DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4 are hereby the present claims under consideration.
Examiner’s note: all references to Applicant’s specification are made using the paragraph numbers assigned in the US Publication of the present application US 20250204864 A1.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a waveform information acquisition unit configured to acquire brain waves and pulse waves;
a filtering unit configured to filter the acquired brain waves and pulse waves in at least one predetermined frequency band;
an instantaneous value calculation unit configured to calculate instantaneous values including an instantaneous logarithmic amplitude corresponding to a logarithm of an amplitude term of a complex waveform equation and an instantaneous frequency corresponding to a time differential value of a phase term of the complex waveform equation;
a physiological state estimation unit configured to estimate a physiological state from the feature amounts of the instantaneous values that have been extracted.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In particular, the limitations are interpreted as follows:
a waveform information acquisition unit configured to acquire brain waves and pulse waves is described in paragraphs 0045-0048 which recites that the pulse wave sensor may be a photoplethysmogram or a piezoelectric device. The brain wave measurement device is described as a sensor placed onto a scalp of a subject’s head. Thus the specification describes a particular structure for the sensing of pulse waves but fails to describe a particular structure for sensing brainwaves. Additionally, the specification does not describe a particular structure for sensing brain waves and pulse waves. The specification does not provide sufficient support for 112(f) interpretation of this element.
a filtering unit configured to filter the acquired brain waves and pulse waves in at least one predetermined frequency band. Paragraphs 0053-0064 describe that the recorded data is filtered into a variety of different frequency bands and sets forth the metes and bounds of each of the frequency bands into which the signals are filtered into. This limitation will be interpreted as filtering the received signals into the frequency bands set forth in paragraphs 0055-0064 and the equivalents thereof.
Examiner’s Note: It is noted that the specification appears to describe the filtering as the filtering being the segmentation of the signals into the recited frequency bands in paragraphs 0053-0054. The claims are being interpreted as “filter the acquired brain waves and pulse waves into at least one predetermined frequency band” as such an interpretation appears to be consistent with the specification. The specification does not appear recite any additional filtering steps.
an instantaneous value calculation unit configured to calculate instantaneous values including an instantaneous logarithmic amplitude corresponding to a logarithm of an amplitude term of a complex waveform equation and an instantaneous frequency corresponding to a time differential value of a phase term of the complex waveform equation. The specification describes the process of calculating instantaneous values in paragraphs 0071-0075. The limitation will be interpreted as the equations and processes set forth in these paragraphs and their equivalents.
a physiological state estimation unit configured to estimate a physiological state from the feature amounts of the instantaneous values that have been extracted. This process is described in paragraphs 0093-0098 as being able to detect when the patient’s eyes are open or closed, estimate the state of the centers that are active in the brain, and the detection of abnormalities in different physiological state frequency bands. This limitation will be interpreted as the determinations of paragraphs 0093-0098 and the equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
It is noted that the limitations of “a transformation unit”, “a distribution calculation unit”, and “an extraction unit” are each not being interpreted under 112(f) because each of these limitations recite all of the steps required to carry out their respective functions.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 lines 4-5 it appears that “brain waves and pulse waves in at least one” should read “brain waves and pulse waves into at least one”
Claim 1 lines 4 and 6 it appears that “pulse waves” should read “the pulse waves”
Claim 2 lines 2-3 it appears that “wherein η of the parameter is 3” should read “wherein the parameter η is 3”
Claim 3 lines 3-4 it appears that “brain waves and pulse waves in at least one” should read “brain waves and pulse waves into at least one”
Claim 3 lines 3 and 5 it appears that “pulse waves” should read “the pulse waves”
Claim 4 lines 4-5 it appears that “brain waves and pulse waves in at least one” should read “brain waves and pulse waves into at least one”
Claim 4 lines 4 and 6 it appears that “pulse waves” should read “the pulse waves”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-4 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.
Claim 1 the limitation “a waveform information acquisition unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As described in the above presented claim interpretation section, the specification fails to describe the particular structure for acquiring both brain and pulse waves. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 recites “an instantaneous value calculation unit configured to calculate instantaneous values including an instantaneous logarithmic amplitude corresponding to a logarithm of an amplitude term of a complex waveform equation obtained by performing Hilbert transformation and an instantaneous frequency corresponding to a time differential value of a phase term of the complex waveform equation” but it is unclear if this step is being carried out on the Hilbert transformed brain and pulse wave values or on a separate dataset. In particular, the claim recites “obtained by performing Hilbert transformation” but this limitation does not reference the values that previously underwent such a transformation. This limitation instead appears to be referring to requirements of performing the recited value calculation. The step does not set forth which values are input into the instantaneous calculation unit. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation is interpreted as the step being carried out using the Hilbert transformed brain and pulse wave values from the previous step. This interpretation and rejection are similarly applied to the similar limitations of claim 3 and 4.
Claim 2 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 the limitation “a waveform information acquisition unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As described in the above presented claim interpretation section, the specification fails to describe the particular structure for acquiring both brain and pulse waves. Therefore, the claim lacks sufficient written description and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 each substantially recite “estimate a physiological state from the feature amounts of the instantaneous values that have been extracted” however the scope of this limitation is not considered to be supported by the specification. In particular, the limitation recites determining “a physiological state” from the feature amounts. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “physiological state” is considered to include any and all states related to the condition or functioning of the patient’s body. Thus, the determination of a physiological state is considered to be directed towards a large genus of possible state determinations such as determining Alzheimer’s, dementia, if the user has a fever, if the user has contracted a particular disease or infection, and a wide range of other “states”. The specification is not considered to provide a sufficient number of species examples to support the claimed genus. In particular, paragraphs 0093-0098 describe how the feature data may be used to determine if the user’s eyes are open or closed, estimate the active centers of the brain, and detect an abnormality in a physiological state that is characteristic of the various frequency bands. These species examples are not considered to be a representative number of species for the determination of a physiological state. Specifically, paragraphs 0097-0098 which are drawn towards the detection of an abnormality in a physiological state that is characteristic of the various frequency bands is considered to support detection of an abnormality related to the particular characteristics associated with the different frequency bands such as is illustrated in Figs. 25-26 but such a detection of an abnormality is not considered equivalent to the determination of a physiological state. For example, an abnormality in k=3 LF (Blood pressure) may indicate that the user’s blood pressure is abnormal but the determination is not described such that the abnormality is associated with a given physiological state such as hyper or hypo tension, elevated or reduced heart rate, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, or any other form of cardiac ailment which may be considered a “physiological state”. The described determination merely indicates an abnormality, not an output of a specific physiological state. Thus, the specification is not considered to support the claimed genus because the species examples provided are not a representative number of species of the genus.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-4 are directed to a method of processing brain wave and pulse wave signals using a computational algorithm, which is an abstract idea. Claims 1-4 do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons provided below which are in line with the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, p 74618, December 16, 2014), the July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 146, p. 45429, July 30, 2015), the May 2016 Subject Matter Eligibility Update (Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 88, p. 27381, May 6, 2016), and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, page 50, January 7, 2019) and the 2024 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol 89, No. 137, page 58128, July 17, 2024).
The analysis of claim 1 is as follows:
Step 1: Claim 1 is drawn to a machine.
Step 2A – Prong One: Claim 1 recites an abstract idea. In particular, claim 1 recites the following limitations:
[A1] filter the acquired brain waves and pulse waves in at least one predetermined frequency band
[B1] perform Hilbert transformation on the brain waves and pulse waves filtered in the frequency band
[C1] calculate instantaneous values including an instantaneous logarithmic amplitude corresponding to a logarithm of an amplitude term of a complex waveform equation obtained by performing Hilbert transformation and an instantaneous frequency corresponding to a time differential value of a phase term of the complex waveform equation
[D1] calculate a probability density distribution of the instantaneous values and calculate feature amounts including a mean value and a variance value of the probability density distribution
[E1] extract the instantaneous values when |μe-μb|<(σe+σb)/η is met
[F1] estimate a physiological state from the feature amounts of the instantaneous values that have been extracted
These elements [A1]-[F1] of claim 1 are drawn to an abstract idea since they involve a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and using pen and paper.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Claim 1 recites the following limitations that are beyond the judicial exception:
[A2] a waveform information acquisition unit configured to acquire brain waves and pulse waves
[B2] a filtering unit
[C2] a transformation unit
[D2] an instantaneous value calculation unit
[E2] a distribution calculation unit
[F2] an extraction unit
[G2] a physiological state estimation unit
These elements [A2]-[G2] of claim 1 do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the element [A2] is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the elements [B2]-[G2] are merely an instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f). .
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. In particular, the recitation “a waveform information acquisition unit configured to acquire brain waves and pulse waves” is merely insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements or simply displaying the results of the algorithm that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements. In particular, the data acquirer is nothing more than a scalp electrode for recording EEG signals and a PPG device for recording pulse wave data. Such sensors are conventional as evidenced by:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0173510 A1 (Besio) discloses that EEG electrodes are conventional (paragraph 0013 of Besio);
U.S. Patent No. US 3993046 A (Fernandez) discloses that EEG signals are conventionally derived from electrodes (Col 1 lines 31-56 of Fernandez);
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0099711 A1 (Polley) discloses that conventional PPG sensors include the well-known pulse oximeter (paragraph 0005-0006 of Polley);
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2002/0029000 A1 (Ohsaki) discloses that pulse wave sensors are well-known (paragraph 0030 of Ohsaki).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20030036685 A1 (Goodman) discloses that PPG sensors are well-known (paragraph 0004 of Goodman).
Further, the elements [B2]-[G2] do not qualify as significantly more because this limitation is simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)). In particular, the various “units” are considered to indicate that the associated steps are performed by a computer rather than requiring distinct physical elements to perform each function.
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and recite the same abstract idea as claim 1. Furthermore, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the algorithm).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations of each claim as an ordered combination in conjunction with the claims from which they depend (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Claims 3 and 4 recite the same abstract idea as claim 1 and are rejected on the same basis as claim 1. Additionally, claims 3 and 4 do not recite any additional elements not already addressed in the above rejection of claim 1. In particular the non-transitory computer readable medium and computer of claim 4 are mere recitations to implement the abstract idea onto a computer which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself as described above.
Prior Art
In regards to claim 1, none of the prior art of record is considered to teach or reasonably suggest “an instantaneous value calculation unit configured to calculate instantaneous values including an instantaneous logarithmic amplitude corresponding to a logarithm of an amplitude term of a complex waveform equation obtained by performing Hilbert transformation and an instantaneous frequency corresponding to a time differential value of a phase term of the complex waveform equation; a distribution calculation unit configured to calculate a probability density distribution of the instantaneous values and calculate feature amounts including a mean value and a variance value of the probability density distribution; an extraction unit configured to extract the instantaneous values when |μe-μb|<(σe+σb)/η is met, where a mean value of the instantaneous frequency of the brain waves in the predetermined frequency band is denoted by μe, a variance value of the instantaneous frequency of the brain waves in the predetermined frequency band is denoted by σe, a mean value of the instantaneous frequency of the pulse waves in the predetermined frequency band is denoted by μb, a variance value of the instantaneous frequency of the pulse waves in the predetermined frequency band is denoted by σb, and a parameter of an integer equal to or greater than 3 is denoted by η” in combination with the other claimed elements and as interpreted in light of the above presented 35 USC 112(f) interpretation section.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and is thus not rejected over the prior art by virtue of its dependence.
Claims 3 and 4 recite similar limitations to claim 1 and are thus also not rejected over the prior art.
The closest prior art of record is considered to be:
US Patent Application Publication Number US 20220160288 A1 hereinafter Hayashi which teaches an autonomic nerve index calculation system for calculating an autonomic nerve index (Abstract). Hayashi teaches the measurement of pulse waves and the filtering of pulse waves into various frequency bands (Paragraphs 0098-0099). The waveform of each band is then subject to a Hilbert transformation (Paragraph 0100). The resultant data may then be compared to a normal Gaussian distribution to detect various parameters (Paragraphs 0112-0120).
US Patent Application Publication Number US 20220225920 A1 hereinafter Read teaches a system for processing biological signals. The system may comprise a sensing module comprising one or more sensors for detecting at least one of a biological parameter of a subject and one or more biological signals of the subject, and an additional sensor for detecting ambient conditions associated with a surrounding environment of the subject (Abstract). Read teaches a system with a plurality of sensors including EEG and heartbeat sensors (Paragraphs 0115-0116). The sensors data may undergo a Hilbert transform and may be detrended using a 1/f absolute power spectrum to determine statistical averages of the wave for each frequency range. The transformed signals may be used to determine various biomarkers (Paragraphs 0134-0136). The biomarkers may be tracked and compared to thresholds which may trigger or reduce stimulation of therapy (Paragraphs 0145-0148).
Neither Hayashi nor Read teach or reasonably suggest the extraction of brain wave and pulse wave features from instantaneous values that satisfy the equation of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW ERIC OGLES whose telephone number is (571)272-7313. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Jason Sims can be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00AM – 4:00PM at (571) 272 – 7540. 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.
/MATTHEW ERIC OGLES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights