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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/23/2026 has been entered. Amendments to claims 12, 14, 16, and 18, and cancellation of claim 21 are acknowledged. Claims 12-18 remain 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the impedance data" in 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what impedance data is being compared in this limitation.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 12-14 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 12 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 12 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “acquire… first electrical impedance data representative of at least one dependent region of lungs of a patient;”, “receive at least one of a flow rate from within a breathing circuit of the patient and a pressure from within the breathing circuit;”, “compare an increase or decrease in the first impedance data with an increase or decrease in one or more of the flow rate within the breathing circuit of the patient, the pressure within the breathing circuit, and a second impedance data representative of a second region of the lungs of the patient comprising at least a non-dependent region to identify a respiratory effort of the patient,”, “based on the comparison and determine if the respiratory effort is ineffective”, and “identify the ineffective effort in a user-interface device by displaying a graphical representation including at least one of the flow rate and the pressure plotted as a function of time and visually indicating a region on the graphical representation corresponding to a time period during which the ineffective effort occurs.”. This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). In this case, comparison of two data sets obtained from sensors that are well-known, routine, or conventional in the art is a task that may be performed in the mind by a human with pencil/paper. With respect to the display of information, a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, is considered a mental process per Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The disclosed technologies do not improve a technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), affect a particular treatment for a disease or medical condition (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)), apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), or apply the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e)). As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are “an electrical impedance tomography system”, “at least one processor”, “at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, “user interface device” and “a breathing circuit”. However, these elements are not “significantly more” because they are well-known, routine, and/or conventional as evidenced by para [0003]: “Breathing circuits are commonly utilized in the operating room” of Daugherty (US 20050178381 A1), para [0174]: “known user interface systems” of Martin et al. (US 20180236191 A1) and paras [0003-0004]: “Devices for electrical impedance tomography (EIT) are well known from the state of the art… an electrical impedance tomograph having an array of a plurality of electrodes, power input to at least two electrodes, signal acquisition at the remaining electrodes”) of Gärber (US 20190038173 A1). Regarding the processor and non-transitory computer readable storage medium, generic computer structures are not significantly more according to Alice v. CLS. Therefore, these elements do not add significantly more and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements does not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements does not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 12 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claim(s) 13-14 and 16-18 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 12 by merely reciting additional abstract ideas, further limitations on abstract ideas already recited, and/or additional elements that are not significantly more. Claim 13 recites the limitation “at least one gas monitoring sensor”. However, this element is not “significantly more” because they are well-known, routine, and/or conventional as evidenced by Fisher et al. (US 20070062531 A1) abstract: “breathing circuit e) means to identify phase of breathing… by gas sensors or other means known to those skilled in the art;”. Thus, claim(s) 12-14 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kremeier (US 2020/0260985 A1) in view of Yoshida et al. (“Spontaneous Effort Causes Occult Pendelluft during Mechanical Ventilation”, as cited by Applicant’s IDS filed 04/06/2022) in further view of Martin (US 2018/0236191 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kremeier discloses a system for determining a respiratory effort of a patient (title), the system comprising: an electrical impedance tomography system ([0037]: “elements for capturing the impedance of the living body”, [0041]: “with ascertainment of an image information item of the electrical impedance”); at least one processor coupled to the electrical impedance tomography system ([0009]: “The control unit, at least intermittently, evaluates information items about the impedance and information items about the respiration and/or ventilation”); acquire, with the electrical impedance tomography system, first electrical impedance data (Fig 3, [0066]) representative of at least one dependent region of lungs of a patient ([0087]: "According to the invention, there can be a consideration of the entire lung or else separate evaluation of ventral and dorsal, or arbitrary, lung portions"); receive at least one of a flow rate from within a breathing circuit of the patient and a pressure from within the breathing circuit ([0060]: “The ventilator comprises a device for establishing pressure and/or flow and/or volume (23, 24) of the respiratory gas.”, Fig 2 element 5 and 6 comprising the breathing circuit, [0063]: “ventilator (20) comprises a (pneumatic or electronic or optical) pressure measuring input and a pressure sensor (23).”).
While Kremier discloses and comparing an increase or decrease in the first electrical impedance data with an increase or decrease in one or stored patterns of electrical impedance data representative of the first region of the lungs ([0037]: “a first impedance variation is ascertained and… the one second impedance variation is ascertained and at least the first and the second (or any further) impedance variations are compared to one another”, Fig 5 elements 37 and 38 and 39, [0078]: “The impedance variation (39) is the difference between end-expiratory (lowest) impedance and end-inspiratory (highest) impedance; it represents the change in the thoracic impedance when taking a breath.”, wherein the impedance variation represents a change in impedance which is compared to another change in impedance), to identify a respiratory effort of the patient based on the comparison and determine if the respiratory effort is ineffective ([0070]: "Inspiratory impedances (38) that lie below the threshold (48) are assessed as failed triggers (38′). Here, inspiratory effort by the patient does not lead to inspiration (by the ventilator).", wherein the respiratory effort is ineffective as it does not lead to inspiration from the ventilator, [0078]: “An increase in the impedance variation (39) indicates an increase of the respiratory gas volume. In very much simplified terms, the ventilation of the lung is then improved.”, wherein the increase/decrease in variation as per comparison represents if the effort is successful), and identifying the ineffective effort on a user interface device ([0072]: “The failed triggers (38′) can be directly visualized in the region of a display (3).”), they fail to specifically disclose comparing an increase or decrease in the first electrical impedance data with an increase or decrease in one or more of the flow rate within the breathing circuit of the patient, the pressure within the breathing circuit, and a second electrical impedance data representative of a second region of the lungs of the patient comprising at least a non-dependent region to identify a respiratory effort of the patient based on the comparison and determine if the respiratory effort is ineffective.
Yoshida discloses comparing an increase or decrease in the first electrical impedance data with increases or decreases of one or more of a flow rate within a breathing circuit of the patient, a pressure within the breathing circuit, and a second electrical impedance data representative of a second region of the lungs of the patient comprising at least a non-dependent region of the lungs of the patient (Fig 1 and caption: “(EIT) waveforms… early inflation in the dependent region was accompanied by concomitant (transient) deflation of nondependent region); based on the comparison, identifying an occurrence of a respiratory effort of the patient and determining whether the respiratory effort is ineffective (Fig 1 and caption: “Pendelluft drift”).
As Kremier discloses obtaining and evaluating data from dependent/non-dependent regions of the lungs, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to substitute the known comparison of historical impedance values as disclosed by Kremier to the known comparison of a first and second region of the lungs as disclosed by Yoshida for the predictable result of determining an ineffective respiratory effort.
Kremier as modified by Yoshida fails to disclose at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions thereon. While Kremeier discloses device by displaying a graphical representation including at least one of the flow rate and the pressure plotted as a function of time (Fig 4), they fail to specifically disclose displaying a graphical representation including at least one of the flow rate and the pressure plotted as a function of time and visually indicating a region on the graphical representation corresponding to a time period during which the ineffective effort occurs.
Martin discloses a device to determine a disconnection in a breathing circuit (abstract) including and at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions thereon ([0229]: “such as the one or more set of algorithms 4300 expressed as computer programs stored in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, such as memory 4260.”), and displaying a graphical representation including at least one of the flow rate and the pressure plotted as a function of time and visually indicating a region on the graphical representation corresponding to a time period during which the ineffective effort occurs (Fig 7C).
It would have been additionally obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the system disclosed by Kremier as modified by Yoshida to include the non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions disclosed by Martin in order to allow for automation of the respiratory effort determination system to improve ease of operation. It would have been additionally obvious to include the graph as disclosed by Martin in order to improve the visuals provided to a user.
Regarding claim 13, Kremeier further discloses at least one gas monitoring sensor operably coupled to the system, the at least one gas monitoring sensor configured to measure one or both of the pressure and the flow rate within the breathing circuit ([0063]: “the ventilator (20) comprises a (pneumatic or electronic or optical) pressure measuring input and a pressure sensor (23)” consistent with applicant’s specification page 11 lines 16-17 “the gas monitoring sensor may include one or more of a pressure, a flow, and a gas concentration sensor.”).
Regarding claim 14, Kremeier as modified by Yoshida and Martin fails to disclose determining an asynchrony between the patient and a ventilator responsive to measuring an increase in the first electrical impedance without a corresponding increase in one or more of the second impedance, the flow rate, and the pressure within the breathing circuit.
Martin further discloses determining an asynchrony between the patient and a ventilator responsive to measuring an increase in the first impedance without a corresponding increase in one or more of the second impedance, the flow rate, and the pressure within the breathing circuit ([0275]: “For instance, inspiratory activity may be associated with an increase in delivered flow rate, or a reduction in airway pressure, or both, depending on the circuit type. The inverse may occur with patient expiratory effort. A conductance or impedance profile used to estimate breath phase may therefore be more sensitive and more universal across circuit configurations. Therefore, a conductance or impedance profile or absolute magnitude may be used to trigger and cycle the RPT device in synchrony with the patient's efforts or be used to provide feedback to the clinician regarding potential asynchrony between the machine's breath phase and that of the patient”).
As Kremeier discloses a method to identify inefficient breathing in relation to a ventilator (Kremeier [0070]), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the electrical impedance system disclosed by Kremeier and Yoshida to include the asynchrony detection as disclosed by Martin in order to provide additional data in relation to insufficient effort (Martin [0275]).
Regarding claim 15, Kremeier as modified by Yoshida and Martin discloses the system of claim 12 but fails to disclose the instructions are further configured to cause the at least one processor to send a command to start a respiratory cycle responsive to identifying an asynchrony between the patient and a ventilator.
Martin further discloses the instructions are further configured to cause the at least one processor to send a command to initiate one or more corrective actions responsive to identifying an asynchrony between the patient and a ventilator ([0275]: “Therefore, a conductance or impedance profile or absolute magnitude may be used to trigger and cycle the RPT device in synchrony with the patient's efforts”, [0279], wherein the RPT device is the respiratory pressure therapy device).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the system disclosed by Kremeier to include triggering of a respiratory cycle in order to allow for treatment of asynchrony (Martin [0275]).
Regarding claim 16, Kremeier further discloses comparing the first electrical impedance data with the second electrical impedance data responsive to determining an increase in the first impedance without a corresponding increase in one or both of the pressure and the flow rate in the breathing circuit ([0033]: "and at least the first and the second (or any further) end-expiratory impedances are compared to one another and a recommendation for the PEEP pressure that causes the lowest end-expiratory impedance is stored or output for the operator of the ventilator or there is an automatic selection and application of this PEEP pressure.", wherein the comparison is made in relation to the set pressure).
Regarding claim 17, Kremeier further discloses with the electrical impedance tomography system, first electrical impedance data representative of at least one dependent region of lungs of a patient comprises acquiring the first impedance data of only a dependent region of the lungs ([0087]: "According to the invention, there can be a consideration of the entire lung or else separate evaluation of ventral and dorsal, or arbitrary, lung portions").
Regarding claim 18, Yoshida further discloses wherein comparing the increase or decrease in the first electrical impedance data with the increase or decrease in the one or more of a flow rate within a breathing circuit of the patient, a pressure within the breathing circuit, and a second electrical impedance data representative of a second region of the lungs of the patient comprising at least a non-dependent region comprises comparing the first electrical impedance data with each of the flow rate , the pressure, and the impedance data (Fig 2, airway pressure, impedance, Table 2: “flow”).
Yoshida fails to specifically disclose flow rate and pressure within a breathing circuit.
Martin further discloses comparing the first impedance data with the flow rate within the breathing circuit and the pressure within the breathing circuit ([0275]: “a continuous determination of instantaneous impedance or conductance values based on measured or estimated pressure (P) and flow rate (Q) parameters may be used to estimate the phase of the patient's breathing.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the system disclosed by Kremeier as modified by Yoshida to include flow and pressure obtained from a breathing circuit as disclosed by Martin in order to obtain a more robust data set.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 12-14 and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. A claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, is considered a mental process per Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In this case, plotting a graphical representation of an ineffective breathing effort is not more than a mental process performed in the human mind with pen/paper.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 12-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, Martin fails to teach that the calculated impedance is an electrical impedance in comparison to a flow rate as required by amended claim 1. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. § 103 (see above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zheng et al. (CN 106267494 A) – discloses graphical display
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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, Jaqueline Cheng can be reached at 571-272-5596. 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.
/KAVYA SHOBANA BALAJI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/DEVIN B HENSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights