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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on February 05, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a forward propagating wave” in lines 17-18, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “a forward propagating wave” in lines 13-14. The similar phraseology suggests that they are the same, but the indefinite article “a” suggests that they are different. If the recitations are the same, the present recitation should be “the forward propagating wave”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). For the purposes of examination, the recitations are being interpreted as the same.
Claim 1 recites “a backward propagating wave” in line 20, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “a backward propagating wave” in lines 14-15. The similar phraseology suggests that they are the same, but the indefinite article “a” suggests that they are different. If the recitations are the same, the present recitation should be “the backward propagating wave”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). For the purposes of examination, the recitations are being interpreted as the same.
Claims 2-7, 9-11, and 13-17 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 17 recites “a processor” in line 2, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “a processor” in claim 1, line 10. The similar phraseology suggests that they are the same, but the indefinite article “a” suggests that they are different. If the recitations are the same, the present recitation should be “the processor”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). For the purposes of examination, the recitations are being interpreted as the same.
Claim 18 recites “a forward propagating wave” in line 20, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “a forward propagating wave” in line 16. The similar phraseology suggests that they are the same, but the indefinite article “a” suggests that they are different. If the recitations are the same, the present recitation should be “the forward propagating wave”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). For the purposes of examination, the recitations are being interpreted as the same.
Claim 18 recites “a backward propagating wave” in lines 22-23, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the recitation “a backward propagating wave” in lines 16-17. The similar phraseology suggests that they are the same, but the indefinite article “a” suggests that they are different. If the recitations are the same, the present recitation should be “the backward propagating wave”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). For the purposes of examination, the recitations are being interpreted as the same.
Claims 19-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 18.
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 1-7, 9-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim 1 interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Based on the specification’s identification “fitting a first waveform and a second waveform to a portion of the time-based sequences of the at least first artery signal and second artery signal by iteratively adjusting a set of parameters of a double Gaussian propagation model (DPGM) to reduce a root mean squared error between the DPGM and the time-based sequences, wherein the DPGM comprises a first Gaussian waveform representing a forward propagating wave and a second Gaussian waveform representing a backward propagating wave, to form a first fit waveform and a second fit waveform of the first artery signal and a first fit waveform and a second fit waveform of the second artery signal” and “generating, based on the fitting, a forward velocity of the pressure pulse wave propagation” are BOTH computer-implemented recitations (see specification pg. 5 ln. 10-20, pg. 6 ln. 1-9, pg. 11 ln. 1-32, pg. 23 ln. 5 – pg. 26 ln. 34) that involve mathematical calculations and evaluations.
Claim 18 interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Based on the specification’s identification “fit a first waveform and a second waveform to a portion of the time-based sequences of the at least first artery signal and second artery signal by iteratively adjusting a set of parameters of a double Gaussian propagation model (DPGM) to reduce a root mean squared error between the DPGM and the time-based sequences, wherein the DPGM comprises a first Gaussian waveform representing a forward propagating wave and a second Gaussian waveform representing a backward propagating wave, to form a first fit waveform and a second fit waveform of the first artery signal and a first fit waveform and a second fit waveform of the second artery signal” and “generate, based on the fitting, a forward velocity of the pressure pulse wave propagation” are BOTH computer-implemented recitations (see specification pg. 5 ln. 10-20, pg. 6 ln. 1-9, pg. 11 ln. 1-32, pg. 23 ln. 5 – pg. 26 ln. 34) that involve mathematical calculations and evaluations.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. Claim 1 recites a method for estimating a measure of cardiovascular health of a subject, which is directed towards a process (a statutory category of invention). Claim 18 recites a device for estimating a measure of cardiovascular health of a subject, which is directed towards a machine/manufacture (a statutory category of invention).
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The “mental processes” abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. As discussed in the claim interpretation section, the limitations include, under the BRI, evaluations to “fit a first waveform and a second waveform to a portion of the time-based sequences of the at least first artery signal and second artery signal” and “generate, based on the fitting, a forward velocity of the pressure pulse wave propagation”. Accordingly, the limitations as seen in claims 1 and 18 recite judicial exceptions (an abstract idea that falls within the mental process grouping).
No limitations are provided that would force the complexity of any of the identified evaluation steps to be non-performable by pen-and-paper practice. There is no temporal requirement for either recitation. With regard to the fitting, there is no requirement for the iterations or the set of parameters. For example, under the BRI, such recitations could merely involve two iterations for adjusting only two parameters. For the generating, no elements have been amended/added. Therefore, such recitations are deemed capable of being performed by a human with pen-and-paper practice.
Furthermore, As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The courts consider mathematical calculations, when the claim is given its BRI in light of the specification, as falling within the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas. A claim does not have to recite “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using a mathematical method, or “performing” a mathematical operation, may also be considered a mathematical calculation when the BRI of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation. As discussed in the claim interpretation section, the limitations include, under the BRI, calculations to “fit a first waveform and a second waveform to a portion of the time-based sequences of the at least first artery signal and second artery signal” and “generate, based on the fitting, a forward velocity of the pressure pulse wave propagation”. Accordingly, the limitations as seen in claims 1 and 18 recite judicial exceptions (an abstract idea that falls within the mathematical calculations grouping of mathematical concepts).
Alternatively or additionally, these steps describe the concept of using implicit mathematical formulas (i.e., calculations to determine a likelihood score) to derive a conclusion based on input of data, which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts (Diamond v. Diehr. 450 U.S. 175, 209 U.S.P.Q. 1 (1981), Parker v. Flook. 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978), and In re Grams. 888 F.2d 835, 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1824 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). The concept of the recited limitations identified as mathematical concepts above is not meaningfully different than those mathematical concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas.
In particular, claim 1 recites the following elements, which are part of the abstract idea (i.e., the algorithm):
a method for estimating a measure of cardiovascular health of a subject, said method comprising:
receiving time-based sequences of at least a first artery signal and a second artery signal, each representative of pressure pulse wave propagation in an artery of the subject,
wherein the at least first and second artery signals represent the pressure pulse wave propagation in positions displaced in relation to each other in a segment of the artery of the subject;
fitting a first waveform and a second waveform to a portion of the time-based sequences of the at least first artery signal and second artery signal by iteratively adjusting a set of parameters of a double Gaussian propagation model (DPGM) to reduce a root mean squared error between the DPGM and the time-based sequences, wherein the DPGM comprises a first Gaussian waveform representing a forward propagating wave and a second Gaussian waveform representing a backward propagating wave, to form a first fit waveform and a second fit waveform of the first artery signal and a first fit waveform and a second fit waveform of the second artery signal,
wherein the first fit waveforms of the first and second artery signals represent a forward propagating wave in the artery between the positions at which the pressure pulse wave propagation is represented and the second fit waveforms of the first and second artery signals represent a backward propagating wave in the artery between the positions at which the pressure pulse wave propagation is represented; and
generating, based on the fitting, a forward velocity of the pressure pulse wave propagation as a representation of a local pulse wave velocity in the artery,
wherein the forward velocity provides a measure of cardiovascular health, and
wherein an error caused by the backward propagating wave in the generating of the forward velocity is minimized or removed.
Also, claim 18 recites the following elements, which are part of the abstract idea (i.e., the algorithm):
receive time-based sequences of at least a first artery signal and a second artery signal, each representative of pressure pulse wave propagation in an artery of the subject,
wherein the at least first and second artery signals represent pressure pulse wave propagation in positions displaced in relation to each other in a segment of the artery of the subject;
fit a first waveform and a second waveform to a portion of the time-based sequences of the at least first artery signal and second artery signal by iteratively adjusting a set of parameters of a double Gaussian propagation model (DPGM) to reduce a root mean squared error between the DPGM and the time-based sequences, wherein the DPGM comprises a first Gaussian waveform representing a forward propagating wave and a second Gaussian waveform representing a backward propagating wave, to form a first fit waveform and a second fit waveform of the first artery signal and a first fit waveform and a second fit waveform of the second artery signal,
wherein the first fit waveforms of the first and second artery signals represent a forward propagating wave in the artery between the positions at which the pressure pulse wave propagation is represented and the second fit waveforms of the first and second artery signals represent a backward propagating wave in the artery between the positions at which the pressure pulse wave propagation is represented; and
generate, based on the fitting, a forward velocity of the pressure pulse wave propagation as a representation of a local pulse wave velocity in the artery,
wherein the forward velocity provides the measure of cardiovascular health, and
wherein an error caused by the backward propagating wave in the generating of the forward velocity is minimized or removed.
Step 2A Prong One: YES.
Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exceptions into a practical application. Claims 1 and 18 recite elements directed towards a generic computer (i.e., the processor and the device comprising the processor). Note that the sensors are not positively recited in either of claims 1 and 18, as the data is merely received; or merely generated through data processing, thus not requiring any sensors. Thus, the method and the device (and processor) are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f). Step 2A Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05. As explained with Step 2A Prong Two, claims 1 and 18 recite elements directed towards a generic computer (i.e., the processor) The method and device utilizing a generic computer do not qualify as significantly more because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no
indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for
example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is
no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based
problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective
functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e.,
the computer is simply a tool to perform the process. Step 2B: NO.
Claims 1 and 18 are not eligible.
Claims 2-4, 7, 9-11, and 13-16 depend from claim 1 and merely further define the abstract idea of claim 1 with no further element that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or that qualifies as being significantly more. Looking at the limitations of each claim as an ordered combination in conjunction with the claims from which they depend (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome.
Claims 5-6 and 19-20 depend from claims 1 and 18, respectively, and thus define the abstract idea of claims 1 and 18. Claims 5-6 and 19-20 further recite ultrasound sensors for measuring the signals from the subject. However, the use of these sensors is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the ultrasound sensors do NOT integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In addition, the ultrasound sensors do NOT qualify as significantly more because these elements are directed towards the gathering/input of data, and are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exceptions. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. These elements/steps can be seen as well-understood, routine, and conventional individually and in combination. The claims recite first and second ultrasound sensors (which may be arranged in an array). Such sensors are conventional and known in the art as evidenced by Joshi et al. (US Patent Publication 2023/0210492 – cited in prior action; see ¶[0004]-[0005] and ¶[0025] the methods involve obtaining measurements of blood flow, various non-invasive measurement methods exist, including ultrasound sensing among others, ¶[0058]-[0065] there may be multiple ultrasound sensors, arrangements of multiple ultrasound sensors are an array of ultrasound sensors). Thus, the ultrasound sensors do NOT qualify as significantly more.
Furthermore, looking at the limitations of each claim as an ordered combination in conjunction with the claims from which they depend (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome.
Claim 17 depends from claim 1 and defines the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 17 further defines a non-transient computer readable medium storing computer-readable instructions such that when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform the method (the evaluations/calculations) according to claim 1. Thus, processor merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the processor does NOT integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In addition, the processor does NOT qualify as significantly more because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well- understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)).
Furthermore, looking at the limitations of each claim as an ordered combination in conjunction with the claims from which they depend (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7-9, filed February 05, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are NOT persuasive. Applicant first argues that the claims, as amended, recite specific, technical features that cannot be practically performed in the human mind. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As described above, no limitations are provided that would force the complexity of any of the identified evaluation steps to be non-performable by pen-and-paper practice. There is no temporal requirement for either the fitting recitation or the generating recitation. With regard to the fitting, there is no requirement for the iterations or the set of parameters. The Applicant has pointed to the specification which involves “optimizing a sophisticated mathematical model” involving “at least eight distinct parameters”; however, such complexities are not presently recited in the claim. For example, under the BRI, such recitations could merely involve two iterations for adjusting only two parameters. The claim only requires adjusting the parameters to reduce a root mean squared error, there is no optimization claimed. For the generating, no elements have been amended/added that would add to the complexity of generating the forward velocity. Therefore, such recitations are deemed capable of being performed by a human with pen-and-paper practice, and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Next, the Applicant argues that the claims “are directed to a specific application of that concept to solve a persistent technical problem in the field of cardiovascular monitoring, which is the corruption of pulse wave velocity (PVW) measurements by reflected waves in an artery” by “reciting a specific method that improves the functioning of the cardiovascular measurement technology itself”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The improvements are not directed towards any improvements in measurements or measurement devices (i.e., the sensors are only even recited in the dependent claims 5-6 and 19-20); rather, the improvements are directed towards the evaluations/calculations of such measurements as implemented via a generic computer. An improved mental process is still a mental process even if such a mental process results in more accurate results.1,2 Also, having the claims focus on generating the forward velocity is not itself limiting the claims to improving the technology because cases that involve practical, technological improvements extend beyond simply improving the accuracy of a prediction.3 See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The claimed process uses a combined order of specific rules that renders information into a specific format that is then used and applied to create desired results: a sequence of synchronized, animated characters.”); Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding patent eligible a claim drawn to a behavior-based virus scan that protects against viruses that have been “cosmetically modified to avoid detection by code-matching virus scans”); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1330, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (discussing patent eligible claims directed to “an innovative logical model for a computer database” that included a self-referential table allowing for greater flexibility in configuring databases, faster searching, and more effective storage); CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (explaining that the claims at issue focus on a specific means for improving cardiac monitoring technology; they are not “directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery” (quoting McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314)).
Next, the Applicant argues that the claims, when viewed as an ordered combination, clearly provide significantly more. The Applicant specifically cites to the amended portion of “a processor iteratively adjusting a set of parameters of a double Gaussian propagation model (DPGM) to reduce a root mean squared error” as not being “a routine and conventional activity”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2106.05(I) states that in the search for an inventive concept, “[a]n inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 21-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 (after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, "we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?") (emphasis added)); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"). Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966)”.
The limitation that the Applicant has pointed towards as amounting to significantly more than the recited exceptions, are part of the recited exceptions (i.e., both mental processes and mathematical calculations). As described in the MPEP, “the inventive concept is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself”. Therefore, the element that the Applicant has argued amount to significantly more than the recited exception, cannot amount to more than the recited exception, because that limitation is the recited exceptions themselves (i.e., the abstract ideas directed towards mathematical calculations and evaluations). In pointing towards that limitation, the Applicant does not look to any element beyond the recited exceptions. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant has also argued that the claims “when viewed as an ordered combination, clearly provide ‘significantly more’”. However, it is not clear how the claims, when viewed as an ordered combination provide significantly more. As recited above, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s arguments for claim 18 are not persuasive for commensurate reasons as stated above with regard to claim 1. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
No prior art has been applied to the claims of the present application due to the following rationale below, but the claims are not in condition for allowance due to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 1 and 18 remain allowable over the prior art for the reasons of record as indicated in the Final Office Action mailed on September 19, 2024.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D. MORONESO whose telephone number is (571)272-8055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30AM - 6:00 PM, MST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JENNIFER M. ROBERTSON can be reached at (571)272-5001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.D.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
1 “[T]he improvement in computational accuracy alleged here does not qualify as an improvement to a technological
process; rather, it is merely an enhancement to the abstract mathematical calculation of haplotype phase itself...The
different use of a mathematical calculation, even one that yields different or better results, does not render patent
eligible subject matter.” In re Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University, 991 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir.
2021).
2 “[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp, 839 F.3d 1138
(Fec. Cir. 2016).
3 See In re Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University, 991 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2021).