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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s amendment which was received by the office on April 3, 2026. Claims 1-2 and 4-11 are currently pending and under examination.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a filtering section configured to apply a filtering process…” in claims 1-2 and 5-11, and “an output configured to perform an outputting..” in claims 1-2, 4-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically “filtering section” has been interpreted to include a filter such as an analog filter, an LC filter, a digital filter, a low-pass filter as recited within the specification and equivalents thereof (e.g. para. [0027], [0034] of published application US 2022/0167902). Specifically “output” has been interpreted to include a display device such as a liquid crystal display or an organic EI or a printer as recited within the specification and equivalents thereof (e.g. para. [0030], [0037] of published application US 2022/0167902).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-2 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-2 and 4-11 is/are drawn to an apparatus which is/are a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim limitations within independent claim 1 that set forth or describe the abstract idea is/are: “a filtering section that filters an input electrocardiogram waveform by applying a filtering process to a filter application range that includes portions of a predetermined time period of the input electrocardiogram waveform…,wherein the filter application range to which the filtering process is applied is set as one or more waveforms of the predetermined time period having an amplitude that is equal to or smaller than a predetermined ratio of a maximum amplitude of a QRS wave in the predetermined time period, and the filtering process is not applied to one or more waveforms of the predetermined time period having an amplitude that is larger than the predetermined ratio.” The reasons that the limitations is/are considered an abstract idea is/are the following: the limitations of, “a filtering section that filters an input electrocardiogram waveform by applying a filtering process to a filter application range that includes portions of a predetermined time period of the input electrocardiogram waveform…’ and “wherein the filter application range to which the filtering process is applied is set as one or more waveforms of the predetermined time period having an amplitude that is equal to or smaller than a predetermined ratio of a maximum amplitude of a QRS wave in the predetermined time period, and the filtering process is not applied to one or more waveforms of the predetermined time period having an amplitude that is larger than the predetermined ratio.”, cover an abstract idea that is part of mathematical concepts. “A mathematical formula or equation will be considered as falling with the ‘mathematical concepts” grouping....”. October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, “[T]here are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping.” Id. at Il. A. ii. See for example, Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 177 n.2, 179 n.5, 191-92 (1981) or Parker v. Flook 437 U.S. 584, 585, 198 USPQ 193, 195 (1978) (calculating a number representing an alarm limit using a mathematical formula). The claimed steps of “filters an input electrocardiogram waveform by applying a filtering process to a filter application range that includes portions of a predetermined time period of the input electrocardiogram waveform…,” and “wherein the filter application range to which the filtering process is applied is set as one or more waveforms of the predetermined time period having an amplitude that is equal to or smaller than a predetermined ratio of a maximum amplitude of a QRS wave in the predetermined time period, and the filtering process is not applied to one or more waveforms of the predetermined time period having an amplitude that is larger than the predetermined ratio.” recite a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations). The specification discloses that the filtering process may be analog or digital and a digital filter would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art to be a mathematical process (see “such as the moving average method” para. [0016]), therefore the filtering limitation recites a mathematical concept. The specification also discloses that the filtering is applied only to portions of the ECG waveform between the QRS peaks (see ellipses as shown in Fig. 4) and not applied to portions of ECG waveforms with the QRS peaks. This limitation merely defines how portions, QRS or non-QRS are set based on a wave amplitude being less than a threshold which also amounts to a mathematical operation. Therefore, the claims recite performing a mathematical formula or equation for filtering an electrocardiogram waveform. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mathematical formula or equation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly the claims recite an abstract idea. Although not drawn to the same subject matter, the claimed limitation(s) is/are similar to concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as: a formula for computing an alarm limit in Parker v. Flook 437 U.S. 584, 585, 198 USPQ 193, 195 (1978), the Arrhenius equation in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 177 n.2, 179 n.5, 191-92 (1981). Additionally, the limitation of , “wherein the filter application range to which the filtering process is applied is set as one or more waveforms of the predetermined time period having an amplitude that is equal to or smaller than a predetermined ratio of a maximum amplitude of a QRS wave in the predetermined time period, and the filtering process is not applied to one or more waveforms of the predetermined time period having an amplitude that is larger than the predetermined ratio.” is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The specification recites that an editor can manually delete or correct the kind of beats that are enclosed by the ellipses in Fig. 4 (see para. [0035]), therefore this limitation may be reasonably done in the human mind using observation. For example “wherein the filter application range to which the filtering process is applied is set as one or more waveforms of the predetermined time period having an amplitude that is equal to or smaller than a predetermined ratio of a maximum amplitude of the QRS wave in the predetermined time period, and the filtering process is not applied to one or more waveforms of the predetermined time period having an amplitude that is larger than the predetermined ratio.” in the context of this claim encompasses the user observing and manually deleting or correcting the kinds of beats that are enclosed by the ellipses. There is nothing to suggest an undue level of complexity in this particular claim limitation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers a metal process, i.e. performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls with the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly the claims recite an abstract idea. Although not drawn to the same subject matter, the claimed limitation(s) is/are similar to concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as: collecting information, analyzing it, and reporting certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016), selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis in SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 126 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed Cir. 2018). Thus, the claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception and fall squarely within the realm of "abstract ideas," which is a patent-ineligible concept (Step 2A: Prong One YES).
Analyzing the claim as whole for a practical application, the claim does not include additional elements/steps that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additionally recited element(s) appended to the abstract idea in claim 1 include: “an electrocardiogram waveform apparatus comprising: a filtering section…; an output…”. As discussed above with respect to integration of abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “an electrocardiogram waveform apparatus comprising: a filtering section…; an output…” amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. The specification recites that the electrocardiogram waveform analysis apparatus 100 may be an arbitrary analysis apparatus that acquires waveform information from a patient, a Holter electrocardiograph or the like and that displays analysis results, see para. [0013]. The specification also recites that the filtering section may be “an analog filter such as an RC filter in which a resistor and a capacitor are used, or an LC filter in which a coil and a capacitor are used or a digital filter in which a calculation technique such as a moving average is used”, see para. [0016]. The specification also recites that the output may be a display, a printer or a speaker, see para. [0019]. Therefore, the ““an electrocardiogram waveform apparatus comprising: a filtering section…; an output…” are purely general-purpose computer components recited as carrying out the general-purpose computer functions of processing data and displaying to enable the abstract process. As such, this/these recitation(s) is/are nothing more than nominal recitation(s) of a computer covering an abstract concept. See Bancorp Servs. v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 103 USPQ2d 1425 (Fed. Circ. 2012). See also Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc., 101 USPQ2d 1961 (U.S. 2012), which establishes that a claim cannot simply state the abstract idea and add the words "apply it”, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong Two, NO).
Claim 1 does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an inventive concept) for the same reasons as described above. e.g., all elements being directed to purely general-purpose computer components recited as carrying out the general-purpose computer functions of processing data and displaying to enable the abstract process, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). Further, as stated above, the specification recites that the electrocardiogram waveform analysis apparatus 100 may be an arbitrary analysis apparatus that acquires waveform information from a patient, a Holter electrocardiograph or the like and that displays analysis results, see para. [0013]. The specification also recites that the filtering section may be “an analog filter such as an RC filter in which a resistor and a capacitor are used, or an LC filter in which a coil and a capacitor are used or a digital filter in which a calculation technique such as a moving average is used, see para. [0016]. The specification also recites that the output may be a display, a printer or a speaker, see para. [0019]. Therefore, the ““an electrocardiogram waveform apparatus comprising: a filtering section…; an output…” are purely general-purpose computer components recited as carrying out the general-purpose computer functions of processing data and displaying to enable the abstract process. Similarly, when considered as an ordered combination, the additional components/steps of the claim(s) add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately (Step 2B: NO). The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 2 and 4-11 depend directly or indirectly from claim(s) 1. Therefore, the dependent claims rely upon the same abstract idea as the independent claim(s), as set forth above. Additionally, the dependent claims do nothing more than further limiting the abstract idea while failing to qualify as "significantly more", and the specificity of an abstract idea does not make it any "less abstract" as it is still directed to concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work subject matter. Therefore, the dependent claim(s) are also not patent eligible for the reasons discussed above. Claim(s) 6-8 fail(s) to provide significantly more, when considered as an ordered combination, as it/they merely provide further limitation regarding the filter, which can still nonetheless be considered mathematical concepts and/or mental processes. Claim(s) 2 fail(s) to provide significantly more, when considered as an ordered combination, as it/they merely provide further limitation regarding the “data gathering” which merely: add insignificant extra-solution activity, and is merely nominally, insignificantly or tangentially related to the performance of the steps, i.e. amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity). All uses of the recited judicial exception require the pre-solution activity of data gathering. Claims 5,9 and 10 recite insignificant post-solution activity which is recited at a high level of generality and is merely nominally, insignificantly or tangentially related to the performance of the steps, i.e. amounts to insignificant application, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity), see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim(s) 4 and 11 fail(s) to provide significantly more, when considered as an ordered combination, as it/they merely provide further limitation regarding the processing system which are purely general-purpose computer components recited as carrying out the general-purpose computer functions of processing data and displaying to enable the abstract process. As such, this/these recitation(s) is/are nothing more than nominal recitation(s) of a computer covering an abstract concept. See Bancorp Servs. v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 103 USPQ2d 1425 (Fed. Circ. 2012). See also Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc., 101 USPQ2d 1961 (U.S. 2012), which establishes that a claim cannot simply state the abstract idea and add the words "apply it”.
The instantly rejected claim(s) are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the interest of advancing prosecution, the examiner suggests: providing evidence, for example, delineating how the abstract idea and/or additional elements appended to the abstract idea results in an improvement to the technology/technical field, which can show eligibility and/or adding a practical application of the claimed method outside of the computer (e.g. treating a patient). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of providing evidence supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration. For additional guidance, applicant is directed generally to MPEP § 2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of the amendment filed on 4/3/2026 clarifying the language of claims 1 and 6 the 112(b) rejections made against claims 1-2 and 4-11 within the office action of 2/24/2026 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 5, filed 4/3/2026, with respect to the 112(b) rejections made against claims 1-2 and 4-11 within the office action mailed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments. Therefore the 112(b) rejections made against claims 1-2 and 4-11 within the office action mailed 2/24/2026 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 5-7, filed 4/3/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections made against claims 1-2 and 4-9 using Pan in view of Bhaumik and Sharma and the 103 rejections made against claims 1-2,4-9 and 11 using Vitali in view of Bhaumik and Sharma within the office action mailed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments. Therefore, the 103 rejections made against claims 1-2 and 4-9 using Pan in view of Bhaumik and Sharma and the 103 rejections made against claims 1-2,4-9 and 11 using Vitali in view of Bhaumik and Sharma within the office action mailed 2/24/2026 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L GHAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5844. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM - 3:30PM ET.
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 MCDONALD can be reached on (571)270-3061. 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.
/JENNIFER L GHAND/ Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights