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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 23 June 2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the box identifying that a full translation into the English language is checked for each foreign patent document and the non-patent literature document, but non-patent literature document cite no. 1 is not fully translated into the English language. In particular, pg. 122-128 are not translated into the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the amended abstract filed 25 September 2025 includes multiple grammatical errors. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims are inconsistently formatted. Claim 1 ends each limitation with a semi-colon while claim 2 ends each limitation with a comma. Uniformity is recommended.
Claim 1 is missing the term “are” between “wherein the blood pressure-heart rate acquisition device and the cortisol acquisition device” and “configured to acquire signals”.
Claim 1 recites the initialism “EEG”. The first instance of an abbreviation, acronym, or initialism should be accompanied by the fully written term.
Dependent claim 2 inherits the deficiencies of its parent claim, and is thus objected to under the same rationale.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 112(b) not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 2 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear how emotional stimulation pictures are “used for receiving emotional feedback results of the subject”. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that emotional stimulation pictures are only presented and used for stimulating not receiving. The disclosure further evidences this. See, for example, at least para. 4, 12, 16, 17, 41, 56, and 57. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. Dependent claim 2 inherits the deficiencies of its parent claim, and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 1, it is unclear which limitations are sub-limitations of “a biosensor acquisition device” and which are their own limitations. In addition to multiple limitations not beginning on their own line as identified above, all of the limitations following “subjected to data preprocessing comprising:” are indented the same. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protections sought. Limitations that are sub-limitations should be further indented to clearly identify them as sub-limitations. Dependent claim 2 inherits the deficiencies of its parent claim, and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 112(a) not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 2 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.
Regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “emotional stimulation pictures… used for receiving emotional feedback results of the subject” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. 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. In particular, the disclosure is silent what the emotional stimulation and feedback module is as well as silent regarding how it performs it functions. See, for example, at least para. 4, 12, 16, 17, 41, 56, and 57 of the specification which clearly identify that emotional stimulation pictures are used for stimulating the subject, not receiving emotional feedback results of the subject. In particular, an insufficiently disclosed “emotional stimulation and feedback device” is explicitly recited in several of these paragraphs to be “used for receiving emotional feedback results of the subject”, not the pictures. Dependent claim 2 inherits the deficiencies of its parent claim, and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 101 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 2 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 including additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
STEP 1
The instant claims are directed to a product which falls under the four statutory categories (STEP 1: YES).
STEP 2A, PRONG 1
Independent claim 1 recites:
An emotional impact analysis system based on carbon dioxide exposure, comprising:
a closed experimental space;
a high-pressure gas cylinder filled with pure carbon dioxide and having a gas outlet disposed within the closed experimental space;
a carbon dioxide analyzer;
wherein the high-pressure gas cylinder and the carbon dioxide analyzer are both arranged in the closed experimental space and are configured to provide a plurality of preset carbon dioxide environments with different carbon dioxide concentrations in the closed experimental space;
emotional stimulation pictures presented to the subject in the closed experimental space and used for receiving emotional feedback results of the subject;
wherein the emotional stimulation pictures comprising negative pictures and positive pictures in equal number, and all the emotional stimulation pictures are randomly presented to the subject;
wherein the emotional feedback results of the subject comprise a judgment by the subject indicating whether a presented picture makes the subject feel happy or not, and a feedback time of the subject;
a biosensor acquisition device comprising a blood pressure-heart rate acquisition device, a cortisol acquisition device and an electroencephalogram acquisition device, the biosensor acquisition device disposed within the closed experimental space and acquiring biological signals from the subject;
wherein the blood pressure-heart rate acquisition device and the cortisol acquisition device [are] configured acquire signals before and after presentation of the emotional stimulation pictures;
wherein the EEG acquisition device is further configured to perform data preprocessing on the EEG signals, the preprocessing comprising:
removing unnecessary electrode data, including vertical electrooculogram (VEOG) and horizontal electrooculogram (HEOG);
applying a Butterworth band-pass filter with a frequency range of 0.5-40 Hz;
using independent component analysis (ICA) to remove artifacts caused by eyeball movement and blinking; and
the carbon dioxide analyzer is further configured to monitor the carbon dioxide environments in the closed experimental space.
All of the foregoing underlined elements amount to the abstract idea grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity because they amount to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) by collecting information, analyzing the information, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis. Additionally, the steps identified above are interpreted as a series of steps that could reasonably be performed by mental processes with the aid of pen and paper because the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind (including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) - A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process.
The dependent claim amounts to merely further defining the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 1: YES).
STEP 2A, PRONG 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d). The elements of the claim(s) above that are not underlined constitute additional elements.
The following additional elements, both individually and as a whole, merely generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use: a closed experimental space (claim 1), a high-pressure gas cylinder filled with pure carbon dioxide and having a gas outlet (claim 1); a carbon dioxide analyzer (claim 1); emotional stimulation pictures (claim 1), a biosensor acquisition device comprising a blood-pressure heart rate acquisition device (claim 1); a cortisol acquisition device (claim 1); an electroencephalogram acquisition device (claim 1); wherein the gas outlet, the carbon dioxide analyzer, and all of the acquisition devices are arranged in the closed experimental space (claim 1),. Although the claims recite the components, identified above, these elements are recited at a high level of generality in a conventional arrangement for performing their basic functions (i.e., presenting stimuli, collecting, processing, outputting data). This is evidenced in Fig. 1 which illustrates the components as a collection of non-descript black boxes. Additionally, the specification identifies that the apparatus is not comprised of a particular machine nor consists of a particular arrangement. See, for example, at least para. 38-44. Therefore, the process does not require the use of a particular machine, nor does it result in the transformation of an article. It is further noted that, contrary to assertions made in the specification, the use of carbon dioxide to study effects on emotion and the human body is old and well-known1. The claims also do not involve an improvement in a computer or other technology as the claims are focused on collecting data, analyzing data, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis. In other words, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to implementation in a computer environment. This is further evidenced in the specification which recites the mere use of E-Prime software which amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to implementation in a computer environment because E-Prime software is a commonly used suite of software for building experiments for behavioral research. Similarly, claim limitations regarding preprocessing are merely describing conventional data processing techniques commonly used to prepare data collected from sensors for analysis. This also evidences that the claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of a computer system. The carbon dioxide analyzer and biosensor acquisition device comprising a blood pressure-heart rate acquisition device, a cortisol acquisition device and an electroencephalogram acquisition device, as claimed and organized, merely add insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea). Similarly, the high pressure gas cylinder filled with pure carbon dioxide to provide preset carbon dioxide environments in the closed experimental space and the emotional stimulation and feedback module, as claimed and organized, merely add insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere pre-solution stimulating and extrasolution data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea). It is further noted that such devices and arrangements are ubiquitous to stress/anxiety/panic testing. Additionally, the claims do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition nor do they apply or use a judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, based on all of the considered factors, the additional elements, both individually and as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore are directed to the abstract idea. (STEP 2A, PRONG 2: NO).
STEP 2B
The independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.05. Consideration of these factors, in viewing the claimed invention as a whole, weighs against patentability. As identified in Prong 2 of Step 2A, above, the claimed invention does not require the use of a particular machine, nor does it result in the transformation of an article. The claims do not involve an improvement in a computer or other technology. This is at least evidenced by the manner in which this is disclosed that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 USC 112(a) as identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above. Thus, the judicial exception is not implemented with, or used in, a particular machine or manufacture. Furthermore, this also evidences that the components are an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. The lack of improvement to the computer or other technology is also evidenced by the lack of incorporation of specific rules which enable the automation of a computer-implemented task that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans. None of the recited hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond, at best, generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Viewed both individually and as a whole, any possible additional claim element does not provide meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of itself (STEP 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC 101 because they are directed to judicial exceptions (abstract ideas), and the claims as a whole do not integrate the exceptions into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exceptions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snow2 in view of Simon (US 2016/0022167), Kuoppa3, Richard4, and D’Arcy et al. (US 2021/0196182, hereinafter referred to as D’Arcy).
Regarding claim 1, Snow teaches an emotional impact analysis system based on carbon dioxide exposure, comprising:
a closed experimental space (Snow, pg. 245, 2.2 Study room and preparation, “A key motivation for the study was to replicate realistic office conditions, therefore a functional, naturally ventilated office was chosen for the study rather than a laboratory. The office had dimensions 4.0m by 3.4m (floor area) by 3.1m (high), and contained the carpet and furniture of an operational office (Fig. 1). The office was on the fourth floor of a university building in the south of England. Of the two windows on the north and west corner of the room, only the western window (1.7m high by 0.4m wide) could be opened and is visible behind the participant in Fig. 1. The CO2 cylinder is visible in front of the openable window and the numbered arrows indicate the location of the three CO2 loggers (Fig. 1). The windows were closed while participants were in the room, with ventilation provided through background infiltration.”);
a high-pressure gas cylinder filled with pure carbon dioxide and having a gas outlet disposed within the closed experimental space (Snow, pg. 245, 2.2 Study room and preparation, “The CO2 cylinder is visible in front of the openable window”. The gas outlet is visible on the CO2 cylinder.);
a carbon dioxide analyzer (Snow, pg. 245, 2.2 Study room and preparation, “the numbered arrows indication the location of the three CO2 loggers (Fig. 1));
wherein the high-pressure gas cylinder and the carbon dioxide analyzer are both arranged in the closed experimental space and are configured to provide a plurality of preset carbon dioxide environments with different carbon dioxide concentrations in the closed experimental space (Snow, pg. 245, 2.2 Study room and preparation, “The CO2 cylinder is visible in front of the openable window and the numbered arrows indication the location of the three CO2 loggers (Fig. 1)… The CO2 concentration in the room was prepared 15–20 min prior to the beginning of the session (Groups 1 and 3) or in the 15-min break between the normal and high CO2 conditions (Groups 2 and 4) while the participant was absent. For normal CO2 conditions, the measured concentration was around 700 ppm at the beginning of the experiment. The chosen target for high CO2 concentration was 2700 ppm, well above guidelines for CO2 concentrations in offices (1200 ppm [31]) and classrooms (1500 ppm [6]), but not uncommon in occupied buildings due to poor ventilation when windows and doors are closed [5,32]. It is also comparable with other studies assessing the human performance effects of indoor CO2 concentration, e.g. 2260 ppm [12] 2500 ppm [7] or 3000 ppm [1,2,9]. Given the disagreement in the literature concerning the effect of pure CO2 on human performance, the study sought to test the effects of additional pure CO2 injected into a room. The mean CO2 concentration recorded from the first two minutes of all high CO2 sessions was 2680 ppm (SD: 130 ppm), made up of 1960 ppm (SD: 160 ppm) ultrapure CO2 (> 99.99% purity), injected from a cylinder, with the remainder either atmospheric, or generated metabolically by the participant and researcher. A pedestal fan was used prior to the experiment to achieve rapid mixing, as per [33]. CO2 rose gradually by 150–270 ppm during both normal and high CO2 exposures owing to the respiration of the researcher and participant.”);
a biosensor acquisition device comprising a heart rate acquisition device, and an electroencephalogram acquisition device, the biosensor acquisition device disposed within the closed experimental space and used for acquiring biological signals from the subject (Snow, pg. 246-247, 2.4 Measurement describe this. See also at least Table 2.);
wherein the heart rate acquisition device configured to acquires before and after (Snow, pg. 246-247, 2.4 Measurement describe this. See also at least Table 2.);
the electroencephalogram acquisition device configured to acquire EEG signals from the subject (Snow, pg. 246-247, 2.4 Measurement describe this. See also at least Table 2.);
wherein the EEG acquisition device is further configured to perform data preprocessing on the EEG signals, the preprocessing comprising:
removing unnecessary electrode data (Snow, pg. 247, “The first used the artefact rejection algorithm WPT-EMD [39,40], which uses a sample of minimum variance EEG taken from the two minute period of closed eyes (Session 1.1 or 2.1). The second stage of artefact rejection involved an amplitude threshold cut-off of ±100 μV, replacing outlying data with a 10-s moving median around the extreme value.”
applying a Butterworth band-pass filter (Snow, pg. 247, “EEG data were filtered using a Butterworth filter; low pass at 45 Hz and high pass at 0.15 Hz… Bandpower was extracted from pre-processed continuous EEG for delta (1-3Hz), theta (4-7Hz), alpha (8-13Hz), beta (14-35Hz), and gamma (>35 Hz) frequency bands over one second windows.”); and
the carbon dioxide analyzer is further configured to monitor the carbon dioxide environments in the closed experimental space (Snow, pg. 246, 2.4 Measurement describe this.).
Snow does not explicitly teach emotional stimulation pictures presented to the subject in the closed experimental space and used for receiving emotional feedback results of the subject; wherein the emotional stimulation pictures comprising negative pictures and positive pictures in equal number, and all the emotional stimulation pictures are randomly presented to the subject; wherein the emotional feedback results of the subject comprise a judgment by the subject indicating whether a presented picture makes the subject feel happy or not, and a feedback time of the subject;
the preprocessing comprising:
removing unnecessary electrode data, including vertical electrooculogram (VEOG) and horizontal electrooculogram (HEOG);
using independent component analysis (ICA) to remove artifacts caused by eyeball movement and blinking.
However, in an analogous art, Simon teaches emotional stimulation pictures presented to the subject in the closed experimental space and used for receiving emotional feedback results of the subject (Simon, para. 70-71, “A ‘sensory and cognitive challenge’ as used herein is intended to encompass any form of sensory stimuli (to the five senses), cognitive challenges (to the mind), and other challenges (such as a respiratory CO2 challenge… etc.). A ‘sensory and cognitive challenge state’ as used herein is intended to encompass any state of the brain and nervous system during the exposure to the sensory and cognitive challenge.” A “respiratory CO2 challenge” is a term of the art referring to the subject breathing air that has a specific concentration of CO2. This is generally established either by creating the environmental conditions in a closed space using a CO2 gas cylinder and sensor or administration via a respiratory mask. para. 110-112, Visual Stimulation describes this. );
wherein the emotional stimulation pictures comprising negative pictures and positive pictures in equal number, and all the emotional stimulation pictures are randomly presented to the subject (Simon, para. 110-112, Visual Stimulation describes this.);
wherein the emotional feedback results of the subject comprise a judgment by the subject indicating whether a presented picture makes the subject feel happy or not, and a feedback time of the subject (Simon, para. 110-112, Visual Stimulation describes this.);
removing unnecessary electrode data, including vertical electrooculogram VEOG and horizontal electrooculogram HEOG (Simon, para. 87, “then sent on for preprocessing to identify areas of artifact such as eye blink, drop outs, saturated rails, movement artifacts, EKG artifacts or other known artifacts at 324 as described in U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/773,428, filed Mar. 6, 2013. Once the artifacts have been identified and characterized, the regions of good data for each of the various data streams are passed through signal processing software to extract candidate features from each of the data streams available.” Vertical and horizontal electrooculogram data are at least eye blink and other known artifacts.);
remove artifacts caused by eyeball movement and blinking (Simon, para. 87, “then sent on for preprocessing to identify areas of artifact such as eye blink, drop outs, saturated rails, movement artifacts, EKG artifacts or other known artifacts at 324 as described in U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/773,428, filed Mar. 6, 2013. Once the artifacts have been identified and characterized, the regions of good data for each of the various data streams are passed through signal processing software to extract candidate features from each of the data streams available.”);
Snow also does not teach a biosensor acquisition device comprising a blood pressure-heart acquisition device and a cortisol acquisition device.
However, in an analogous art, Kuoppa teaches a biosensor acquisition device comprising a blood pressure-heart rate acquisition device, a cortisol acquisition device and an electroencephalogram acquisition device, (Kuoppa, 3 Psychophysiological responses to visual stimulation. Specifically, multiple identifications that “physiological measurements consisted of salivary cortisol concentration (marker of stress), [heart rate] and [blood pressure].” and an entire section on the use of electroencephalogram – 3.3.7.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Snow with that of Simon and the teachings of Kuppa because, as taught by Simon, “a ‘sensory and cognitive challenge’… is intended to encompass any form of sensory stimuli (to the five senses), cognitive challenges (to the mind), and other challenges (such as a respiratory CO2 challenge… etc.)” and a “‘sensory and cognitive challenge state’… is intended to encompass any state of the brain and nervous system during the exposure to the sensory and cognitive challenge.” See Simon at para. 70-71. Furthermore, the application of CO2 and the presentation of visual stimuli are commonly used stimuli to induce stress while heart rate, blood pressure, cortisol, and EEG readings are commonly measured to assess the effects of these known stimuli. See, for example, at least Kuoppa which discusses this.
Snow in view of Simon and Kuoppa does not explicitly teach adopting Butterworth filter of 0.5-40 Hz.
However, Simon teaches “[b]y ‘spectral bands’ we mean without limitation the generally accepted definitions in the standard literature conventions such that the bands of the PSD are often separated into the Delta band (f<4 Hz), the Theta band ( 4<f<7 Hz), the Alpha band (8<f<12 Hz), the Beta band (12<f<30 Hz), and the Gamma band (30<f<100 Hz). The exact boundaries of these bands are subject to some interpretation and are not considered hard and fast to all practitioners in the field.” The claimed 0.5-40 Hz range is what the instant specification considers as the frequencies for the same bands. See at least para. 65 of the specification which recites “[t]his transformation allows to calculate the power spectrum of each frequency band of interest, including delta (0.5-4 Hz), theta ( 4-8 Hz), alpha (8-13 Hz), beta (14-27 Hz) and gamma (27-40 Hz).”
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the range to be 0.5-40 Hz because the range represents the frequency bands of interest (i.e., delta – gamma) taught by the prior art, the boundaries of which are subject to interpretation. It has been held that where the general conditions a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Snow in view of Simon and Kuoppa does not explicitly teach the use of independent component analysis (ICA).
In another analogous art, D’Arcy teaches removing unnecessary electrode data, comprising vertical electrooculogram VEOG and horizontal electrooculogram HEOG (D’Arcy, para. 56, “As noted previously, EEG electrode impedance may affect the quality of the EEG signal, and therefore, it may affect the ability to reliably extract ERD/ERS features from the EEG signal. As such, at step 330, impedance measurements are performed to verify whether the measured impedance values are outside of a threshold value or range. For example, for a particular set of EEG electrodes, impedance values below a certain threshold value are preferred. As such, measurements of impedance may be made and then compared against this threshold value. Impedance measurements can be requested for any EEG electrode position in a given array of electrodes. For example, the Fz, Cz, Pz and/or EOG electrode may be at position hEOG ( e.g. "horizontal EOG"-EOG electrode placed beside the subject's eye, near the temple) or vEOG (e.g. "vertical EOG"-EOG electrode placed above the subject's eye).”);
applying a Butterworth band-pass filter (D’Arcy, para. 65, “In some implementations the frequency band of interest can range between 1 Hz to 45 Hz. In other implementations, the ranges are narrower.” Para. 73, “the bandpass filter can be implemented using a minimum passband ripple filter such as a Butterworth filter.”);
using independent component analysis (ICA) to remove artifacts caused by eyeball movement and blinking (D’Arcy, para. 74, “at step 415, EOG correction is applied by using EOG data from the EOG hardware to remove artifacts resulting from ocular activity detected during the scan such as eye movement and blinking. Specifically, EOG data can be used as a reference as data from the EEG channels is filtered using an adaptive filter. For example, a recursive least squares filter with a kernel size of 5 and Forgetting Factor of 0.9999 can be applied. FIG. 5A shows graphs of the EOG signal 512 indicating eye blink, the resulting "contaminated" EEG signal 510 (Fz channel) containing a corresponding blink artifact, and the corrected EEG signal 514 with a reduced artifact. In other embodiments, any other suitable filter can be used including those that incorporate independent component analysis techniques (ICA)”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Snow in view of Simon and Kuoppa to use the signal processing steps of D’Arcy to prepare the EEG signals for analysis because these steps are conventional, commonly used signal processing steps that are ubiquitous to EEG use for analysis in the time frequency domain.
Regarding claim 2, Snow in view of Simon, Kuoppa, and D’Arcy teaches the emotional impact analysis system based on carbon dioxide exposure according to claim 1, wherein the preset carbon dioxide environments comprise:
a carbon dioxide environment with a low level of carbon dioxide concentration (Snow, Table 3, Normal CO2 session), and
a carbon dioxide environment with a high level of carbon dioxide concentration (Snow, Table 3, High CO2 session),
wherein the low concentration of carbon dioxide is equal to the carbon dioxide concentration in a normal ventilated room (Snow, Table 3, Normal CO2 session), and
wherein the high concentration of carbon dioxide is a limit value for maximum occupational exposure in an 8-hour working day (Snow, Table 3, High CO2 session; 1.2 Effects of CO2 realistically achieved indoors).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the Abstract have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In pg. 6, Applicant asserts that the Abstract has been amended to overcome the objection.
Examiner is not persuaded. Grammatical and idiomatic errors remain.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In pg. 6, Applicant asserts that claim 1 has been amended to overcome the objection.
Examiner is not persuaded. While it is appreciated that amendments are made moving in the right direction towards overcoming the objection, the objection has been updated to address the amendments. Additionally, the amendments necessitate additional objections.
Applicant's arguments with respect to rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In pg. 6-8, Applicant asserts that amendments have been made to overcome the rejections.
Examiner is not persuaded. While the amendments do obviate most of the rejections. The formatting issues regarding which limitations are sub-limitations remain. Additionally, the amendments necessitate additional rejections.
Applicant's arguments with respect to rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In pg. 8, Applicant asserts that amendments have been made to overcome the rejections.
Examiner is not persuaded. The rejection has been updated to address the amendments to the claims.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In pg. 9, Applicant asserts that the claims are directed to a technical system comprised of specific physical components operating in a defined experimental environment to assess emotional responses under variable carbon dioxide exposure. The EEG signals undergo artifact rejection through removal of VEOG and HEOG signals, Butterworth bandpass filtering (0.5-40 Hz), artifact removal using ICA that is a well-established but non-trivial computational method.
Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant admits that the mere use of the biosensor acquisition device and the pre-processing and processing steps of the biosensor data collected is well-established. This confirms that these steps describe conventional data processing techniques commonly used to prepare data collected from sensors for analysis and do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. This further evidences that the biosensor acquisition device merely adds insignificant extrasolution data gathering activity to the judicial exception. All of these elements, both individually and as a whole, are addressed by the rejection under Step 2A, Prong 2 which identifies that the system merely acts to generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These elements are recited at a high level of generality in a conventional arrangement for performing their basic functions (i.e., presenting stimuli, collecting, processing, outputting data). This is evidenced in Fig. 1 which illustrates the components as a collection of non-descript black boxes. Additionally, the specification identifies that the apparatus is not comprised of a particular machine nor consists of a particular arrangement. See, for example, at least para. 38-44 of the specification. Therefore, the process does not require the use of a particular machine, nor does it result in the transformation of an article. It is further noted that, contrary to assertions made in the specification, the use of carbon dioxide to study effects on emotion and the human body is old and well-known. The claims also do not involve an improvement in a computer or other technology as the claims are focused on collecting data, analyzing data, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis. In other words, generally linking the use of a judicial exception to implementation in a computer environment. Claim limitations regarding segmenting, baseline correction, processing, preprocessing, and outlier analysis are merely describing conventional data processing techniques commonly used to prepare data collected from sensors for analysis. This also evidences that the claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of a computer system. The carbon dioxide analyzer and biosensor acquisition device comprising a blood pressure-heart rate acquisition device, a cortisol acquisition device and an electroencephalogram acquisition device, as claimed and organized, merely add insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea). Similarly, the high pressure gas cylinder filled with pure carbon dioxide to provide preset carbon dioxide environments in the closed experimental space and the emotional stimulation and feedback device, as claimed and organized, merely add insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere presolution stimulating and extrasolution data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea). It is further noted that such devices and arrangements are ubiquitous to stress/anxiety/panic testing. Regardless, the rejection, under Step 2A, Prong 1, explicitly identifies what is reciting the judicial exception.
In pg. 10, Applicant asserts that the claimed invention discloses a novel, structured experimental system that examines emotional impact and physiological response under a range of carbon dioxide concentrations and implements a combination of gas exposure modulation, real-time emotional stimulus delivery, biosignal acquisition, and signal processing.
Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant's arguments regarding the use of carbon dioxide concentrations act only to further evidence that it's use is merely adding insignificant pre-solution stimulating to the judicial exception. Further, Applicant's asserted intended use of "examining emotional impact and physiological response under a range of carbon dioxide concentrations" is merely different wording for the same processes of conventional stress/anxiety/panic testing. The claims are directed to collecting information, analyzing the collected information, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis which is wholly directed to a judicial exception under the abstract idea groupings of a certain method of organizing human activity and mental processes. The system, stimulus delivery, biosignal acquisition, and signal processing merely act to generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
In pg. 11, Applicant asserts that the claims do not simply recite result-oriented functions, but rather the system integrates emotional stimulation and biosignal acquisition within a highly controlled experimental setup, and measures feedback synchronized with environmental exposure and EEG data capture. The collection of emotional feedback is thus not disembodied or mental, but a measurable, time-stamped interaction that is objectively recorded and processed. The use of ICA and filtering on EEG signals to eliminate noise and artifacts due to eye movements that further reinforce the claims are not directed to mere observation, but to meaningful, structured signal analysis with concrete application.
Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant's arguments merely provide further evidence that the steps are wholly encompassed in the judicial exception while the additional elements neither integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor add significantly more.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In pg. 11, Applicant asserts that the claims have been amended to overcome the prior art.
Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant is directed to the rejections which have been updated to address the amendments.
In pg. 12-14, Applicant asserts that Examiner has not provided or identified a coherent teaching or motivation in the prior art that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine these references in the specific manner required by the claims and then proceeds to attach each reference individually.
Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant's arguments amount to piecemeal analysis of the references and it has been held that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The rejections stand.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:30 MT.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (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.
/DANIEL LANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 Vickers et al. (2012). The 35% carbon dioxide test in stress and panic research: Overview of effects and integration of findings. Clinical Psychology Review, 32(3), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.12.004
2 Snow et al. (2019). Exploring the physiological, neurophysiological and cognitive performance effects of elevated carbon dioxide concentrations indoors. Building and Environment, 156, 243–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.04.010
3 P. Kuoppa, Methods to analyse psychophysiological reactions related to emotional visual stimulation., 2018, [online] Available: https://erepo.uef.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/19083/urn_isbn_978–952-61-2761-3.pdf?sequence=1.
4 Richard, Laurence, and Dominic Charbonneau. "An Introduction to E-Prime." Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology 5.2 (2009): 68-76.