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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “determining IMF” (line 11) appears that it should be “determining an IMF.”
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “least value” (line 11) appears that it should be “a least value.”
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “closest match” (line 12) appears that it should be “a closest match.”
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the sEMGr” (line 12) appears that it should be “the sEMGr signals.”
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “comprises of performing” (lines 2-3) appears that it should be “comprises performing.”
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “comprises of performing” (line 2) appears that it should be “comprises performing.”
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “determining IMF” (line 14) appears that it should be “determining an IMF.”
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “least value” (line 14) appears that it should be “a least value.”
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “closest match” (line 15) appears that it should be “a closest match.”
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the sEMGr” (lines 15-16) appears that it should be “the sEMGr signals.”
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “determining IMF” (line 12) appears that it should be “determining an IMF.”
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “least value” (line 12) appears that it should be “a least value.”
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “closest match” (line 13) appears that it should be “a closest match.”
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the sEMGr” (line 13) appears that it should be “the sEMGr signals.”
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “comprises of performing” (line 3) appears that it should be “comprises performing.”
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “comprises of performing” (line 3) appears that it should be “comprises performing.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/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.
For claim 1, the claim term “the sEMGe signal” (line 18) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this as “a sEMGe signal of the plurality of sEMGe signals.”
For claim 3, the claim term “the square wave” lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 6, the claim term “the sEMGe signal” (line 22) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this as “a sEMGe signal of the plurality of sEMGe signals.”
For claim 8, the claim term “the square wave” (line 9) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 11, the claim term “the sEMGe signal” (line 18) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this as “a sEMGe signal of the plurality of sEMGe signals.”
For claim 8, the claim term “the square wave” (line 9) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
Dependent claim(s) 2-5, 7-10, and 12-15 fail to cure the ambiguity of independent claim(s) 1, 6, and 11, thus claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 1 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 1 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “receiving … a plurality of raw sEMG signals (sEMGr) of a subject, as input,” “preprocessing … the plurality of sEMGr signals to obtain an sEMG envelope,” “performing … signal elevation on the sEMG envelope to obtain a conditioned signal, by: decomposing the sEMG envelope into a plurality of Intrinsic Mode Functions (IMF); determining IMF having a) least value of noise, and b) a total power range with closest match with the sEMGr, from among the plurality of IMFs, as a candidate IMF; and elevating the sEMG envelope by multiplying the sEMG envelope with the determined candidate IMF, to generate a plurality of sEMGe signals for a plurality of channels,” “determining … onset and offset regions in the sEMGe signal from each of the plurality of channels, by performing segmentation of the sEMGe signal from each of the plurality of channels,” and “post-processing … the sEMGe signals from the plurality of channels, to generate a combined sEMGe signal, wherein the combined sEMGe signal represents a muscle potential activity of the subject.” This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. That is, there appears to be no tangible improvement in a technology, effect of a particular treatment or prophylaxis, a particular machine or manufacture that is integrated, or transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing as a result of this claimed subject matter. As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are a hardware processor. However, these elements are not “significantly more” because they are well-known, routine, and/or conventional as evidenced by Alice and Bilski. Therefore, these elements do not add significantly more and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 1 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Independent claims 6 and 11 fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter for similar, if not the exact same, reasoning as that of independent claim 1. Dependent claim(s) 2-5, 7-10, and 12-15 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim(s) 1, 6, and 11 by merely reciting additional abstract ideas and/or further limitations on abstract ideas already recited. Thus, claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
“Empirical mode decomposition: a method to reduce low frequency interferences from surface electroenterogram,” by Ye et al. (hereinafter “Ye”) disclose a processor implemented method (Abstract), comprising: receiving, via one or more hardware processors, a plurality of raw sEMG signals (sEMGr) of a subject, as input (section entitled “1.2 Surface recording”); preprocessing, via the one or more hardware processors, the plurality of sEMGr signals to obtain an sEMG envelope (section entitled “2.3 Application of EMG algorithm”); performing, via the one or more hardware processors, signal elevation on the sEMG envelope to obtain a conditioned signal (Examiner’s Note: made up of the elements it is defined by in the claim), by: decomposing the sEMG envelope into a plurality of Intrinsic Mode Functions (IMF) (section entitled “1.3 Empirical mode decomposition (EMG)”); determining IMF having a) least value of noise, and b) a total power range with closest match with the sEMGr, from among the plurality of IMFs, as a candidate IMF (section entitled “3 Results”).
However, the prior art of record does not disclose and would not have rendered obvious the ordered combination of elements recited in the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PT.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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 L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights