is different from the first non-invasive technique … wherein the one or more electromagnetic properties are detected via both the first and second non-invasive techniques simultaneously, as recited in claims 1 and 20, ROBINSON teaches using MEG and/or EEG measurements to measure and map the location and intensity of brain activity (col. 4, lines 35-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of both MEG and/or EEG, as taught by ROBINSON, into the invention of RAO, thereby applying a known technique for measuring brain activity, e.g., location and intensity, in a similar system and method, thereby providing additional data to track brain activity.
Regarding claims 2, 14, 21, and 33, RAO further teaches wherein: the first non-invasive technique is, or includes,…magnetoencephalography (“MEG”)(par. 0022; 0025: The contributions of all dipoles are aggregated 130 to estimate the total magnetic field at each MEG sensor.), but does not expressly disclose wherein: the first non-invasive technique is, or includes, electroencephalography (“EEG”). ROBINSON teaches using MEG and/or EEG measurements to measure and map the location and intensity of brain activity (col. 4, lines 35-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of both MEG and/or EEG, as taught by ROBINSON, into the invention of RAO, thereby applying a known technique for measuring brain activity, e.g., location and intensity, in a similar system and method, thereby providing additional data to track brain activity.
Regarding claims 15 and 34, RAO teaches the elements above, but does not disclose wherein the one or more electromagnetic properties are detected via both the first and second non-invasive techniques simultaneously. ROBINSON teaches using MEG and/or EEG measurements to measure and map the location and intensity of brain activity (col. 4, lines 35-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of both MEG and/or EEG, as taught by ROBINSON, into the invention of RAO, thereby applying a known technique for measuring brain activity, e.g., location and intensity, in a similar system and method, thereby providing additional data to track brain activity.
Regarding claim 6, RAO further teaches wherein the electricity with which the plurality of dipoles are stimulated is based on a recording of the animate human head (par. 0023: head model 110 may be generated as follows. The MRI slices are first assembled into a three-dimensional volume model of the patient's head, for example a three-dimensional model that represents the patient's head as voxels 112. A surface model 114 of the relevant structure is generated from the three-dimensional volume model. The surface model 114 is used to generate 116 the head model, for example a single sphere head model (SSM) or an overlapping sphere head model (OSM); par. 0022; 0025: sources within the brain are typically modelled 120 as dipole sources. The synaptic electrical activity in the brain may be modelled as current dipoles. The model includes a distribution 122 of dipoles throughout the volume of the brain. Given a dipole at a certain location of the brain and given the model of the brain volume (e.g., OSM or SSM), the magnetic field created by each dipole is simulated 124).
Regarding claim 7, RAO further teaches capturing said recording of the animate human head (par. 0023: head model 110 may be generated as follows. The MRI slices are first assembled into a three-dimensional volume model of the patient's head, for example a three-dimensional model that represents the patient's head as voxels 112. A surface model 114 of the relevant structure is generated from the three-dimensional volume model. The surface model 114 is used to generate 116 the head model, for example a single sphere head model (SSM) or an overlapping sphere head model (OSM); par. 0022; 0025: sources within the brain are typically modelled 120 as dipole sources. The synaptic electrical activity in the brain may be modelled as current dipoles. The model includes a distribution 122 of dipoles throughout the volume of the brain. Given a dipole at a certain location of the brain and given the model of the brain volume (e.g., OSM or SSM), the magnetic field created by each dipole is simulated 124).
Regarding claim 9, RAO further teaches wherein the electricity with which the plurality of dipoles are stimulated is based on recordings of a plurality of animate human heads (par. 0023: head model 110 may be generated as follows. The MRI slices are first assembled into a three-dimensional volume model of the patient's head, for example a three-dimensional model that represents the patient's head as voxels 112. A surface model 114 of the relevant structure is generated from the three-dimensional volume model. The surface model 114 is used to generate 116 the head model, for example a single sphere head model (SSM) or an overlapping sphere head model (OSM); par. 0022; 0025: sources within the brain are typically modelled 120 as dipole sources. The synaptic electrical activity in the brain may be modelled as current dipoles. The model includes a distribution 122 of dipoles throughout the volume of the brain. Given a dipole at a certain location of the brain and given the model of the brain volume (e.g., OSM or SSM), the magnetic field created by each dipole is simulated 124).
Regarding claim 25, RAO further teaches wherein the electricity with which the plurality of dipoles are stimulated is based on a recording of the animate human head (par. 0023: head model 110 may be generated as follows. The MRI slices are first assembled into a three-dimensional volume model of the patient's head, for example a three-dimensional model that represents the patient's head as voxels 112. A surface model 114 of the relevant structure is generated from the three-dimensional volume model. The surface model 114 is used to generate 116 the head model, for example a single sphere head model (SSM) or an overlapping sphere head model (OSM); par. 0022; 0025: sources within the brain are typically modelled 120 as dipole sources. The synaptic electrical activity in the brain may be modelled as current dipoles. The model includes a distribution 122 of dipoles throughout the volume of the brain. Given a dipole at a certain location of the brain and given the model of the brain volume (e.g., OSM or SSM), the magnetic field created by each dipole is simulated 124).
Regarding claim 26, RAO further teaches wherein the instructions are executed by the one or more processors so that the following step is also executed: capturing said recording of the animate human head (par. 0023: head model 110 may be generated as follows. The MRI slices are first assembled into a three-dimensional volume model of the patient's head, for example a three-dimensional model that represents the patient's head as voxels 112. A surface model 114 of the relevant structure is generated from the three-dimensional volume model. The surface model 114 is used to generate 116 the head model, for example a single sphere head model (SSM) or an overlapping sphere head model (OSM); par. 0022; 0025: sources within the brain are typically modelled 120 as dipole sources. The synaptic electrical activity in the brain may be modelled as current dipoles. The model includes a distribution 122 of dipoles throughout the volume of the brain. Given a dipole at a certain location of the brain and given the model of the brain volume (e.g., OSM or SSM), the magnetic field created by each dipole is simulated 124).
Regarding claim 28, RAO further teaches wherein the electricity with which the plurality of dipoles are stimulated is based on recordings of a plurality of animate human heads (par. 0023: head model 110 may be generated as follows. The MRI slices are first assembled into a three-dimensional volume model of the patient's head, for example a three-dimensional model that represents the patient's head as voxels 112. A surface model 114 of the relevant structure is generated from the three-dimensional volume model. The surface model 114 is used to generate 116 the head model, for example a single sphere head model (SSM) or an overlapping sphere head model (OSM); par. 0022; 0025: sources within the brain are typically modelled 120 as dipole sources. The synaptic electrical activity in the brain may be modelled as current dipoles. The model includes a distribution 122 of dipoles throughout the volume of the brain. Given a dipole at a certain location of the brain and given the model of the brain volume (e.g., OSM or SSM), the magnetic field created by each dipole is simulated 124).
Claim(s) 3, 10, 22, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over RAO in view of ROBINSON, as applied to claim 1 and 20, in further view of US 2006/0251303 A1 to HE.
Regarding claims 3 and 22, RAO teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose deriving a source localization for a first one of the plurality of dipoles based on the one or more electromagnetic properties detected from the simulated human head via the first non-invasive technique and/or the second non-invasive technique. However, HE teaches a non-invasive determination of locations of neural activity in a brain, including using an algorithm for dipole source localization to locate neural activity in a brain, including EEG dipole source localization (par. 0028; 0092). HE teaches that source mapping plays an important role in localizing the origin(s) of neurological disorders such as epilepsy (par. 0004). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate dipole source localization based on EEG signals, as taught by HE, into the invention of RAO, in order to determine the location of simulated neural activity in the simulated head using a known technique, thereby allowing for localizing the origins of a simulated neurological disorder such as epilepsy.
Regarding claim 10, RAO teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose wherein: a first one of the plurality of dipoles is oriented tangentially within the simulated human brain; and a second one of the plurality of dipoles is oriented radially within the simulated human brain. However, HE further teaches dipoles positioned tangentially and radially relative to the brain in a simulation setting (par. 0122; 0124). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate dipoles in a tangential and radial orientation relative to a brain, as taught by HE, into the invention of RAO, in order to apply a known technique of dipole placement in a brain, thereby achieving a predictable result, e.g., simulating brain activity.
Regarding claim 29, RAO teaches the simulated human brain; and first and second ones of the plurality of dipoles embedded in the simulated human brain (par. 0023: head model 110 may be generated as follows. The MRI slices are first assembled into a three-dimensional volume model of the patient's head, for example a three-dimensional model that represents the patient's head as voxels 112. A surface model 114 of the relevant structure is generated from the three-dimensional volume model. The surface model 114 is used to generate 116 the head model, for example a single sphere head model (SSM) or an overlapping sphere head model (OSM); par. 0022; 0025: sources within the brain are typically modelled 120 as dipole sources. The synaptic electrical activity in the brain may be modelled as current dipoles. The model includes a distribution 122 of dipoles throughout the volume of the brain. Given a dipole at a certain location of the brain and given the model of the brain volume (e.g., OSM or SSM), the magnetic field created by each dipole is simulated 124), but does not expressly disclose wherein: the first one of the plurality of dipoles is oriented tangentially within the simulated human brain; and the second one of the plurality of dipoles is oriented radially within the simulated human brain. However, HE further teaches dipoles positioned tangentially and radially relative to the brain in a simulation setting (par. 0122; 0124). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate dipoles in a tangential and radial orientation relative to a brain, as taught by HE, into the invention of RAO, in order to apply a known technique of dipole placement in a brain, thereby achieving a predictable result, e.g., simulating brain activity.
Claim(s) 16, 19, 35, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over RAO, as applied to claim 11 and 30, in further view of HE.
Regarding claims 16 and 35, RAO teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose deriving a source localization for a first one of the plurality of dipoles based on the one or more electromagnetic properties detected from the simulated human head via the first non-invasive technique and/or the second non-invasive technique. However, HE teaches a non-invasive determination of locations of neural activity in a brain, including using an algorithm for dipole source localization to locate neural activity in a brain, including EEG dipole source localization (par. 0028; 0092). HE teaches that source mapping plays an important role in localizing the origin(s) of neurological disorders such as epilepsy (par. 0004). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate dipole source localization based on EEG signals, as taught by HE, into the modified invention of RAO, in order to determine the location of simulated neural activity in the simulated head using a known technique, thereby allowing for localizing the origins of a simulated neurological disorder such as epilepsy.
Regarding claim 19, RAO teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose wherein: a first one of the plurality of dipoles is oriented tangentially within the simulated human brain; and a second one of the plurality of dipoles is oriented radially within the simulated human brain. However, HE further teaches dipoles positioned tangentially and radially relative to the brain in a simulation setting (par. 0122; 0124). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate dipoles in a tangential and radial orientation relative to a brain, as taught by HE, into the invention of RAO, in order to apply a known technique of dipole placement in a brain, thereby achieving a predictable result, e.g., simulating brain activity.
Regarding claim 38, RAO teaches the simulated human brain; and first and second ones of the plurality of dipoles embedded in the simulated human brain (par. 0023: head model 110 may be generated as follows. The MRI slices are first assembled into a three-dimensional volume model of the patient's head, for example a three-dimensional model that represents the patient's head as voxels 112. A surface model 114 of the relevant structure is generated from the three-dimensional volume model. The surface model 114 is used to generate 116 the head model, for example a single sphere head model (SSM) or an overlapping sphere head model (OSM); par. 0022; 0025: sources within the brain are typically modelled 120 as dipole sources. The synaptic electrical activity in the brain may be modelled as current dipoles. The model includes a distribution 122 of dipoles throughout the volume of the brain. Given a dipole at a certain location of the brain and given the model of the brain volume (e.g., OSM or SSM), the magnetic field created by each dipole is simulated 124), but does not expressly disclose wherein: the first one of the plurality of dipoles is oriented tangentially within the simulated human brain; and the second one of the plurality of dipoles is oriented radially within the simulated human brain. However, HE further teaches dipoles positioned tangentially and radially relative to the brain in a simulation setting (par. 0122; 0124). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate dipoles in a tangential and radial orientation relative to a brain, as taught by HE, into the invention of RAO, in order to apply a known technique of dipole placement in a brain, thereby achieving a predictable result, e.g., simulating brain activity.
Claim(s) 8 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over RAO in view of ROBINSON, as applied to claim 6 and 25, in further view of US 2024/0268746 A1 to YANIK.
Regarding claims 8 and 27, RAO teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the animate human head is that of a drug resistant epilepsy patient. However, YANIK teaches that conventional brain activity monitoring methods, including the use of MEG and EEG, include monitoring epilepsy patients and that most epilepsy patients have drug-resistant epilepsy (par. 0005). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the model of RAO as a drug-resistant epilepsy patient, in order to simulate a known type of patient that receives brain activity monitoring, including MEG and EEG, thereby providing a simulated human head of a known type of patient.
Claim(s) 13 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over RAO, as applied to claim 11 and 30, in further view of YANIK.
Regarding claims 13 and 32, RAO teaches the elements above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the animate human head is that of a drug resistant epilepsy patient. However, YANIK teaches that conventional brain activity monitoring methods, including the use of MEG and EEG, include monitoring epilepsy patients and that most epilepsy patients have drug-resistant epilepsy (par. 0005). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the model of RAO as a drug-resistant epilepsy patient, in order to simulate a known type of patient that receives brain activity monitoring, including MEG and EEG, thereby providing a simulated human head of a known type of patient.
Allowable Subject Matter
The subject matter recited in claims 4, 17, 23, and 36 (i.e., assessing an accuracy of the first non-invasive technique and/or the second non-invasive technique, via which the one or more electromagnetic properties are detected from the simulated human head; wherein assessing the accuracy of the first non-invasive technique and/or the second non-invasive technique comprises: comparing the derived source localization for the first one of the plurality of dipoles with a physical location of the first one of the plurality of dipoles within the simulated human head) is not anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art. Accordingly, claims 4, 17, 23, and 36, and the dependent claims thereof, are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Hull whose telephone number is 571-272-0996. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7147. 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.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES B HULL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights