Office Action 1: Non-Final Rejection (2023-04-25)
Rejection types: 101 - Patent-Eligible Subject Matter, 102 - Lack of Novelty

CLAIMS:
Amendments to the Claims

1\. (currently amended) A method performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit configured to generating an improved evoked electromyography SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.16 3.73 transmitting a stimuli signal (Sstimuii) using an output port of the anesthetizing monitoring unit , receiving an evoked electromyography, EMG, response signal (SResponse), having a duration (TResponse), in response to the transmitted stimuli signal (Sstimuii) using an input port of the anesthetizing monitoring unit , estimating a periodic noise waveform (SPeriodic), having the duration (TResponse), by using temporal segments of a noise signal (SNoise), SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.16 5.56 noise waveform from the response signal (SResponse).

2\. (currently amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein the step of estimating a periodic noise waveform further comprises:
splitting the noise signal (SNoise) into a number N of temporal segments (S1, S2, ..., SN), generating a periodic noise template (STemplate) by aggregating the N temporal segments (S1, S2, ..., SN), wherein the periodic noise waveform (SPeriodic), is estimated by subsequently repeating the periodic noise template (STemplate) N times.

3\. (original) The method according to claim 2, wherein the periodic noise template (STemplate) is generated by averaging discrete samples over the N temporal segments (S1, S2, ..., SN).
4\. (currently amended) The method according to oclaim 1, wherein the method further comprises determining an anesthetized patient state by determining a neuromuscular function value using properties of the SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.16 2.68

5\. (currently amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein the anesthetized patient state is a selection of any of "insufficient anesthetic level", "low anesthetic level", "sufficient anesthetic level", "normal breathing function", "capable of sustaining breathing" or "in need of ventilator".
6\. (currently amended) The method according to claim 4, SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.16 6.15 value/s (AResponse') and wherein the neuromuscular function value is determined by SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.16 6.39 additional amplitude value/s to a set of predetermined amplitude value/s thresholds, wherein the additional amplitude values are selected from amplitude value/s of the stimuli signal (Sstimuii) and historical amplitude value/s of the improved response signal SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.16 0.73

7\. (currently amended) The method according to claim 1, further comprising displaying the anesthetized patient state to a user of the anesthetizing monitoring unit .

8\. (currently amended) The method according to laim 2, wherein the temporal segments (Si, S2, ..., SN) have a duration (TPeriodic) proportional to the noise signal (SNoise).

9\. (original) The method according to claim 8, wherein the duration (TPeriodic) is selected using a strongest periodic noise component of the noise signal (SNoise).
10\. (currently amended) An anesthetizing monitoring unit configured to SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.16 5.99 anesthetizing monitoring unit comprising:
an input port , an output port , and
processing circuitry being configured to perform the method according to
\-laim 1.

11\. (currently amended) An anesthetizing monitoring system configured to determine an anesthetized patient state, the anesthetizing monitoring unit comprising:
an anesthetizing monitoring unit comprising an input port and an output port , stimulating electrodes electrically coupled to the output port and being configured to receive a stimuli signal (Sstimuii) from the output port and deliver the stimuli signal (Sstimuii) to the anesthetized patient , receiving electrodes electrically coupled to the input port and being configured to obtain an evoked electromyography, EMG, response signal (SResponse), in response to the stimuli signal (Sstimuii) and a noise signal (SNoise), from the anesthetized patient , the anesthetizing monitoring unit being configured to perform the method according to
 laim 1.

12\. (currently amended) A computer program is provided comprising computer-executable instructions for causing an anesthetizing monitoring unit , when the computer-executable instructions are executed on a processing unit comprised in the anesthetizing monitoring unit , to perform the method according \-laim 1.
13\. (original) A computer program product comprising a computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium having the computer program according to claim 12 embodied therein.

14\. (original) A carrier comprising the computer program according to claim 12, wherein the carrier is one of an electronic signal, optical signal, radio signal, or
computer readable storage medium.
2 3 4 5

OFFICE ACTION:
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/16/2020 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.  Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “configured to generating” should read “configured to generate” (line 1).  Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “estimating a periodic noise waveform” should read “estimating the periodic noise waveform” (line 1).  Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit configured to generating an improved evoked electromyography response signal (ΣResponse), the method comprising: transmitting a stimuli signal (SStimuli) using an output port of the anesthetizing monitoring unit, receiving an evoked electromyography, EMG, response signal (SResponse), having a duration (TResponse), in response to the transmitted stimuli signal (SStimuli) using an input port of the anesthetizing monitoring unit, estimating a periodic noise waveform (SPeriodic), having the duration (TResponse), by using temporal segments of a noise signal (SNoise), generating the improved response signal (ΣResponse) by subtracting the noise waveform from the response signal (SResponse), which is using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of generating an improved evoked electromyography response signal, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit” language, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
The limitation of transmitting a stimuli signal (SStimuli) using an output port of the anesthetizing monitoring unit is an insignificant extra-solution activity of using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of transmitting a stimuli signal, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance as merely an insignificant extra-solution activity of a transmitting data from the abstract mental process of generating an improved evoked electromyography response signal, recited at a high level of generality and/or in a well-understood, routine, and conventional way.
The limitation receiving an evoked electromyography, EMG, response signal (SResponse), having a duration (TResponse), in response to the transmitted stimuli signal (SStimuli) using an input port of the anesthetizing monitoring unit is an insignificant extra-solution activity of using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of receiving an evoked EMG response signal, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance as mere data gathering in order to generate an improved evoked electromyography response signal, recited at a high level of generality and/or in a well-understood, routine, and conventional way.
The limitation of estimating a periodic noise waveform (SPeriodic), having the duration (TResponse), by using temporal segments of a noise signal (SNoise), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by an anesthetizing monitoring unit”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by an anesthetizing monitoring unit” language, “estimating” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
The limitation of generating the improved response signal (ΣResponse) by subtracting the noise waveform from the response signal (SResponse), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by an anesthetizing monitoring unit”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by an anesthetizing monitoring unit” language, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
Claim 2 recites the method according to claim 1, wherein the step of estimating a periodic noise waveform further comprises: splitting the noise signal (SNoise) into a number N of temporal segments (S1, S2, ... , SN), generating a periodic noise template (STemplate) by aggregating the N temporal segments (S1, S2, ... , SN), wherein the periodic noise waveform (SPeriodic), is estimated by subsequently repeating the periodic noise template (STemplate) N times, which is using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of splitting the noise signal (SNoise) into a number N of temporal segments (S1, S2, ... , SN), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit” language, “splitting” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
The limitation of generating a periodic noise template (STemplate) by aggregating the N temporal segments (S1, S2, ... , SN), wherein the periodic noise waveform (SPeriodic), is estimated by subsequently repeating the periodic noise template (STemplate) N times, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit” language, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
Claim 3 recites the method according to claim 2, wherein the periodic noise template (STemplate) is generated by averaging discrete samples over the N temporal segments (S1, S2, … SN), which is using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of the periodic noise template (STemplate) is generated by averaging discrete samples over the N temporal segments (S1, S2, … SN), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit” language, “generated” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
Claim 4 recites the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises determining an anesthetized patient state by determining a neuromuscular function value using properties of the improved response signal (ΣResponse), which is using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of determining an anesthetized patient state by determining a neuromuscular function value using properties of the improved response signal (ΣResponse), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit” language, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
Claim 5 recites the method according claim 1, wherein the anesthetized patient state is a selection of any of insufficient anesthetic level, low anesthetic level, sufficient anesthetic level, normal breathing function, capable of sustaining breathing or in need of ventilator, which is using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of the anesthetized patient state is a selection of any of insufficient anesthetic level, low anesthetic level, sufficient anesthetic level, normal breathing function, capable of sustaining breathing or in need of ventilator, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit” language, “selection” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
Claim 6 recites the method according to claim 4, wherein the properties of the improved response signal (ΣResponse) include amplitude value/s (AResponse’) and wherein the neuromuscular function value is determined by comparing a quota of amplitude value/s of the improved response signal (ΣResponse) and additional amplitude value/s to a set of predetermined amplitude value/s thresholds, wherein the additional amplitude values are selected from amplitude value/s of the stimuli signal (SStimuli) and historical amplitude value/s of the improved response signal (ΣResponse), which is using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of the neuromuscular function value is determined by comparing a quota of amplitude value/s of the improved response signal (ΣResponse) and additional amplitude value/s to a set of predetermined amplitude value/s thresholds, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit” language, “determined” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
The limitation of the additional amplitude values are selected from amplitude value/s of the stimuli signal (SStimuli) and historical amplitude value/s of the improved response signal (ΣResponse), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit” language, “selected” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
Claim 7 recites the method according to claim 1, further comprising displaying the anesthetized patient state to a user of the anesthetizing monitoring unit, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity of using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of displaying the anesthetized patient state to a user of the anesthetizing monitoring unit, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance as merely an insignificant extra-solution activity a generic display of feedback from the abstract mental process of generating an improved evoked electromyography response signal, recited at a high level of generality and/or in a well-understood, routine, and conventional way.
Claim 8 recites the method according to claim 2, wherein the temporal segments (S1, S2, ... , SN) have a duration (TPeriodic) proportional to the noise signal (SNoise), which is an insignificant extra-solution activity of using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of the temporal segments (S1, S2, ... , SN) have a duration (TPeriodic) proportional to the noise signal (SNoise), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance as merely an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering from the abstract mental process of generating an improved evoked electromyography response signal, recited at a high level of generality and/or in a well-understood, routine, and conventional way.
Claim 9 recites the method according to claim 8, wherein the duration (TPeriodic) is selected using a strongest periodic noise component of the noise signal (SNoise), which is using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of the duration (TPeriodic) is selected using a strongest periodic noise component of the noise signal (SNoise), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit” language, “selected” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
Claim 10 recites an anesthetizing monitoring unit configured to generating an improved evoked electromyography response signal (ΣResponse), the anesthetizing monitoring unit comprising: an input port, an output port, and processing circuitry being configured to perform the method according to claim 1, which is using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of generating an improved evoked electromyography response signal (ΣResponse), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “the anesthetizing monitoring unit”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “the anesthetizing monitoring unit” language, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
Claim 11 recites an anesthetizing monitoring system configured to determine an anesthetized patient state, the anesthetizing monitoring unit comprising: an anesthetizing monitoring unit comprising an input port and an output port, stimulating electrodes electrically coupled to the output port and being configured to receive a stimuli signal (SStimuli) from the output port and deliver the stimuli signal (SStimuli) to the anesthetized patient, receiving electrodes electrically coupled to the input port and being configured to obtain an evoked electromyography, EMG, response signal (SResponse), in response to the stimuli signal (SStimuli) and a noise signal (SNoise), from the anesthetized patient, the anesthetizing monitoring unit being configured to perform the method according to claim 1, which is using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of determine an anesthetized patient state, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an anesthetizing monitoring system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “an anesthetizing monitoring system” language, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
The limitation of obtain an evoked electromyography, EMG, response signal (SResponse), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance as merely an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering, recited at a high level of generality and/or in a well-understood, routine, and conventional way, of the information needed to carry out the claimed determining an anesthetized patient state.
Claim 12 recites a computer program is provided comprising computer-executable instructions for causing an anesthetizing monitoring unit, when the computer-executable instructions are executed on a processing unit comprised in the anesthetizing monitoring unit, to perform the method according claim 1, which is using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of executed on a processing unit comprised in the anesthetizing monitoring unit, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an anesthetizing monitoring unit”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “an anesthetizing monitoring unit” language, “executed” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
Claim 13 recites a computer program product comprising a computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium having the computer program according to claim 12 embodied therein, which is using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of the computer-readable storage medium having the computer program according to claim 12 embodied therein, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computer program product”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer program product” language, “having” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
Claim 14 recites a carrier comprising the computer program according to claim 12, wherein the carrier is one of an electronic signal, optical signal, radio signal, or computer readable storage medium which is using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of the carrier is one of an electronic signal, optical signal, radio signal, or computer readable storage medium, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “electronic signal, optical signal, radio signal, or computer readable storage medium”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “electronic signal, optical signal, radio signal, or computer readable storage medium” language, “carrier” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20170245776 A1 (Kurtz et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Kurtz teaches a method performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit (110) ([0022] “apparatus”) configured to generating an improved evoked electromyography response signal (ΣResponse) ([0002] “The present application relates to an apparatus, system and method for detecting evoked responses to a stimulus (a stimulus-response signal).”) the method comprising: transmitting a stimuli signal (SStimuli) ([0022] “plurality of stimuli”) using an output port ([0030] “output device”) of the anesthetizing monitoring unit, receiving an evoked electromyography, EMG, response signal (SResponse) ([0022] “receive the noisy signal to the plurality of stimuli”), having a duration (TResponse), in response to the transmitted stimuli signal (SStimuli) using an input port ([0022] “input device”) of the anesthetizing monitoring unit, estimating a periodic noise waveform (SPeriodic) ([0008] “the noise is quasi-stationary”), having the duration (TResponse) ([0006] “stimulating the patient with multiple stimuli, obtaining multiple time-based data series”), by using temporal segments of a noise signal (SNoise), generating the improved response signal (ΣResponse) by subtracting the noise waveform from the response signal (SResponse) ([0059] “The final waveform or averaged response (sometimes called the “final response”), is the estimate of the synchronized evoked response, with reduced noise. It will be understood that the type of evoked response will generally be dependent on the stimulus and on the subject. For example, if a subject cannot hear an auditory stimulus, then there would not be an evoked response to the auditory stimulus.”; [0056] “reduce the negatively correlated noise from the resultant average”).
Regarding claim 2, Kurtz teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the step of estimating a periodic noise waveform further comprises: splitting the noise signal (SNoise) into a number N of temporal segments (S1, S2, ... , SN) ([0014] “divide the noisy signal into a plurality of responses to the plurality of stimuli”), generating a periodic noise template (STemplate) by aggregating the N temporal segments (S1, S2, ... , SN) ([0016] “estimate a statistic matrix for the plurality of responses”), wherein the periodic noise waveform (SPeriodic), is estimated by subsequently repeating the periodic noise template (STemplate) N times ([0017] “performing a multilevel discrete wavelet transform on individual responses in a loop for each scale of the multilevel discrete wavelet transform”).
Regarding claim 3, Kurtz teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the periodic noise template (STemplate) is generated by averaging discrete samples over the N temporal segments (S1, S2, … SN) ([0059] “The final waveform or averaged response (sometimes called the “final response”), is the estimate of the synchronized evoked response, with reduced noise. It will be understood that the type of evoked response will generally be dependent on the stimulus and on the subject. For example, if a subject cannot hear an auditory stimulus, then there would not be an evoked response to the auditory stimulus.”).
Regarding claim 4, Kurtz teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises determining an anesthetized patient state by determining a neuromuscular function value using properties of the improved response signal (ΣResponse) ([0134-0135] “an MMN response depends on the consciousness state of the subject, in the awake pre-op state, we expect there to be a significant MMN, while in the anesthesia state, we do not expect there to be an MMN present”).
Regarding claim 5, Kurtz teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the anesthetized patient state is a selection of any of insufficient anesthetic level, low anesthetic level, sufficient anesthetic level, normal breathing function, capable of sustaining breathing or in need of ventilator ([0135] “an MMN response depends on the consciousness state of the subject, in the awake pre-op state, we expect there to be a significant MMN, while in the anesthesia state, we do not expect there to be an MMN present.”).
Regarding claim 6, Kurtz teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein the properties of the improved response signal (ΣResponse) include amplitude value/s (AResponse’) ([0135] “peak amplitude”) and wherein the neuromuscular function value is determined by comparing a quota of amplitude value/s of the improved response signal (ΣResponse) and additional amplitude value/s to a set of predetermined amplitude value/s thresholds, wherein the additional amplitude values are selected from amplitude value/s of the stimuli signal (SStimuli) and historical amplitude value/s of the improved response signal (ΣResponse) ([0135] “An MMN response is determined to be present when the peak amplitude of the processed deviant response is statistically different than that of a standard response in the region of expected MMN response”).
Regarding claim 7, Kurtz teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising displaying the anesthetized patient state to a user of the anesthetizing monitoring unit ([0062] “The output module 145 may output data in various formats as are known in the art, including, for example, output to a display 150 for review by a user of the system.”).
Regarding claim 8, Kurtz teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the temporal segments (S1, S2, ... , SN) have a duration (TPeriodic) proportional to the noise signal (SNoise) ([0068] “by weighting data series or groups of data series in inverse proportion to their noise content”).
Regarding claim 9, Kurtz teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the duration (TPeriodic) is selected using a strongest periodic noise component of the noise signal (SNoise) ([0009] “In this case, the group is greater than 8 seconds in duration. The drawback of this technique is that noise in evoked potential measurements is, in general, not stationary over an 8 second duration, especially when the time series is contaminated with interference from the patient's EMG caused by muscle activity.”; The time period with the most noise is selected, indicative of muscle activity.).
Regarding claim 10, Kurtz teaches an anesthetizing monitoring unit configured to generating an improved evoked electromyography response signal (ΣResponse), the anesthetizing monitoring unit comprising: an input port ([0022] “input device”), an output port ([0030] “output device”), and processing circuitry ([0140] “The machine-readable medium can contain various sets of instructions, code sequences, configuration information, or other data, which, when executed, cause a processor to perform steps in a method according to an embodiment of the disclosure.”) being configured to perform the method according to claim 1 (see rejection above).
Regarding claim 11, Kurtz teaches an anesthetizing monitoring system configured to determine an anesthetized patient state, the anesthetizing monitoring unit ([0022] “an apparatus for detection of an evoked response signal in noise”) comprising: an anesthetizing monitoring unit comprising an input port ([0022] “input device”) and an output port ([0030] “output device”), stimulating electrodes electrically coupled to the output port and being configured to receive a stimuli signal (SStimuli) from the output port and deliver the stimuli signal (SStimuli) to the anesthetized patient ([0058] “A sensor or sensors 115, for example an electrode or electrodes, are provided to the subject to detect a noisy signal including a response to the stimulus, which is sent to an input module 120”), receiving electrodes electrically coupled to the input port and being configured to obtain an evoked electromyography, EMG, response signal (SResponse) ([0059] “electrodes receive continuous data, sometimes referred to as “noisy data” or “noisy signal”. For each stimulus, a synchronized evoked response within the subject's brain will be generated.”), in response to the stimuli signal (SStimuli) ([0058] “response to the stimulus”) and a noise signal (SNoise) ([0059] “noisy signal”), from the anesthetized patient, the anesthetizing monitoring unit being configured to perform the method according to claim 1 ([0059] “this evoked response will also be detected by the electrodes but is generally hidden in the noisy signal. Embodiments of the system, apparatus and method herein are intended to separate the evoked response, or stimulus-synchronized component, (sometimes referred to as a “response”) from the non-synchronized components (i.e. noise).”).
Regarding claim 12, Kurtz teaches a computer program is provided comprising computer-executable instructions for causing an anesthetizing monitoring unit, when the computer-executable instructions are executed on a processing unit comprised in the anesthetizing monitoring unit, to perform the method according claim 1 ([0140] “The machine-readable medium can contain various sets of instructions, code sequences, configuration information, or other data, which, when executed, cause a processor to perform steps in a method according to an embodiment of the disclosure.”).
Regarding claim 13, Kurtz teaches a computer program product comprising a computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium having the computer program according to claim 12 embodied therein ([0140] “Embodiments of the disclosure or portions thereof can be represented as a computer program product stored in a machine-readable medium (also referred to as a computer-readable medium, a processor-readable medium, or a computer usable medium having a computer-readable program code embodied therein).”).
Regarding claim 14, Kurtz teaches a carrier comprising the computer program according to claim 12, wherein the carrier is one of an electronic signal, optical signal, radio signal, or computer readable storage medium ([0140] “computer-readable medium”).
Conclusion

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: Remarks
Claims 1-6 and 8-16 are pending in this application upon entry of this
amendment, with claim 1 being an independent claim. The various parts of the Office Action (and other matters, if any) are discussed below under appropriate headings.
I.   CLAIM OBJECTIONS
The Examiner objects to claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of informalities. The claims have been amended to address the informalities. Withdrawal of the objection is respectfully requested.
II.  CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant asks the Examiner to reconsider and withdraw the rejection of the
claims based on 35 U.S.C. § 101. More particularly, the Examiner asserts nothing in the identified limitations preclude features as recited in previously presented independent claim 1 from being performed in the mind. While it is not conceded that the recited features found in the claims can be fairly characterized as mental processes, it is submitted that independent claim 1 has been amended to recite additional features that cannot be characterized as abstract. For instance, claim 1 (as amended) recites:
by subtracting
the noise waveform from the response signal (SResponse).
storing the improved response signal (
Res
p
onse) in a memory in the
anesthetizing monitorin
g
unit, and
presenting the improved response signal (
Res
p
onse) on a display in
the anesthetizing monitoring unit
Such features are representatively depicted in paragraphs [0051], [0072], and [0074] and FIG. 4 of the published application, reproduced below. As described in the current application, the anesthetizing monitoring unit 110 includes one or more transceivers 104 and processing circuitry 103 with the processor 102 and the memory 106. The processing circuitry 103 is communicatively coupled to the measurement
interface 105 that transmits the stimuli signal (Sstimuii) to the output port 112 of the anesthetizing monitoring unit 110. The anesthetizing monitoring unit 110 further includes a display (not shown in the figure) configured to receive and display the improved response signal (EResponse) from the processing circuitry 103.
Fig. 4
in a memory 106 of theanesthetizing monitoring unit 110 cannot be conceivably performed in the human mind. Moreover, presenting the improved response signal (EResponse) on the display of the anesthetizing monitoring unit 110 cannot conceivably be performed in the human mind. Accordingly, because the above-highlighted features of amended claim 1 cannot, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human's mind (even if aided with pen and
paper), the above-highlighted features of claim 1 cannot be fairly characterized as a mental process.
Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
III.  CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 U.S.C. § 102
Applicant asks the Examiner to reconsider and withdraw the rejection of the claims based on Kurtz et al., U.S. 20170245776 (Kurtz). Independent claim 1 is amended to clarify that the noise signal is gathered outside of when the stimuli signal is sent or the response signal is received:
transmitting a
single
stimuli signal (Sstimuii) using an output port of
the anesthetizing monitoring unit,
receiving
an
a single
evoked electromyography, EMG, response
signal (SResponse), having a duration (TResponse), in response to the
transmitted stimuli signal (Sstimuii) using an input port of the anesthetizing
monitoring unit,
estimating a periodic noise waveform (SPeriodic), having the duration
(TResponse), by using temporal segments of a noise signal (SNoise)
Such features are representatively depicted in FIGS. 2A and 2B of the published application, reproduced below. The stimuli signal (Sstimuli) comprises a single pulse, such as a pulse of a pulse wave or a pulse and a single evoked electromyography, EMG. The response signal (SResponse) is received by the anesthetizing monitoring unit 110 in response to the stimuli signal (Sstimuii).
The method further includes an adjacent time interval (TNoise) that excludes or does not overlap with the stimuli signal interval (Tstimuius) and/or the response signal interval (TResponse). The noise signal (SNoise) Is detected and/or obtained during the adjacent time interval (TNoise). The detected noise signal (SNoise) is then split into a number of temporal segments and the periodic noise template (STemplate) is generated by aggregating the temporal segments. A periodic noise waveform (SPeriodic) is estimated using the temporal segments of the detected noise signal (SNoise) and the improved
is generated by subtracting the periodic noise waveform(SPeriodic) from the response signal (SResponse).
Thus, the anesthetizing monitoring unit 110 has the advantage of adapting to time invariant noise, as a noise estimate may be generated for each stimuli/response. This is especially a problem as the response signal amplitude diminishes with the application of drugs. In one example, the periodic noise can appear as an interfering signal such that the current amplitude of the response signal appears as a current pulse response corrupted by varying or non-constant amplitude.
and/or properties of historical improved response signals (EResponse) to threshold values, e.g. predetermined and stored in memory or properties historical improved response signals received prior to the current or latest improved response signal (SResponse).
T
gt  Stimuli end
Fig. 2A
U
ponse
Fig. 2B
The method and device of Kurtz is configured differently. The method of Kurtz involves generating a plurality of stimuli, receiving a noisy signal related to evoked response to the plurality of stimuli, and dividing the noisy signal into a plurality of responses to the plurality of stimuli. A static matrix is estimated for the plurality of responses, shrink the static matrix, calculate weights based on an inverse of the shrunk statistic matrix, and applying the weights to the plurality of responses to construct a final response.
Because Kurtz involves sending out a plurality of stimuli and receiving a plurality of responses, Kurtz does not teach or suggest "transmitting a
sin
gl
e
stimuli signal (Sstimui) using an output port of the anesthetizing monitoring unit, receiving
an
a sin
qe
evoked electromyography, EMG, response signal (SResponse), having a duration (TResponse), in response to the transmitted stimuli signal (Sstimuli) using an input port of the anesthetizing monitoring unit, estimating a periodic noise waveform (SPeriodic), having the duration (TResponse), by using temporal segments of a noise signal (SNoise)."
In view of the above, Kurtz does not disclose or suggest the features as recited in amended independent claim 1. Accordingly, independent claim 1 is patentable over Kurtz, and the dependent claims are patentable for at least the same reasons.
IV.  NEW CLAIMS
Newly-added claims 15 and 16 depend from base independent claim 1, and are patentable for at least the reasons given above for the patentability of independent claim 1 as amended.
Additionally, Kurtz does teach or suggest the features of claim 15. Claim 15
includes the feature that "the threshold values are predetermined properties of historical improved response signals received at the anesthetizing monitoring unit prior to the response signal (SResponse) being received by the anesthetizing monitoring unit, wherein the threshold values are stored in the memory of the anesthetizing monitoring unit." The Examiner asserts that paragraph [0135] of Kurtz discloses the claim feature of thresholds, as recited in claim 6.
Paragraph [0135] of Kurtz describes a mismatch negativity (MMN) response that determined when the peak amplitude of a processed deviant response is statistically different than that of a standard response in the region of expected MMN, which is between 50 and 300 ms after onset of stimulus. As noted in Kurtz, as the MMN response depends on the consciousness state of the subject, in the awake pre-op state, there should be a significant MMN, while in the anesthesia state, there should not be an MMN present. Thus, there is no indication in Kurtz that the threshold values are based on properties of historical improved response signals. Accordingly, for at least the reasons above, Kurtz does not disclose or suggest the features as recited in new claim 15.
and the duration of the responsesignal (TResponse)." This feature is representatively depicted in FIGS. 2A and 2B of the current application, reproduced above. In contrast, as noted above, the method of Kurtz involves dividing the noisy signal into a set of individual responses to the plurality of stimuli. Thus, the noise signal in Kurtz is gathered during the stimuli signal interval.
Accordingly, for at least the reasons above, Kurtz does not disclose or suggest the features as recited in new claim 16.
V.   CONCLUSION

NEXT OFFICE ACTION: 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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed July 25th, 2023 has been filed. Claims 1-6 and 8-16 remain pending in the application, and claim 7 was cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the claim objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 19th, 2023. The 101 rejections were addressed, but were not fully persuasive and are recited in the 101 Rejections and Response to Arguments sections below. Applicant’s amendments to the claims necessitate new grounds of rejection, described in the Response to Arguments and 102 Rejections below.
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 1-6 and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit configured to generate an improved evoked electromyography response signal (ΣResponse), the method comprising: transmitting a single stimuli signal (SStimuli) using an output port of the anesthetizing monitoring unit, receiving a single evoked electromyography, EMG, response signal (SResponse), having a duration (TResponse), in response to the transmitted stimuli signal (SStimuli) using an input port of the anesthetizing monitoring unit, estimating a periodic noise waveform (SPeriodic), having the duration (TResponse), by using temporal segments of a noise signal (SNoise), generating the improved response signal (ΣResponse) by subtracting the noise waveform from the response signal (SResponse), storing the improved response signal (ΣResponse) in a memory in the anesthetizing monitoring unit, and presenting the improved response signal (ΣResponse) on a display in the anesthetizing monitoring unit, which is using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of generating an improved evoked electromyography response signal, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit” language, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
The limitation of transmitting a single stimuli signal (SStimuli) using an output port of the anesthetizing monitoring unit is an insignificant extra-solution activity of using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of transmitting a single stimuli signal, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance as merely an insignificant extra-solution activity of a transmitting data from the abstract mental process of generating an improved evoked electromyography response signal, recited at a high level of generality and/or in a well-understood, routine, and conventional way.
The limitation receiving a single evoked electromyography, EMG, response signal (SResponse), having a duration (TResponse), in response to the transmitted stimuli signal (SStimuli) using an input port of the anesthetizing monitoring unit is an insignificant extra-solution activity of using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of receiving a single evoked EMG response signal, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance as mere data gathering in order to generate an improved evoked electromyography response signal, recited at a high level of generality and/or in a well-understood, routine, and conventional way.
The limitation of estimating a periodic noise waveform (SPeriodic), having the duration (TResponse), by using temporal segments of a noise signal (SNoise), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by an anesthetizing monitoring unit”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by an anesthetizing monitoring unit” language, “estimating” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
The limitation of generating the improved response signal (ΣResponse) by subtracting the noise waveform from the response signal (SResponse), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by an anesthetizing monitoring unit”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by an anesthetizing monitoring unit” language, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
The limitation of storing the improved response signal (ΣResponse) in a memory in the anesthetizing monitoring unit, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance as merely an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering, recited at a high level of generality and/or in a well-understood, routine, and conventional way, of the information needed to carry out the claimed generating a response signal.
The limitation of presenting the improved response signal (ΣResponse) on a display in the anesthetizing monitoring unit, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance as merely an insignificant extra-solution activity of a generic display of feedback from the abstract mental process of generating a response signal, recited at a high level of generality and/or in a well-understood, routine, and conventional way.
Claim 2 recites the method according to claim 1, wherein the step of estimating a periodic noise waveform further comprises: splitting the noise signal (SNoise) into a number N of temporal segments (S1, S2, ... , SN), generating a periodic noise template (STemplate) by aggregating the N temporal segments (S1, S2, ... , SN), wherein the periodic noise waveform (SPeriodic), is estimated by subsequently repeating the periodic noise template (STemplate) N times, which is using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of splitting the noise signal (SNoise) into a number N of temporal segments (S1, S2, ... , SN), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit” language, “splitting” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
The limitation of generating a periodic noise template (STemplate) by aggregating the N temporal segments (S1, S2, ... , SN), wherein the periodic noise waveform (SPeriodic), is estimated by subsequently repeating the periodic noise template (STemplate) N times, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit” language, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
Claim 3 recites the method according to claim 2, wherein the periodic noise template (STemplate) is generated by averaging discrete samples over the N temporal segments (S1, S2, … SN), which is using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of the periodic noise template (STemplate) is generated by averaging discrete samples over the N temporal segments (S1, S2, … SN), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit” language, “generated” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
Claim 4 recites the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises determining an anesthetized patient state by determining a neuromuscular function value using properties of the improved response signal (ΣResponse), which is using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of determining an anesthetized patient state by determining a neuromuscular function value using properties of the improved response signal (ΣResponse), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit” language, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
Claim 5 recites the method according to claim 1, wherein the anesthetized patient state is a selection of any of insufficient anesthetic level, low anesthetic level, sufficient anesthetic level, normal breathing function, capable of sustaining breathing or in need of ventilator, which is using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of the anesthetized patient state is a selection of any of insufficient anesthetic level, low anesthetic level, sufficient anesthetic level, normal breathing function, capable of sustaining breathing or in need of ventilator, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit” language, “selection” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
Claim 6 recites the method according to claim 4, wherein the properties of the improved response signal (ΣResponse) include amplitude value/s (AResponse’) and wherein the neuromuscular function value is determined by comparing a quota of amplitude value/s of the improved response signal (ΣResponse) and additional amplitude value/s to a set of predetermined amplitude value/s thresholds, wherein the additional amplitude values are selected from amplitude value/s of the stimuli signal (SStimuli) and historical amplitude value/s of the improved response signal (ΣResponse), which is using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of the neuromuscular function value is determined by comparing a quota of amplitude value/s of the improved response signal (ΣResponse) and additional amplitude value/s to a set of predetermined amplitude value/s thresholds, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit” language, “determined” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
The limitation of the additional amplitude values are selected from amplitude value/s of the stimuli signal (SStimuli) and historical amplitude value/s of the improved response signal (ΣResponse), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit” language, “selected” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
Claim 8 recites the method according to claim 2, wherein the temporal segments (S1, S2, ... , SN) have a duration (TPeriodic) proportional to the noise signal (SNoise), which is an insignificant extra-solution activity of using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of the temporal segments (S1, S2, ... , SN) have a duration (TPeriodic) proportional to the noise signal (SNoise), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance as merely an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering from the abstract mental process of generating an improved evoked electromyography response signal, recited at a high level of generality and/or in a well-understood, routine, and conventional way.
Claim 9 recites the method according to claim 8, wherein the duration (TPeriodic) is selected using a strongest periodic noise component of the noise signal (SNoise), which is using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of the duration (TPeriodic) is selected using a strongest periodic noise component of the noise signal (SNoise), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit” language, “selected” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
Claim 10 recites an anesthetizing monitoring unit configured to generating an improved evoked electromyography response signal (ΣResponse), the anesthetizing monitoring unit comprising: an input port, an output port, and processing circuitry being configured to perform the method according to claim 1, which is using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of generating an improved evoked electromyography response signal (ΣResponse), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “the anesthetizing monitoring unit”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “the anesthetizing monitoring unit” language, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
Claim 11 recites an anesthetizing monitoring system configured to determine an anesthetized patient state, the anesthetizing monitoring unit comprising: an anesthetizing monitoring unit comprising an input port and an output port, stimulating electrodes electrically coupled to the output port and being configured to receive a stimuli signal (SStimuli) from the output port and deliver the stimuli signal (SStimuli) to the anesthetized patient, receiving electrodes electrically coupled to the input port and being configured to obtain an evoked electromyography, EMG, response signal (SResponse), in response to the stimuli signal (SStimuli) and a noise signal (SNoise), from the anesthetized patient, the anesthetizing monitoring unit being configured to perform the method according to claim 1, which is using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of determine an anesthetized patient state, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an anesthetizing monitoring system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “an anesthetizing monitoring system” language, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
The limitation of obtain an evoked electromyography, EMG, response signal (SResponse), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance as merely an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering, recited at a high level of generality and/or in a well-understood, routine, and conventional way, of the information needed to carry out the claimed determining an anesthetized patient state.
Claim 12 recites a computer program is provided comprising computer-executable instructions for causing an anesthetizing monitoring unit, when the computer-executable instructions are executed on a processing unit comprised in the anesthetizing monitoring unit, to perform the method according to claim 1, which is using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of executed on a processing unit comprised in the anesthetizing monitoring unit, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an anesthetizing monitoring unit”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “an anesthetizing monitoring unit” language, “executed” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
Claim 13 recites a computer program product comprising a computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium having the computer program according to claim 12 embodied therein, which is using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of the computer-readable storage medium having the computer program according to claim 12 embodied therein, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computer program product”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer program product” language, “having” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
Claim 14 recites a carrier comprising the computer program according to claim 12, wherein the carrier is one of an electronic signal, optical signal, radio signal, or computer readable storage medium which is using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of the carrier is one of an electronic signal, optical signal, radio signal, or computer readable storage medium, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “electronic signal, optical signal, radio signal, or computer readable storage medium”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “electronic signal, optical signal, radio signal, or computer readable storage medium” language, “carrier” in the context of this claim encompasses performing a method by computer that could be performed by the mind.
Claim 15 recites the method according to claim 6, wherein the threshold values are predetermined properties of historical improved response signals received at the anesthetizing monitoring unit prior to the response signal (SResponse) being received by the anesthetizing monitoring unit, wherein the threshold values are stored in the memory of the anesthetizing monitoring unit, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity of using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of “wherein the threshold values are predetermined properties of historical improved response signals received at the anesthetizing monitoring unit prior to the response signal (SResponse) being received by the anesthetizing monitoring unit, wherein the threshold values are stored in the memory of the anesthetizing monitoring unit”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance as merely an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering, recited at a high level of generality and/or in a well-understood, routine, and conventional way, of the information needed to carry out the claimed generating a response signal.
Claim 16 recites the method according to claim 1, wherein the temporal segments of the noise signal (SNoise) are gathered by the anesthetizing monitoring unit within an adjacent time interval (TNoise) not overlapping with a stimuli signal interval (TStimulus) and the duration of the response signal (TResponse), which is an insignificant extra-solution activity of using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)]. The limitation of “wherein the temporal segments of the noise signal (SNoise) are gathered by the anesthetizing monitoring unit within an adjacent time interval (TNoise) not overlapping with a stimuli signal interval (TStimulus) and the duration of the response signal (TResponse)”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance as merely an insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering, recited at a high level of generality and/or in a well-understood, routine, and conventional way, of the information needed to carry out the claimed generating a response signal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20170245776 A1 (Kurtz et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Kurtz teaches a method performed by an anesthetizing monitoring unit ([0022] “apparatus”) configured to generate an improved evoked electromyography response signal (ΣResponse) ([0002] “The present application relates to an apparatus, system and method for detecting evoked responses to a stimulus (a stimulus-response signal).”) the method comprising:
transmitting a single stimuli signal (SStimuli) ([0002] “a stimulus”; [0006] “a single instance of the stimulus”; [0063] “may include multiple stimulus sources, such as visual and auditory, or may be a single source”) using an output port ([0030] “output device”) of the anesthetizing monitoring unit,
receiving a single evoked electromyography, EMG, response signal (SResponse) ([0002] “detecting evoked responses to a stimulus (a stimulus-response signal)”; [0022] “receive the noisy signal to the plurality of stimuli”), having a duration (TResponse), in response to the transmitted stimuli signal (SStimuli) using an input port ([0022] “input device”) of the anesthetizing monitoring unit,
estimating a periodic noise waveform (SPeriodic) ([0008] “the noise is quasi-stationary”), having the duration (TResponse), by using temporal segments of a noise signal (SNoise) ([0006] “stimulating the patient with multiple stimuli, obtaining multiple time-based data series”),
generating the improved response signal (ΣResponse) by subtracting the noise waveform from the response signal (SResponse) ([0059] “The final waveform or averaged response (sometimes called the “final response”), is the estimate of the synchronized evoked response, with reduced noise. It will be understood that the type of evoked response will generally be dependent on the stimulus and on the subject. For example, if a subject cannot hear an auditory stimulus, then there would not be an evoked response to the auditory stimulus.”; [0056] “reduce the negatively correlated noise from the resultant average”),
storing the improved response signal (ΣResponse) in a memory in the anesthetizing monitoring unit ([0064] “generated stimuli or the noisy signal relating thereto may also be stored in memory 140”), and
presenting the improved response signal (ΣResponse) on a display in the anesthetizing monitoring unit ([0066] “the final response may be output via the output module 145 to, for example, the display 150”).
Regarding claim 2, Kurtz teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the step of estimating the periodic noise waveform further comprises: splitting the noise signal (SNoise) into a number N of temporal segments (S1, S2, ... , SN) ([0014] “divide the noisy signal into a plurality of responses to the plurality of stimuli”),
generating a periodic noise template (STemplate) by aggregating the N temporal segments (S1, S2, ... , SN) ([0016] “estimate a statistic matrix for the plurality of responses”),
wherein the periodic noise waveform (SPeriodic), is estimated by subsequently repeating the periodic noise template (STemplate) N times ([0017] “performing a multilevel discrete wavelet transform on individual responses in a loop for each scale of the multilevel discrete wavelet transform”).
Regarding claim 3, Kurtz teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the periodic noise template (STemplate) is generated by averaging discrete samples over the N temporal segments (S1, S2, … SN) ([0059] “The final waveform or averaged response (sometimes called the “final response”), is the estimate of the synchronized evoked response, with reduced noise. It will be understood that the type of evoked response will generally be dependent on the stimulus and on the subject. For example, if a subject cannot hear an auditory stimulus, then there would not be an evoked response to the auditory stimulus.”).
Regarding claim 4, Kurtz teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises determining an anesthetized patient state by determining a neuromuscular function value using properties of the improved response signal (ΣResponse) ([0134-0135] “an MMN response depends on the consciousness state of the subject, in the awake pre-op state, we expect there to be a significant MMN, while in the anesthesia state, we do not expect there to be an MMN present”).
Regarding claim 5, Kurtz teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the anesthetized patient state is a selection of any of insufficient anesthetic level, low anesthetic level, sufficient anesthetic level, normal breathing function, capable of sustaining breathing or in need of ventilator ([0135] “an MMN response depends on the consciousness state of the subject, in the awake pre-op state, we expect there to be a significant MMN, while in the anesthesia state, we do not expect there to be an MMN present.”).
Regarding claim 6, Kurtz teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein the properties of the improved response signal (ΣResponse) include amplitude value/s (AResponse’) ([0135] “peak amplitude”) and wherein the neuromuscular function value is determined by comparing a quota of amplitude value/s of the improved response signal (ΣResponse) and additional amplitude value/s to a set of predetermined amplitude value/s thresholds, wherein the additional amplitude values are selected from amplitude value/s of the stimuli signal (SStimuli) and historical amplitude value/s of the improved response signal (ΣResponse) ([0135] “An MMN response is determined to be present when the peak amplitude of the processed deviant response is statistically different than that of a standard response in the region of expected MMN response”).
Regarding claim 8, Kurtz teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the temporal segments (S1, S2, ... , SN) have a duration (TPeriodic) proportional to the noise signal (SNoise) ([0068] “by weighting data series or groups of data series in inverse proportion to their noise content”).
Regarding claim 9, Kurtz teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the duration (TPeriodic) is selected using a strongest periodic noise component of the noise signal (SNoise) ([0009] “In this case, the group is greater than 8 seconds in duration. The drawback of this technique is that noise in evoked potential measurements is, in general, not stationary over an 8 second duration, especially when the time series is contaminated with interference from the patient's EMG caused by muscle activity.”; The time period with the most noise is selected, indicative of muscle activity.).
Regarding claim 10, Kurtz teaches an anesthetizing monitoring unit configured to generating an improved evoked electromyography response signal (ΣResponse), the anesthetizing monitoring unit comprising:
an input port ([0002] “input device”),
an output port ([0030] “output device”), and
processing circuitry ([0140] “The machine-readable medium can contain various sets of instructions, code sequences, configuration information, or other data, which, when executed, cause a processor to perform steps in a method according to an embodiment of the disclosure”) being configured to perform the method according to claim 1 (see rejection above).
Regarding claim 11, Kurtz teaches an anesthetizing monitoring system configured to determine an anesthetized patient state, the anesthetizing monitoring unit ([0022] “an apparatus for detection of an evoked response signal in noise”) comprising:
an anesthetizing monitoring unit comprising an input port (111) ([0022] “input device”) and an output port ([0030] “output device”),
stimulating electrodes electrically coupled to the output port and being configured to receive a stimuli signal (SStimuli) from the output port and deliver the stimuli signal (SStimuli) to the anesthetized patient ([0058] “A sensor or sensors 115, for example an electrode or electrodes, are provided to the subject to detect a noisy signal including a response to the stimulus, which is sent to an input module 120”),
receiving electrodes electrically coupled to the input port and being configured to obtain an evoked electromyography, EMG, response signal (SResponse) ([0059] “electrodes receive continuous data, sometimes referred to as “noisy data” or “noisy signal”. For each stimulus, a synchronized evoked response within the subject's brain will be generated.”), in response to the stimuli signal (SStimuli) ([0058] “response to the stimulus”) and a noise signal (SNoise) ([0059] “noisy signal”), from the anesthetized patient, the anesthetizing monitoring unit being configured to perform the method according to claim 1 ([0059] “this evoked response will also be detected by the electrodes but is generally hidden in the noisy signal. Embodiments of the system, apparatus and method herein are intended to separate the evoked response, or stimulus-synchronized component, (sometimes referred to as a “response”) from the non-synchronized components (i.e. noise).”).
Regarding claim 12, Kurtz teaches a computer program is provided comprising computer-executable instructions for causing an anesthetizing monitoring unit, when the computer-executable instructions are executed on a processing unit comprised in the anesthetizing monitoring unit, to perform the method according to claim 1 ([0140] “The machine-readable medium can contain various sets of instructions, code sequences, configuration information, or other data, which, when executed, cause a processor to perform steps in a method according to an embodiment of the disclosure.”).
Regarding claim 13, Kurtz teaches a computer program product comprising a computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium having the computer program according to claim 12 embodied therein ([0140] “Embodiments of the disclosure or portions thereof can be represented as a computer program product stored in a machine-readable medium (also referred to as a computer-readable medium, a processor-readable medium, or a computer usable medium having a computer-readable program code embodied therein).”).
Regarding claim 14, Kurtz teaches a carrier comprising the computer program according to claim 12, wherein the carrier is one of an electronic signal, optical signal, radio signal, or computer readable storage medium ([0140] “computer-readable medium”).
Regarding claim 15, Kurtz teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the threshold values are predetermined properties of historical improved response signals received at the anesthetizing monitoring unit prior to the response signal (SResponse) being received by the anesthetizing monitoring unit, wherein the threshold values are stored in the memory of the anesthetizing monitoring unit ([0134] “responses to the standard stimulus and 107 responses to the randomly inserted deviant stimuli were collected from electrodes on the patient's scalp prior to the administration of anesthesia”; [0135] “An MMN response is determined to be present when the peak amplitude of the processed deviant response is statistically different than that of a standard response in the region of expected MMN response”; [0140]).
Regarding claim 16, Kurtz teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the temporal segments of the noise signal (SNoise) are gathered by the anesthetizing monitoring unit within an adjacent time interval (TNoise) not overlapping with a stimuli signal interval (TStimulus) and the duration of the response signal (TResponse) ([0065] “data outside that region of interest would be noise and the removal of that noise prior to subsequent signal processing may improve the analysis to determine the evoked response”; [0068] “the noise from data series to data series is independent”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 25, 2023 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 101 Rejections (see Applicant’s Response pages 6-8, “CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §102”), the Applicant argues that the claims, as amended, cannot be characterized as abstract because of the limitations “generating the improved response signal (ΣResponse) by subtracting the noise waveform from the response signal (SResponse), storing the improved response signal (ΣResponse) in a memory in the anesthetizing monitoring unit, and presenting the improved response signal (ΣResponse) on a display in the anesthetizing monitoring unit.” Applicant states that these features cannot conceivably be performed in the human mind, and are therefore not abstract.
However, under MPEP 2106.04, a limitation that recites generic computer components can still be considered an abstract idea if the process performed with the computer components can be performed by the human mind, and the computer components are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. Additionally, reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional extra-solution activities of an abstract idea, such as displaying, gathering, or storing data does not prevent the limitation from being considered an abstract idea (mental process). Therefore, the claims are rejected under U.S.C. 101 as described in the 101 Rejections above.
With respect to Kurtz (see Applicant’s Response pages 8-10, “CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §102”), Applicant argues that the claims, as amended, teach a configuration different from the method and device caught by Kurtz. Applicant argues that Kurtz does not teach or suggest “transmitting a single stimuli signal (SStimuli) using an output port of the anesthetizing monitoring unit, receiving a single evoked electromyography, EMG, response signal (SResponse), having a duration (TResponse), in response to the transmitted stimuli signal (SStimuli) using an input port of the anesthetizing monitoring unit, estimating a periodic noise waveform (SPeriodic), having the duration (TResponse), by using temporal segments of a noise signal (SNoise)” because Kurtz involves sending out a plurality of stimuli and receiving a plurality of responses. While Kurtz does teach embodiments where a plurality of stimuli is used, Kurtz also teaches using a single stimulus ([0002] “a stimulus”; [0006] “a single instance of the stimulus”; [0063] “may include multiple stimulus sources, such as visual and auditory, or may be a single source”). Likewise, Kurtz teaches “a stimulus-response signal” [0002], which can encompass a single evoked response to the stimulus. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and claims 2-6 and 8-16 are also rejected under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based on their dependence on claim 1, and for the reasons described in the 102 Rejections above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.  Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.  See MPEP § 706.07(a).  Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.  In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action.  In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.

CITED REFERENCE SUMMARIES: Ref US20170245776A1: Claims:
We claim: 1. A method for detection of an evoked response signal in noise, the method comprising: generating a plurality of stimuli; receiving a noisy signal related to an evoked response to the plurality of stimuli; divide the noisy signal into a plurality of responses to the plurality of stimuli; estimate a statistic matrix for the plurality of responses; shrink the statistic matrix; calculate weights based on an inverse of the shrunk statistic matrix; apply weights to the plurality of responses to construct a final response; and output the final response. 2. A method for detection of claim 1, wherein the shrinking the statistic matrix comprises: calculate a correlation between combinations of responses; create a list of negatively correlated pairs; for each negatively correlated pair in the list: determine if one of the responses in the pair is in a shrinkage list, if so, remove the pair from the list of negatively correlated pairs, otherwise, add both responses of the pair to the shrinkage list; when the list of negatively correlated pairs is empty, set all non-diagonal elements of the statistic matrix corresponding to responses in the shrinkage list to 0 to provide a shrunk statistic matrix; and return the shrunk statistic matrix. 3. A method for detection of claim 1, further comprising decomposing each response into a plurality of sub-responses to create a plurality of sets of sub-responses and performing the: estimate a statistic matrix for the plurality of responses; shrink the statistic matrix; calculate weights based on an inverse of the shrunk statistic matrix; apply weights to the plurality of responses to construct a final response; of claim 1 for each of the plurality of sets of sub-responses. 4. A method for detection of claim 3, wherein the decomposing comprises: performing a multilevel discrete wavelet transform on individual responses in a loop for each scale of the multilevel discrete wavelet transform, selecting a scale of the multilevel discrete wavelet transform and, for the selected scale: set wavelet coefficients for non-selected scales to 0; and perform a multilevel inverse discrete wavelet transform to obtain a time domain sub-response for the selected scale; and return a plurality of sets of sub-responses, each set comprising sub-responses having the same scale. 5. A method for detection of claim 1, wherein the statistic is covariance and the statistic matrix is a covariance matrix. 6. A method for detection of claim 1, wherein the statistic matrix is an array of greater than two dimensions. 7. A method for detection of claim 1, wherein the statistic is root mean square and the statistic matrix is a root mean square array of greater than two dimensions. 8. A method for detection of claim 1, wherein the divide the noisy signal into a plurality of responses to the plurality of stimuli is based on the plurality of responses being synchronized with the plurality of stimuli. 9. An apparatus for detection of an evoked response signal in noise, the apparatus comprising: an input device configured to receive data related to a plurality of stimuli and a noisy signal related to the evoked response signal to the plurality of stimuli; and a processor configured to: receive the noisy signal from the input device and divide the noisy signal into a plurality of responses to the plurality of stimuli; estimate a statistic matrix for the plurality of responses; shrink the statistic matrix; calculate weights based on an inverse of the shrunk statistic matrix; and apply weights to the plurality of responses to construct a final response representing the evoked response signal. 10. An apparatus for detection of claim 9, wherein when shrinking the statistic matrix the processor is further configured to: calculate a correlation between combinations of responses; create a list of negatively correlated pairs; for each negatively correlated pair in the list: determine if one of the responses in the pair is in a shrinkage list, if so, remove the pair from the list of negatively correlated pairs, otherwise, add both responses of the pair to the shrinkage list; when the list of negatively correlated pairs is empty, set all non-diagonal elements of the statistic matrix corresponding to responses in the shrinkage list to 0 to provide a shrunk statistic matrix; and return the shrunk statistic matrix. 11. An apparatus for detection of claim 9, wherein the processor is further configured to decompose each response into a plurality of sub-responses to create a plurality of sets of sub-responses and performing the: estimate a statistic matrix for the plurality of responses; shrink the statistic matrix; calculate weights based on an inverse of the shrunk statistic matrix; apply weights to the plurality of responses to construct a final response; of claim 9 for each of the plurality of sets of sub-responses. 12. An apparatus for detection of claim 11, wherein the processor, when decomposing each response, is further configure to: perform a multilevel discrete wavelet transform on individual responses in a loop for each scale of the multilevel discrete wavelet transform, selecting a scale of the multilevel discrete wavelet transform and, for the selected scale: set wavelet coefficient for non-selected scales to 0; and perform a multilevel inverse discrete wavelet transform to obtain a time domain sub-response for the selected scale; and return a plurality of sets of sub-responses, each set comprising sub-responses having the same scale. 13. An apparatus for detection of claim 9, wherein the statistic is covariance and the statistic matrix is a covariance matrix. 14. An apparatus for detection of claim 9, wherein the statistic matrix is an array of greater than two dimensions. 15. An apparatus for detection of claim 9, wherein the statistic is root mean square and the statistic matrix is a root mean square array of greater than two dimensions. 16. An apparatus for detection of claim 9, wherein the divide the noisy signal into a plurality of responses to the plurality of stimuli is based on the plurality of responses being synchronized with the plurality of stimuli. 17. A system for detection of an evoked response signal in noise, the system comprising: a stimulus generator configured to generate a plurality of stimuli; a plurality of sensors configured to receive a noisy signal including an evoked response signal to the plurality of stimuli; an input device configured to receive data related to the plurality of stimuli and the noisy signal; a processor configured to: receive the noisy signal from the input device and divide the noisy signal into a plurality of responses to the plurality of stimuli; estimate a statistic matrix for the plurality of responses; shrink the statistic matrix; calculate weights based on an inverse of the shrunk statistic matrix; and apply weights to the plurality of responses to construct a final response representing the evoked response signal; and an output device to output the final response received from the processor. 18. A system for detection of claim 17, wherein when shrinking the statistic matrix the processor is further configured to: calculate a correlation between combinations of responses; create a list of negatively correlated pairs; for each negatively correlated pair in the list: determine if one of the responses in the pair is in a shrinkage list, if so, remove the pair from the list of negatively correlated pairs, otherwise, add both responses of the pair to the shrinkage list; when the list of negatively correlated pairs is empty, set all non-diagonal elements of the statistic matrix corresponding to responses in the shrinkage list to 0 to provide a shrunk statistic matrix; and return the shrunk statistic matrix. 19. A system for detection of claim 17, wherein the processor is further configured to decompose each response into a plurality of sub-responses to create a plurality of sets of sub-responses and performing the: estimate a statistic matrix for the plurality of responses; shrink the statistic matrix; calculate weights based on an inverse of the shrunk statistic matrix; apply weights to the plurality of responses to construct a final response; of claim 17 for each of the plurality of sets of sub-responses. 20. A system for detection of claim 19, wherein the processor, when decomposing each response, is further configure to: perform a multilevel discrete wavelet transform on individual responses in a loop for each scale of the multilevel discrete wavelet transform, selecting a scale of the multilevel discrete wavelet transform and, for the selected scale: set wavelet coefficients for non-selected scales to 0; and perform a multilevel inverse discrete wavelet transform to obtain a time domain sub-response for the selected scale; and return a plurality of sets of sub-responses, each set comprising sub-responses having the same scale. 21. A system for detection of claim 17, wherein the statistic is covariance and the statistic matrix is a covariance matrix. 22. A system for detection of claim 17, wherein the statistic matrix is an array of greater than two dimensions 23. A system for detection of claim 17, wherein the statistic is root mean square and the statistic matrix is a root mean square array of greater than two dimensions. 24. A system for detection of claim 17, wherein the divide the noisy signal into a plurality of responses to the plurality of stimuli is based on the plurality of responses being synchronized with the plurality of stimuli.
A method for detection of an evoked response signal in noise, the method comprising: generating a plurality of stimuli; receiving a noisy signal related to an evoked response to the plurality of stimuli; divide the noisy signal into a plurality of responses to the plurality of stimuli; estimate a statistic matrix for the plurality of responses; shrink the statistic matrix; calculate weights based on an inverse of the shrunk statistic matrix; apply weights to the plurality of responses to construct a final response; and output the final response.
A method for detection of claim 1, wherein the shrinking the statistic matrix comprises: calculate a correlation between combinations of responses; create a list of negatively correlated pairs; for each negatively correlated pair in the list: determine if one of the responses in the pair is in a shrinkage list, if so, remove the pair from the list of negatively correlated pairs, otherwise, add both responses of the pair to the shrinkage list; when the list of negatively correlated pairs is empty, set all non-diagonal elements of the statistic matrix corresponding to responses in the shrinkage list to 0 to provide a shrunk statistic matrix; and return the shrunk statistic matrix.
A method for detection of claim 1, further comprising decomposing each response into a plurality of sub-responses to create a plurality of sets of sub-responses and performing the: estimate a statistic matrix for the plurality of responses; shrink the statistic matrix; calculate weights based on an inverse of the shrunk statistic matrix; apply weights to the plurality of responses to construct a final response; of claim 1 for each of the plurality of sets of sub-responses.
A method for detection of claim 1, further comprising decomposing each response into a plurality of sub-responses to create a plurality of sets of sub-responses and performing the: estimate a statistic matrix for the plurality of responses; shrink the statistic matrix; calculate weights based on an inverse of the shrunk statistic matrix; apply weights to the plurality of responses to construct a final response;
of claim 1 for each of the plurality of sets of sub-responses.
A method for detection of claim 3, wherein the decomposing comprises: performing a multilevel discrete wavelet transform on individual responses in a loop for each scale of the multilevel discrete wavelet transform, selecting a scale of the multilevel discrete wavelet transform and, for the selected scale: set wavelet coefficients for non-selected scales to 0; and perform a multilevel inverse discrete wavelet transform to obtain a time domain sub-response for the selected scale; and return a plurality of sets of sub-responses, each set comprising sub-responses having the same scale.
A method for detection of claim 1, wherein the statistic is covariance and the statistic matrix is a covariance matrix.
A method for detection of claim 1, wherein the statistic matrix is an array of greater than two dimensions.
A method for detection of claim 1, wherein the statistic is root mean square and the statistic matrix is a root mean square array of greater than two dimensions.
A method for detection of claim 1, wherein the divide the noisy signal into a plurality of responses to the plurality of stimuli is based on the plurality of responses being synchronized with the plurality of stimuli.
An apparatus for detection of an evoked response signal in noise, the apparatus comprising: an input device configured to receive data related to a plurality of stimuli and a noisy signal related to the evoked response signal to the plurality of stimuli; and a processor configured to: receive the noisy signal from the input device and divide the noisy signal into a plurality of responses to the plurality of stimuli; estimate a statistic matrix for the plurality of responses; shrink the statistic matrix; calculate weights based on an inverse of the shrunk statistic matrix; and apply weights to the plurality of responses to construct a final response representing the evoked response signal.
An apparatus for detection of claim 9, wherein when shrinking the statistic matrix the processor is further configured to: calculate a correlation between combinations of responses; create a list of negatively correlated pairs; for each negatively correlated pair in the list: determine if one of the responses in the pair is in a shrinkage list, if so, remove the pair from the list of negatively correlated pairs, otherwise, add both responses of the pair to the shrinkage list; when the list of negatively correlated pairs is empty, set all non-diagonal elements of the statistic matrix corresponding to responses in the shrinkage list to 0 to provide a shrunk statistic matrix; and return the shrunk statistic matrix.
An apparatus for detection of claim 9, wherein the processor is further configured to decompose each response into a plurality of sub-responses to create a plurality of sets of sub-responses and performing the: estimate a statistic matrix for the plurality of responses; shrink the statistic matrix; calculate weights based on an inverse of the shrunk statistic matrix; apply weights to the plurality of responses to construct a final response; of claim 9 for each of the plurality of sets of sub-responses.
An apparatus for detection of claim 9, wherein the processor is further configured to decompose each response into a plurality of sub-responses to create a plurality of sets of sub-responses and performing the: estimate a statistic matrix for the plurality of responses; shrink the statistic matrix; calculate weights based on an inverse of the shrunk statistic matrix; apply weights to the plurality of responses to construct a final response;
of claim 9 for each of the plurality of sets of sub-responses.
An apparatus for detection of claim 11, wherein the processor, when decomposing each response, is further configure to: perform a multilevel discrete wavelet transform on individual responses in a loop for each scale of the multilevel discrete wavelet transform, selecting a scale of the multilevel discrete wavelet transform and, for the selected scale: set wavelet coefficient for non-selected scales to 0; and perform a multilevel inverse discrete wavelet transform to obtain a time domain sub-response for the selected scale; and return a plurality of sets of sub-responses, each set comprising sub-responses having the same scale.
An apparatus for detection of claim 9, wherein the statistic is covariance and the statistic matrix is a covariance matrix.
An apparatus for detection of claim 9, wherein the statistic matrix is an array of greater than two dimensions.
An apparatus for detection of claim 9, wherein the statistic is root mean square and the statistic matrix is a root mean square array of greater than two dimensions.
An apparatus for detection of claim 9, wherein the divide the noisy signal into a plurality of responses to the plurality of stimuli is based on the plurality of responses being synchronized with the plurality of stimuli.
A system for detection of an evoked response signal in noise, the system comprising: a stimulus generator configured to generate a plurality of stimuli; a plurality of sensors configured to receive a noisy signal including an evoked response signal to the plurality of stimuli; an input device configured to receive data related to the plurality of stimuli and the noisy signal; a processor configured to: receive the noisy signal from the input device and divide the noisy signal into a plurality of responses to the plurality of stimuli; estimate a statistic matrix for the plurality of responses; shrink the statistic matrix; calculate weights based on an inverse of the shrunk statistic matrix; and apply weights to the plurality of responses to construct a final response representing the evoked response signal; and an output device to output the final response received from the processor.
A system for detection of claim 17, wherein when shrinking the statistic matrix the processor is further configured to: calculate a correlation between combinations of responses; create a list of negatively correlated pairs; for each negatively correlated pair in the list: determine if one of the responses in the pair is in a shrinkage list, if so, remove the pair from the list of negatively correlated pairs, otherwise, add both responses of the pair to the shrinkage list; when the list of negatively correlated pairs is empty, set all non-diagonal elements of the statistic matrix corresponding to responses in the shrinkage list to 0 to provide a shrunk statistic matrix; and return the shrunk statistic matrix.
A system for detection of claim 17, wherein the processor is further configured to decompose each response into a plurality of sub-responses to create a plurality of sets of sub-responses and performing the: estimate a statistic matrix for the plurality of responses; shrink the statistic matrix; calculate weights based on an inverse of the shrunk statistic matrix; apply weights to the plurality of responses to construct a final response; of claim 17 for each of the plurality of sets of sub-responses.
A system for detection of claim 17, wherein the processor is further configured to decompose each response into a plurality of sub-responses to create a plurality of sets of sub-responses and performing the: estimate a statistic matrix for the plurality of responses; shrink the statistic matrix; calculate weights based on an inverse of the shrunk statistic matrix; apply weights to the plurality of responses to construct a final response;
of claim 17 for each of the plurality of sets of sub-responses.
A system for detection of claim 19, wherein the processor, when decomposing each response, is further configure to: perform a multilevel discrete wavelet transform on individual responses in a loop for each scale of the multilevel discrete wavelet transform, selecting a scale of the multilevel discrete wavelet transform and, for the selected scale: set wavelet coefficients for non-selected scales to 0; and perform a multilevel inverse discrete wavelet transform to obtain a time domain sub-response for the selected scale; and return a plurality of sets of sub-responses, each set comprising sub-responses having the same scale.
A system for detection of claim 17, wherein the stati
[Truncated to input limit]