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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 6 recites, “the preprocessing signal” but should read –the preprocessing function --.
Claim 6, line 2 recites, “Power Spectrum (PS) is the squared absolute value of the Fourier transform with the equation…” but should read -- Power Spectrum (PS) is the squared absolute value of the Fourier transform calculated using the equation… -- to better reflect the relationship between the PS and the equation provided and mirror the claim language of claims 5, 7, and 9 which also describe how feature extraction functions are performed.
Claim 10, line 6 recites, “the preprocessing signal” but should read –the preprocessing function --.
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 – 20 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.
In regard to claim 1, line 7 recites, “the correlation coefficient” which lacks antecedent basis. Additionally, lines 14 – 18 recite, “the result”, “the operation or transformation for a given frequency”, “the signal frequency”, “the time variable”, “the mathematical constant”, “the input signal”, and “the interval”, which all lack antecedent basis.
Examiner also notes that line 12 recites, “the forward backward Fourier transform (FBFT) uses the equation…”, but “uses the equation” does not properly define the relationship between the FBFT and the equation as the FBFT is a mathematical concept that is defined by or calculated using the equation provided but is not configured to “use” the equation.
Further, the preamble of claim 1 recites, “a model for brain disease detection,” but does not positively claim details of detecting a brain disease based on the “forward backward Fourier transform (FBFT)”, making the function or outcome of the model unclear. Claims 2 – 9 are rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 1.
In regard to claim 2, line 1 refers to “the system of claim 1,” but claim 1 is directed towards “a model”, making the metes and bounds of the claim limitations unclear. Claims 3 – 9 are rejected under the same premise as claim 2 above.
Additionally, claim 2, lines 4 – 5 recite “the total number of samples”, “the mean”, and “the samples of the two EEG channels”, which all lack antecedent basis. Claims 3 – 4 are rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 2.
In regard to claim 5, not all of the variables presented in the DFT equation are defined, making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
In regard to claim 6, not all of the variables presented in the PS equation are defined, making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
In regard to claim 7, line 4 recites “the mother wavelet”, which lack antecedent basis.
In regard to claim 8, line 2 recites, “the Daubechies wavelet”, which lacks antecedent basis. Additionally, lines 2 – 3 recite, “wherein it is expressed by: …”. However, the use of “it” is ambiguous and should be amended to – wherein the DWT is expressed by: …” Further, not all of the variables presented in the DWT equation are defined, making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
In regard to claim 9, not all of the variables presented in the PFT equation are defined, making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
In regard to claim 10, line 7 recites “the correlation coefficient”, which lacks antecedent basis. Additionally, lines 11 – 15 recite, “the result”, “the operation or transformation for a given frequency”, “the signal frequency”, “the time variable”, “the mathematical constant”, “the input signal”, and “the interval”, which all lack antecedent basis.
Examiner also notes that line 9 recites, “the forward backward Fourier transform (FBFT) uses the equation…”, but “uses the equation” does not properly define the relationship between the FBFT and the equation as the FBFT is a mathematical concept that is defined by the equation provided but is not configured to “use” the equation.
Further, the preamble of claim 10 recites, “a model for brain disease detection,” but does not positively claim details of elements utilized for detecting said brain disease. Claims 11 – 16 and 20 are rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 10.
In regard to claim 11, lines 4 – 5 recite “the total number of samples”, “the mean”, and “the samples of the two EEG samples”, which all lack antecedent basis. Claim 12 is rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 11.
Additionally, claim 11, line 1 recites, “the system of claim 10,” which is not consistent with claim 10 from which claim 11 depends where claim 1, line 1 recites, “A model for brain disease detection…” making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. Claims 12 – 16 and 20 are rejected under the same premise.
In regard to claim 14, not all of the variables presented in the DFT and PS equations are defined, making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. Claim 15 is rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 14.
In regard to claim 15, line 4 recites, “the mother wavelet”, and line 6 recites “the Daubechies wavelet”, which lack antecedent basis. Further, line 8 recites, “wherein the coefficients are obtained using the equation…” but it is unclear if “the coefficients” are the same claim element as the “wavelet coefficients” or a separate claim element, in which case “the coefficients” lack antecedent basis. Additionally, not all of the variables presented in the DWT equation are defined, making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
In regard to claim 16, the variables presented in the PFT equation are not defined, making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
In regard to claim 17, line 9 recites, “the correlation coefficient”, and lines 13 – 17 recite, “the result”, “the operation or transformation”, “the signal frequency”, “the time variable”, “the input signal”, and “the interval”, which lack antecedent basis.
Examiner also notes that line 9 recites, “the forward backward Fourier transform (FBFT) uses the equation…”, but “uses the equation” does not properly define the relationship between the FBFT and the equation as the FBFT is a mathematical concept that is defined by the equation provided but is not configured to “use” the equation.
Further, the preamble of claim 17 recites, “a method of detecting brain disease using a model for brain disease detection…” but lacks positively claimed details about what method steps are involved in detecting brain disease.
In regard to claim 19, line 1 reads “the system of claim 17”. However, claim 17 is directed towards a method, making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. Additionally, not all variables presented in the DFT, PS, and PFT equations are defined, making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
In regard to claim 20, line 4 recites “the mother wavelet”, and line 6 recites “the Daubechies wavelet”, which lack antecedent basis. Additionally, the DWT expression is not included in claim 20 and the claim does not take the proper form of a claim as claim 20 is not a complete sentence.
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 – 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because independent claims 1 and 10 are directed towards “a model for brain disease detection” which is considered a product with no tangible or physical form. Claims 2 – 9 are rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 1. Claims 11 – 16 and 20 are rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 10.
Claims 17 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 17 recites details of a method, which is within a statutory category of invention, which is directed towards “using a model for brain disease detection based on a forward backward Fourier transform (FBFT)” and “running the extracted signals through a forward backward Fourier transform (FBFT),” which falls into the category of an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because with regard to Revised step 2A, prong 1, an exception is present as noted above and with regard to Revised step 2A, prong 2, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Further, with regard to Revised step 2B, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application. In particular, claim 17 includes the limitations of “receiving input EEG signals”, “preprocessing the input EEG signal… to result in preprocessed signals”, and “running the preprocessed signals through a feature extraction function to result in extracted signals”, which are directed towards general processing steps and are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into practical application. The additional limitations of the FBFT equation of claim 17, the correlation coefficient equation of claim 18, and the DFT, PS, and PFT equations of claim 19 are further directed towards abstract ideas and mathematical algorithms and formulas and are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into practical application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The use of Fourier transform to process and analyze biological signals including EEG is well known, including in the disclosure of Martens (US 5299118 A) which discloses the use of a single forward Fourier transform of an input EEG time series to the frequency domain which is multiplied by a weighting factor and followed by consecutive inverse Fourier transforms of the complex spectrum back to the time domain (FIG. 7; Column 5, lines 27 – 45), Tromberg (US 20060184043 A1) who similarly discuses transforming a measured reflectance or transmission signal using a forward Fourier transform and then inverse transforming the spectrum to obtain a reconstructed object image (paragraph [0017]; FIG. 16), and the disclosure of Bliss (US 20220142478 A1) that additionally discusses the use of forward and backward Fourier transforms (paragraph [0071]) to analyze radar cardiography signals (FIG. 1A) using Equation 6 (paragraph [0071]), but no combination of the art suggests or discloses the forward backward Fourier transform defined by the equation of independent claims 1, 10, and 17 of Applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIENNA CHRISTINE PYLE whose telephone number is (703)756-5798. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 5:30 pm M - T; Off first Fridays; 8 am - 4 pm second Fridays.
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, Charles Marmor, II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/ERIC F WINAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/S.C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
