DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the submission filed on 12/17/2025. Claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
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 Arguments - 35 USC § 112/ 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the amendments have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. Most rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the amendments have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejection has been modified to address the new claim limitations.
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 1-10 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, step (3) recites “…to acquire a final target position”. It is unknown who or what has the final target position. Is it assumed that the phrase should read as “to acquire a target position for each of the sensors”. Claim 8 is rejected for similar reasoning. Claims 2-7 and 9-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of
nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements
that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.(See MPEP 2106).
Step 1: With respect to claims 1-10, applying step 1, the preamble of independent claims 1 and 8 claim a method and a device. As such these claims fall within the statutory categories of process and a machine.
Step 2A, prong one: In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 1 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
A tracheal intubation positioning method based on deep learning, comprising:
step (1) constructing a convolutional neural network based on dilated convolution and feature map fusion, and extracting feature information of an endoscopic image through the YOLOv3 convolutional neural network that is trained to acquire first target information (Mathematical concepts - Mathematical Calculation – MPEP 2106.04{a}{2}{1}{C} (i-vi));
step(2) determining second target information by utilizing a vectorized positioning method mode according to carbon dioxide concentration differences detected by four sensors (mental process – observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
wherein the step(2) comprises calibrating a position for each of the sensors, establishing a Cartesian coordinate system based on calibrated positions of the sensors, and determining the second target information according to the Cartesian coordinate system, a center position of the second target information is specifically as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
122
387
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein OC1, OC2, OC3, OC4 are respectively carbon dioxide concentration vectors measured by the four sensors, 0 is an included angle between OC1 or OC3 and an x axis in the Cartesian coordinate system or an included angle between OC2 or OC4 and a y axis in the Cartesian coordinate system, and ( is a normalization factor; xo and yo are coordinates of the center position of the second target information (Mathematical concepts - Mathematical Calculation – MPEP 2106.04{a}{2}{1}{C} (i-vi)); and
step (3) fusing the first target information and the second target information to acquire a final target position, wherein the step (3) further comprises: performing weighted fusion on a center coordinate of a bounding box of the first target information and a center position obtained by mapping a center position of the second target information to an image coordinate system to acquire the final target position (Mathematical concepts - Mathematical Calculation – MPEP 2106.04{a}{2}{1}{C} (i-vi)).
The limitations as analyzed include concepts directed to the "Mathematical Concepts"
grouping of abstract ideas (including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C). Constructing a convolutional neural network based on dilated convolution and feature map fusion is a mathematical calculation. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "Mathematical Concepts" groupings of abstract ideas.
The limitations as analyzed include concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim involves determining target information. The steps are simple enough/broadly claimed that they could be performed mentally. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, prong two: Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: “carbon dioxide concentration differences detected by four sensors” (insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering/output MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as "apply it" or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed towards data gathering. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h).
As such, considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 1 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Independent claim 8 is directed to substantially the same subject matter as independent claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Claims 2-7 are further directed towards concepts directed to the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping of abstract ideas (including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C). Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "Mathematical Concepts" groupings of abstract ideas.
Claims 9 and 10 are further directed towards additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea which only present generic computing components: A computer device, comprising a memory and a processor, wherein a computer program is stored in the memory; and when the computer program is executed by the processor, the processor performs the steps of the tracheal intubation positioning method” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)) and “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, wherein the computer readable storage medium stores a computer program; and when the computer program is executed by a processor” (generic computing components merely carrying out the abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (b)).
When viewed in combination or as a whole, the recited additional elements do no more than automate the mathematical and mental processes, as recited in the judicial exception, using the computer components as a tooI. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 contain allowable subject matter.
The claims will be allowable if the rejections under 35 USC 112 and 101 are overcome.
The closest prior art of record, Gormley, teaches a method for intubation positioning based on convolutional neural networks. However, this reference and the remaining prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest
(claims 1 and 8)
“wherein the step(2) comprises calibrating a position for each of the sensors, establishing a Cartesian coordinate system based on calibrated positions of the sensors, and determining the second target information according to the Cartesian coordinate system, a center position of the second target information is specifically as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
122
387
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein OC1, OC2, OC3, OC4 are respectively carbon dioxide concentration vectors measured by the four sensors, 0 is an included angle between OC1 or OC3 and an x axis in the Cartesian coordinate system or an included angle between OC2 or OC4 and a y axis in the Cartesian coordinate system, and ( is a normalization factor; xo and yo are coordinates of the center position of the second target information; and
step (3) fusing the first target information and the second target information to acquire a final target position, wherein the step (3) further comprises: performing weighted fusion on a center coordinate of a bounding box of the first target information and a center position obtained by mapping a center position of the second target information to an image coordinate system to acquire the final target position”,
in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NITHYA J. MOLL whose telephone number is (571)270-1003. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm 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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/NITHYA J. MOLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189