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, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/8/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed 5/11/2026 appear to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and therefore the rejections are withdrawn. In particular, it is now clear the first scale refers to the stretching of the y-axis (adjusting the voltage level) and the second scale is a color scale. Applicant’s amendments further merit new grounds for rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 in view of newly cited art: Montambeau et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0141862 A1).
Further, as the Application is in RCE status, new grounds for rejection are further presented in view of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claimed invention in claims 1-20 are directed to statutory subject matter as the claims recite a method of display of a plurality of measured signals, a display of a plurality of measured signals, and a system for measuring and displaying a signal of interest.
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 13, the recited steps are directed to a mental process of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsections (I) and (III)).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 13, the limitations of “receiving inputs indicative of the plurality of measured signals” are a mental process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human using a pen and paper under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional writing down the “plurality of measured signals”.
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 13, the limitations of “processing the received inputs to determine a plurality of values, each value of the plurality of values corresponding to one of the plurality of measured signals; providing a control of a second scale for the displayed plurality of values, the controlled second scale being different from the displayed first scale of the plurality of values, the displayed first scale and the controlled second scale being concurrently applied to a single displayed plot for each of the plurality of measured signals” are nothing more than a mental process or mathematical calculation as drafted. For example, these steps are nothing more than a medical professional analyzing a patient’s ECG data and scaling the data via pen and paper.
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 13, the limitations of “displaying on the display values corresponding to at least a first of the plurality of measured signals adjusted from the first scale based on the controlled second scale while maintaining the display of the plurality of values on the display utilizing the first scale” are nothing more than a mental process or mathematical calculation as drafted. For example, these steps are nothing more than a medical professional drafting with a pen and paper the scaled ECG outputs on graph paper.
Step 2A, Prong Two
For claims 7, and 13, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite a “display” and “processor”. The display and processor are recited a high-level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic display and generic processing unit. The acquisition of the “ECG” in claims 6, 12, 13, and 18 is performed by a “sensor.” The sensing is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than pre-solution activity of data gathering.
Accordingly, this additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial except into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The display and sensor disclosed by the applicant are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to 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 to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim, as a whole, amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). Accordingly, a conclusion that the generic computer functions merely being used to implement an abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14-20 further limit the abstract idea already indicated in independent claims 1, 7, and 13 and they are ineligible for the same reasons provided for claims 1, 7, and 13 above.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claims and thus they are ineligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Montambeau et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0141862 A1); hereinafter referred to as “Montambeau”.
Regarding claim 1, Montambeau discloses a method of display of a plurality of measured signals, the method comprising: receiving inputs indicative of the plurality of measured signals (e.g. see figure 1 elements 108, 109, [0025]); processing the received inputs to determine a plurality of values, each value of the plurality of values corresponding to one of the plurality of measured signals (e.g. see figure 1 elements 110, 112, [0025]); displaying the plurality of values as a corresponding plurality of measured signals on a display (e.g. see figure 3 elements 304A-304L, [0042]) utilizing a first scale for display of each of the plurality of measured signals, the first scale being independently changeable for each of the plurality of measured signals (e.g. see figure 3 element 310, [0042]-[0043]. The gain adjustment button 310 is equated to the first scale); providing a control of a second scale (e.g. see figure 3 element 312, [0042]-[0043]. The speed adjustment button 312 is equated to the second scale) for the displayed plurality of values, the controlled second scale being different from the displayed first scale of the plurality of values (e.g. see figure 3 elements 310, 312, [0042]-[0043]), the displayed first scale and the controlled second scale being concurrently applied to a single displayed plot for each of the plurality of measured signals (e.g. see figure 3 elements 305, 310, 312, [0042]-[0043]. The aggregate signal disclosed in [0042] will read on “a single displayed plot for each of the plurality of measured signals”); and displaying on the display values corresponding to at least a first of the plurality of measured signals adjusted from the first scale based on the controlled second scale while maintaining the display of the plurality of values on the display utilizing the first scale (e.g. see figure 3 elements 300, 310, 312, [0043]. Note: [0043] states “the gain adjustment button 310, speed adjustment button 312, and filter button 314 can be used to adjust the window scaling in each region to ensure that at least one heartbeat period can be displayed within each region”. Thus the first and second scale can be adjusted at the same time on the same plot).
Regarding claims 3, 9, and 15, Montambeau discloses the control of the second scale is independent of the first scale (e.g. see figure 3 elements 310, 312, [0043]. Note: [0043] states “the gain adjustment button 310, speed adjustment button 312, and filter button 314 can be used to adjust the window scaling in each region to ensure that at least one heartbeat period can be displayed within each region”. Control of 310 and 312 are independent).
Regarding claims 4, 10, and 16, Montambeau discloses control of the second scale allows for visual examination on the display of the first of the one or more of the plurality of values (e.g. see figure 3 elements 310, 312, [0043]. Note: [0043] states “the gain adjustment button 310, speed adjustment button 312, and filter button 314 can be used to adjust the window scaling in each region to ensure that at least one heartbeat period can be displayed within each region”. The control of 312 allows for “visual examination”).
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 17, Montambeau discloses the first scale allows for direct comparison across the plurality of measured signals (e.g. see figure 3 elements 310, 312, [0043]. Note: [0043] states “the gain adjustment button 310, speed adjustment button 312, and filter button 314 can be used to adjust the window scaling in each region to ensure that at least one heartbeat period can be displayed within each region”. The control of 310 allows for “direct comparison across the plurality of measured signals”).
Regarding claims 6, 12, and 18, Montambeau discloses the received inputs are from an electrocardiograph (ECG) (e.g. see [0042]-[0043]).
Regarding claims 7 and 13, Montambeau discloses the invention (see the rejection for claim 1 above and further discloses the physical elements of a display (e.g. see figure 1 element 106), an input (e.g. see figure 1 element 107), a processor (e.g. see figure 1 element 118, and ECG sensors (e.g. see figure 1 element 108, [0025]).
Regarding claim 19, Montambeau discloses the plurality of values as the corresponding plurality of measured signals are provided in a single graph (e.g. see figure 3 element 305, [0042]. The aggregate signal disclosed in [0042] will read on “single graph”).
Regarding claim 20, Montambeau discloses the first of the plurality of values corresponding to at least a first of the plurality of measured signals are included in the single graph (e.g. see figure 3 element 305, [0042]. The aggregate signal disclosed in [0042] will read on “single graph”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 8, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montambeau in view of Sherman et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0066799 A1); hereinafter referred to as “Sherman”.
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 14, Montambeau discloses using color (e.g. see [0040], [0047], and [0052]) but is silent as to the second scale is provided in color. Sherman teaches it is known to use such a modification as set forth in [0017]-[0028], [0031], and [0037] (Note: [0017]-[0028] disclose the color scheme. [0031] discloses the color scheme can be adjusted. [0037] discloses the zoom function) to provide dynamic and time-varying color/pattern to assist in assessing a broader view of the heart's health and current state, as the history of the rhythm changes can convey important clinical information about the current and future state of the heart (e.g. see [0016]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a color schema as taught by Montambeau in the system/method of Sherman, since said modification would provide the predictable results of dynamic and time-varying color/pattern to assist in assessing a broader view of the heart's health and current state, as the history of the rhythm changes can convey important clinical information about the current and future state of the heart.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP C EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)270-1804. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00-5:00 EST.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at 571-272-8506. 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.
/P.C.E/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/AMANDA L STEINBERG/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights