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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/11/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
i. Arguments regarding Example 47
The Applicant argues the claim conditions are similar to example 47, claim 3. The claims recite as outlined by the Applicant include removing data that is outside of a threshold (which may make it easier to identify AF); generating a color image which may enable the neural network to have improved accuracy. Then tracking times associated with AF episode, such that brief episodes may be more accurately identified, resulting in improved care. The Applicant argues this improves the accuracy, similar to MPEP 2106.05(a), subsection (II). The Applicant also argues training and use of a neural network are additional elements based on Ex parte Hannun. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the claim does not provide any details about how the neural network determines an indication of AF. Under BRI the claim does not require any specific process or component for associating the ECM image with an indication of atrial fibrillation. The outputting step requires a generic output using the neural network. The claim does not impose any limits on how the data is output or require any particular components that are used to output the anomaly data. The claim does not require any remedial actions when an indication of AF is determined besides outputting a report. Therefore, the claim is more in line with claim 2 of Example 47 than claim 3.
ii. Cosmokey Applicant argues the similarity of Cosmokey where the claims recite an inventive concept because they recite a specific set of ordered steps that go beyond an abstract idea and yields higher security. The Applicant argues the instant claims are a technical improvement over existing atrial fibrillation detection technology because of the specific order of steps that go beyond the abstract idea. The examiner does not find these arguments persuasive as removing excess data is known in the art and is commonly done using bandpass filters, low pass filters and or high pass filters. Then converting the filtered data and providing an indication of AF is not analogous to preventing unauthorized access or higher security.
Step 2B The Applicant argues the specific limitations or combination of limitations are not well-understood, routine, conventional in the field. The examiner notes the applicant does not argue any specific structure that is allegedly significantly more. It is unclear if the applicant is arguing the abstract idea itself is not well-understood, or if the processor, one or more sensors, a display or a non-transitory computer readable media are not well understood. The examiner notes MPEP2106.05(a), subsection II states, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. This is similar to the instant disclosure where it provides a user more information on whether an atrial fibrillation is present. The recited elements of processor, a display or a non-transitory computer readable media are part of a generic computing equipment and is well-understood. The use of sensors connected to the processor are also well-understood as electrodes for detecting electrical activity of the body and Paragraph [0019] generically recites one or more ECG leads configured to monitor heart rate. Therefore, the claims do not contain limitations that are not well understood as argued.
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 1-13 and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving ECG information over a period of time, processing the ECG by adding time stamps and identify a plurality of windows and pulses, remove information based on identified pulse corresponding to QRS complex and identifying portions preceding and after the QRS complex, generating an ECM illustrating the first and second pulse, and generating an ECM image based on the ECM and a first and third portion (areas preceding ventricular activity) to indicate the presence of atrial fibrillation, which is a mental process or one that can be performed with the aid of pen and paper. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because one or more sensors, a display are extra solution activities, the sensors are used for collecting ECG data and a processor and display are part of a generic computing device. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because sensors to obtain ECG data is well known, routine and conventional. The additional elements are part of a generic computing device (see instant application published Paragraph [0020]). The examiner notes generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William J Levicky whose telephone number is (571)270-3983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM 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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)270-5625. 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.
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796