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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/5/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/25 regarding the 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the ECG lead, along with the processing and output does not recite a mental process and is tied to a particular machine and cannot be performed in the human mind. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as a multi-lead ECG is generic in the art and is well-understood routine and conventional (i.e., gathering data/statistics MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). The generic processing would work with any ECG data and does not require any specific or particular machine. Further, the analysis of the concavity of the data is well-understood routine and conventional data processing (i.e., gathering data/statistics MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). The generic output of the generic condition is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic devices, a “computer-implemented” method, performing generic computer functions like sending, receiving, and visually displaying data) is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data output). Finally, identifying a segment in an ECG, drawing a model of the JT interval curve, extracting a feature from the curve and then determining a condition from the single curve can easily be done in the human mind with modeling done using pen and paper. Further the method as claimed fails to provide anything more than processing data using a generic processor and displaying the result on a generic display. Therefore, the 101 rejection stands.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-11, 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1- Claim 1
Claim 1 and dependent claims 3-9 and 21 are drawn to a method and thus meet the requirements for step 1.
Step 2a (prong 1) - Claim 1
Claims 1 recites the step of “identifying a segment, modeling the segment, determining a concavity of the segment, and determining a cardiological condition based on the concavity of the segment.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this step covers a concept capable of being performed in the human mind, and thus falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2a (prong 2) – Claim 1
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
Determining a cardiological condition is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic devices, a “computer-implemented” method, performing generic computer functions like sending, receiving, and visually displaying data) is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data output).
Outputting the determined cardiological condition is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic devices, a “computer-implemented” method, performing generic computer functions like sending, receiving, and visually displaying data) is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data output).
These steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are insignificant extra solution activity.
Step 2b- Claim 1
The additional elements when considered individually and in combination are not enough to qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, determining a cardiological condition is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic devices, a “computer-implemented” method, performing generic computer functions like sending, receiving, and visually displaying data).
The additional elements that were considered insignificant extra solution activity have been re-analyzed and do not amount to anything more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional when considered individually and in combination with evidence provided. Specifically:
Identifying a segment in ECG data is well-understood routine and conventional (i.e., gathering data/statistics MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Modeling the segment with a curve is well-understood routine and conventional (i.e., gathering data/statistics MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Extracting features of the curve is well-understood routine and conventional (i.e., gathering data/statistics MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Determining a cardiological condition is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (i.e., presenting data MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Claim 1 is thus consider to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 3-9 and 21 depend from claim 1. The devices utilized to collect the data as stated in claims 3-4 are stated at a high level of generality in applicant’s specification (“12 ECG leads”) and are merely used as a tool to carry out the data gathering. Claims 5-8 and 21 are directed toward the extra solution activity of gathering data/statistics. Claim 9 is considered extra solution activity. Thus, the dependent claim do not change the overall analysis that claims 3-9 and 21 are also directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 10
Independent claim 10 is directed to a system containing limitations similar to that for claim 1 and further includes a processor with memory. Analyzing the processor and memory of claim 10 under step 2a, prong 1, the processor and memory are recited at a high level of generality and merely use the computer elements (the processor and memory) as a tool. When analyzed under step 2a, prong 2, the processor and memory perform generic computer functions like storing and processing data. Further, when the analysis is extended to step 2b, the processor and memory are considered to use the computer elements as tools, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Thus, claim 10 is also considered to be patent ineligible subject matter.
Claims 11, 13-20 and 22
Independent claim 11 is directed to a system containing limitations similar to that for claim 1 and further includes a multi-lead ECG arrangement, a processor with memory. Analyzing the processor and memory of claim 11 under step 2a, prong 1, the processor and memory are recited at a high level of generality and merely use the computer elements (the processor and memory) as a tool. Further the multi-lead ECG is well-understood routine and conventional (i.e., gathering data/statistics MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). When analyzed under step 2a, prong 2, the processor and memory perform generic computer functions like storing and processing data. Further, when the analysis is extended to step 2b, the processor and memory are considered to use the computer elements as tools, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Thus, claim 11 is also considered to be patent ineligible subject matter. Dependent claims 13-20 and 22 are similar to dependent claims 2, 3-9 and 21 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REX R HOLMES whose telephone number is (571)272-8827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:30PM.
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.
/REX R HOLMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796