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 on October 16, 2025 was considered by the examiner. Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-17 are pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: information derivation unit, index calculation unit, and disease determination unit in claim 1.
Prong 1: “unit” is a generic placeholder. See MPEP 2181 §I, subsection A, ¶1.
Prong 2: the transition word “to” is used, followed by functional language:
“an information derivation unit configured to derive sleep time information of the subject…”;
“an index calculation unit configured to calculate breathing-related index information…”; and
“a disease determination unit configured to determine whether the subject has a sleep-related disease…”.
Prong 3: there is not sufficient structure to modify the generic placeholder “unit”.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The examiner interprets the generic computer (see specification ¶[0044] and ¶[0167]-[0168]; Fig. 2) to cover the corresponding structure, materials, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof for the information derivation unit.
The examiner interprets the generic computer (see specification ¶[0044] and ¶[0167]-[0168]; Fig. 2) to cover the corresponding structure, materials, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof for the index calculation unit.
The examiner interprets the generic computer (see specification ¶[0044] and ¶[0167]-[0168]; Fig. 2) to cover the corresponding structure, materials, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof for the disease determination unit.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a” should be inserted before “sleep-related” in line 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “thereby improving accuracy of the event occurrence information” in lines 16-17. The specification does not describe/detail “improving accuracy of the event occurrence information”. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was effectively filed.
Claims 3-8 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “thereby improving accuracy of the event occurrence information” in lines 14-15. The specification does not describe/detail “improving accuracy of the event occurrence information”. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was effectively filed.
Claims 11-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 9.
Claim 17 recites “thereby improving accuracy of the event occurrence information” in lines 17-18. The specification does not describe/detail “improving accuracy of the event occurrence information”. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was effectively filed.
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, 3-9, and 11-17 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 recites “thereby improving accuracy of the event occurrence information” in lines 16-17. It is not clear which element of the claim is intended to “improv[e] the accuracy of the event occurrence information. Furthermore, “improving accuracy” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “improving accuracy” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear to what the event occurrence information is improved relative to. It is not clear what constitutes an improved accuracy. These inconsistencies render claim 1 indefinite. For the purposes of examination, this recitation is not being given patentable weight. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-8 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “thereby improving accuracy of the event occurrence information” in lines 14-15. It is not clear which element of the claim is intended to “improv[e] the accuracy of the event occurrence information. Furthermore, “improving accuracy” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “improving accuracy” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear to what the event occurrence information is improved relative to. It is not clear what constitutes an improved accuracy. These inconsistencies render claim 9 indefinite. For the purposes of examination, this recitation is not being given patentable weight. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 11-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 9.
Claim 17 recites “thereby improving accuracy of the event occurrence information” in lines 17-18. It is not clear which element of the claim is intended to “improv[e] the accuracy of the event occurrence information. Furthermore, “improving accuracy” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “improving accuracy” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear to what the event occurrence information is improved relative to. It is not clear what constitutes an improved accuracy. These inconsistencies render claim 17 indefinite. For the purposes of examination, this recitation is not being given patentable weight. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-9, and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim 1 interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Based on the specification, the recitation “derive sleep time information of the subject” (see specification ¶[0110]-[0111] and ¶[0117]) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations and/or judgements; “and event occurrence information for a plurality of sleep items based on the reflected radar signal” (see specification ¶[0105]-[0110]) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations. The recitation “calculate breathing-related index information based on the sleep time information and the event occurrence information” (see specification ¶[0112]-[0121]) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations. The recitation “determine whether the subject has the sleep-related disease based on the breathing-related index information” (see specification ¶[0122]-[0124]) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations and/or judgements. The recitation “comparing the reflected radar signal with an average breathing signal of the subject” (see specification ¶[0055]-[0056] and ¶[0060]-[0065]) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations and/or judgements. The recitation “the average breathing signal is calculated by using a pattern of the reflected radar signal from the subject and a change in amplitude of the reflected radar signal” (see specification ¶[0067]-[0088]) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations. The recitations are computer-implemented, as indicated in the specification (see ¶[0167]-[0168]).
Claim 9 interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Based on the specification, the recitation “deriving sleep time information of the subject” (see specification ¶[0110]-[0111] and ¶[0117]) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations and/or judgements. The recitation “comparing the reflected radar signal with an average breathing signal of the subject” (see specification ¶[0055]-[0056] and ¶[0060]-[0065]) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations and/or judgements. The recitation “event occurrence information for a plurality of sleep items based on the comparison result” (see specification ¶[0105]-[0110]) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations. The recitation “calculating breathing-related index information based on the sleep time information and the event occurrence information” (see specification ¶[0112]-[0121]) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations. The recitation “determining whether the subject has the sleep-related disease based on the breathing-related index information” (see specification ¶[0122]-[0124]) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations and/or judgements. The recitation “the average breathing signal is calculated by using a pattern of the reflected radar signal from the subject and a change in amplitude of the reflected radar signal” (see specification ¶[0067]-[0088]) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations. The recitations are computer-implemented, as indicated in the specification (see ¶[0167]-[0168]).
Claim 17 interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Based on the specification, the recitation “derive sleep time information of the subject” (see specification ¶[0110]-[0111] and ¶[0117]) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations and/or judgements; “and event occurrence information for a plurality of sleep items based on the reflected radar signal” (see specification ¶[0105]-[0110]) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations. The recitation “calculate breathing-related index information based on the sleep time information and the event occurrence information for the plurality of sleep items” (see specification ¶[0112]-[0121]) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations. The recitation “determine whether the subject has the sleep-related disease based on the breathing-related index information” (see specification ¶[0122]-[0124]) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations and/or judgements. The recitation “comparing the reflected radar signal with an average breathing signal of the subject” (see specification ¶[0055]-[0056] and ¶[0060]-[0065]) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations and/or judgements. The recitation “the average breathing signal is calculated by using a pattern of the reflected radar signal from the subject and a change in amplitude of the reflected radar signal” (see specification ¶[0067]-[0088]) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations. The recitations are computer-implemented, as indicated in the specification (see ¶[0167]-[0168]).
Step 1: This part of eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. Claims 1 and 17 recite a device, which is directed towards a machine/manufacture (a statutory category of invention). Claim 9 recites a method, which is directed towards a process (a statutory category of invention). Step 1: YES.
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The “mental processes” abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. As discussed in the claim interpretation section, the limitations include, under the BRI, multiple evaluations and judgements. Accordingly, the limitations as seen in claims 1, 9, and 17 recite judicial exceptions (abstract ideas that fall within the mental process grouping).
Furthermore, as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The courts consider mathematical calculations, when the claim is given its BRI in light of the specification, as falling within the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas. A claim does not have to recite “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using a mathematical method, or “performing” a mathematical operation, may also be considered a mathematical calculation when the BRI of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation. As discussed in the claim interpretation section, the limitations include, under the BRI, mathematical calculations/evaluations. Accordingly, the limitations as seen in claims 1, 9, and 17 recite judicial exceptions (abstract ideas that fall within the mathematical calculations grouping of mathematical concepts).
Alternatively or additionally, these steps describe the concept of using implicit mathematical formulas (i.e., calculations to calculate sleep time, mathematical calculations to the signal to detect events, further calculations to determine indexes, and for the disease determination) to derive a conclusion based on input of data, which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts (Diamond v. Diehr. 450 U.S. 175, 209 U.S.P.Q. 1 (1981), Parker v. Flook. 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978), and In re Grams. 888 F.2d 835, 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1824 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). The concept of the recited limitations identified as mathematical concepts above is not meaningfully different than those mathematical concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas.
In particular, claim 1 recites the following elements, which are part of the abstract idea (i.e., the algorithm):
determining sleep-related disease using a radar, comprising:
derive sleep time information of the subject and event occurrence information for a plurality of sleep items based on the reflected radar signal;
calculate breathing-related index information based on the sleep time information and the event occurrence information; and
determine whether the subject has the sleep-related disease based on the breathing-related index information,
derive the event occurrence information for the plurality of sleep items by comparing the reflected radar signal with an average breathing signal of the subject, and
wherein the average breathing signal is calculated by using a pattern of the reflected radar signal from the subject and a change in amplitude of the reflected radar signal, thereby improving accuracy of the event occurrence information.
Furthermore, claim 9 recites the following elements, which are part of the abstract idea (i.e., the algorithm):
a method for determining a sleep-related disease, comprising:
deriving sleep time information of the subject,
comparing the reflected radar signal with an average breathing signal of the subject and deriving event occurrence information for a plurality of sleep items based on the comparison result;
calculating breathing-related index information based on the sleep time information and the event occurrence information; and
determining whether the subject has the sleep-related disease based on the breathing-related index information,
wherein the average breathing signal is calculated by using a pattern of the reflected radar signal from the subject and a change in amplitude of the reflected radar signal, thereby improving accuracy of the event occurrence information.
In addition, claim 17 recites the following elements, which are part of the abstract idea (i.e., the algorithm):
determining a sleep-related disease,
derive sleep time information of the subject and event occurrence information for a plurality of sleep items based on the reflected radar signal,
calculate breathing-related index information based on the sleep time information and the event occurrence information for the plurality of sleep items, and
determine whether the subject has the sleep-related disease based on the breathing-related index information,
derived by comparing the reflected radar signal with an average breathing signal of the subject, and
wherein the average breathing signal is calculated by using a pattern of the reflected radar signal from the subject and a change in amplitude of the reflected radar signal, thereby improving accuracy of the event occurrence information.
Step 2A Prong One: YES.
Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exceptions into a practical application. The claims recite additional elements related to a generic computer (i.e., the device including the unit, the storage medium, etc.). The devices/method are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 1 and 9 further recite an additional element of a radar (i.e., the transceiver of claim 1). Note that claim 17 does not positively recite the radar or any implement of the radar, such as a transceiver. The radar/transceiver does not qualify as integration into a practical application because this limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a high level of generality – see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g) using a generic component (i.e., the radar/transceiver is claimed generically).
Step 2A Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05. As explained with Step 2A Prong Two, the claims recite additional elements directed towards a generic computer. The devices/method (claims 1, 9, and 17) utilizing a generic computer do not qualify as significantly more because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in 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 in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
Claims 1 and 9 further recite an additional element of a radar (i.e., the transceiver of claim 1). The sensor does not qualify as significantly more because this is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, Ghoshal et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0345274 – cited in prior action) teaches systems and methods for remotely sensing movement of a mammalian subject (see abstract) in which a conventional radar may be implemented as the transceiver (see ¶[0045] and ¶[0054]; Figs. 1 and 3). Therefore, the radar/transceiver does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no
indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for
example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is
no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based
problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective
functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e.,
the computer is simply a tool to perform the process. Step 2B: NO.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are not eligible.
Claims 3-8 and 11-16 depend from claims 1 and 9, respectively, merely further define the abstract ideas of claims 1 and 9. The claims recite no additional element that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The device/method are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite no additional element that adds an inventive concept to the claim and/or amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The method/devices utilizing a generic computer do not qualify as significantly more because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in 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 in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
Looking at the limitations of each claim as an ordered combination in conjunction with the claims from which they depend (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 10, and 15 of copending Application No. 18/119,519 in view of Kagawa et al. (“Non-contact diagnostic system for sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome based on amplitude and phase analysis of thoracic and abdominal Doppler radars”, Journal of Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing, vol. 54, pp. 789-798, August 26, 2015 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Kagawa, and in view of Radrich (WIPO Publication WO 2019/126452), hereinafter Radrich.
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 17, copending claims 3, 10, and 15 teach every element of the present application claims except the determination of whether the subject has a sleep-related disease based on the breathing-related index information. In this case, the breathing-related index information is taught by the component score of the copending application.
Kagawa teaches a non-contact sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (SAHS) diagnostic system involving two Doppler radars (see abstract; Fig. 1). Kagawa teaches a device/method for determining disease using a radar (see abstract; Fig. 1), including
a disease determination unit (see Figs. 1 and 3, the control device (computer) that implements the radar and subsequent detection; see § 2 Methods, the PC system for analysis and implementation of the SAHS system) configured to determine whether the subject has a sleep-related disease based on the breathing-related index information (see § 3.3 and § 4, the RDI was utilized to classify the subjects into one of three groups, Healthy & SAHS-mild, SAHS-moderate, and SAHS-severe, the AHI of the PSG system were used as the standard to determine which class the patients belonged, in this case, the AHI of the PSG system would be considered the control group and the RDI would be considered the disease group; Table 2 and Fig. 6).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the disease determination modality of Kagawa with the score, including apnea, hypopnea, and RERAs, of the copending application claim 3 because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device/method ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) the determining the disease of the patient would help the patient and a medical professional give the patient appropriate care based on the determination.
The modified copending claims 3, 10, and 15 do not teach that the average breathing signal is calculated by using a pattern of the reflected radar signal from the subject and a change in amplitude of the reflected radar signal, thereby improving accuracy of the event occurrence information.
Radrich teaches cardiac artifact removal from respiration signals via concurrently recorded signals (see abstract), in which radar may be utilized (see ¶[0034]), and that employs a moving average filter over the respiration signals, with the window size adaptably changed based on the heart rate data, in which the filtering is continuous (see ¶[0033] and ¶[0040]-[0047]; Fig. 4, see generally Figs. 5-18 for implementation examples), in which the filtered signal may be utilized for detecting respiration events, such as apnea periods (see ¶[0048]). Here, the respiration signal is being interpreted as the pattern, as the claim does not indicate that the reflected signal and pattern are different, nor require any additional elements. As the filtering is continuous and the moving average updated, the determination would also reflect a change in amplitude of the respiration signal.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the cardiac moving average filtering of Radrich with the radar sensed respiration and cardiac signals of the modified copending claims 3, 10, and 15 because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device/method ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) the continuously filtered reflected signal would help to remove the cardiac artifact (see Radrich ¶[0033]), avoid false detections (see Radrich ¶[0035] and ¶[0049]), and be utilized to detect apnea periods (see Radrich ¶[0048]).
Regarding Claims 3-8 and 11-16, the modified copending claim 3 in view of Kagawa as taught in claims 1 and 9 above, teaches every element of claims 3-8 and 11-16.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kagawa et al. (“Non-contact diagnostic system for sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome based on amplitude and phase analysis of thoracic and abdominal Doppler radars”, Journal of Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing, vol. 54, pp. 789-798, August 26, 2015 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Kagawa, and in view of Radrich (WIPO Publication WO 2019/126452), hereinafter Radrich.
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 17, Kagawa teaches a non-contact sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (SAHS) diagnostic system involving two Doppler radars (see abstract; Fig. 1). Kagawa teaches a device/method for determining a sleep-related disease using a radar (see abstract; Fig. 1), including a computer program stored in a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium including a sequence of instructions for determining disease using a radar, wherein the computer program includes a sequence of instructions that, when executed by a computing device (see Figs. 1 and 3, the control device (computer) that implements the radar and subsequent detection; see § 2 Methods, the PC system for analysis and implementation of the SAHS system), comprising:
a transceiver (see abstract and Figs. 1 and 3, the chest and abdominal radars) configured to transmit a radar signal toward a subject and receive the radar signal reflected from the subject (see § 2 Methods, the two Doppler radars that output a signal and then receive a reflected signal from the subject; Figs. 1 and 3);
an information derivation unit (see Figs. 1 and 3, the control device (computer) that implements the radar and subsequent detection; see § 2 Methods, the PC system for analysis and implementation of the SAHS system) configured to derive sleep time information of the subject and event occurrence information for a plurality of sleep items based on the reflected radar signal (see § 2.1-2.3, the automatic detection of the respiratory disturbance events, including apneas and hypopnea during the sleep time, according to apnea/hypopnea criteria given in Table 1; Figs. 2 and 4);
an index calculation unit (see Figs. 1 and 3, the control device (computer) that implements the radar and subsequent detection; see § 2 Methods, the PC system for analysis and implementation of the SAHS system) configured to calculate breathing-related index information based on the sleep time information and the event occurrence information (see § 2 Methods ¶2, § 3.2, and § 4 Discussion, the indexes that are calculated for each hour, which could be the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) or the respiratory disturbance index (RDI), which may also include respiratory effort-related arousals (RERAs); Fig. 4); and
a disease determination unit (see Figs. 1 and 3, the control device (computer) that implements the radar and subsequent detection; see § 2 Methods, the PC system for analysis and implementation of the SAHS system) configured to determine whether the subject has the sleep-related disease based on the breathing-related index information (see § 3.3 and § 4, the RDI was utilized to classify the subjects into one of three groups, Healthy & SAHS-mild, SAHS-moderate, and SAHS-severe, based on specific parameters (thresholds) of 15/30 AHI events or 12/24 RDI events; Table 2 and Fig. 6),
wherein the event occurrence information is derived by comparing the reflected radar signal with an average breathing signal of the subject (see § 2.1, the comparison of the current radar amplitude to a baseline amplitude in order to detect apneas and hypopneas, using specific sensitivities; Fig. 2).
Kagawa teaches that the radar may be utilized to measure respiration signals (0.1-0.6 Hz) and pulse signals (0.6-3.0 Hz) (see § 2 Methods, ¶1; see also cite number 17), but does not specifically teach that the average breathing signal is calculated by using a pattern of the reflected radar signal from the subject and a change in amplitude of the reflected radar signal, thereby improving accuracy of the event occurrence information.
Radrich teaches cardiac artifact removal from respiration signals via concurrently recorded signals (see abstract), in which radar may be utilized (see ¶[0034]), and that employs a moving average filter over the respiration signals, with the window size adaptably changed based on the heart rate data, in which the filtering is continuous (see ¶[0033] and ¶[0040]-[0047]; Fig. 4, see generally Figs. 5-18 for implementation examples), in which the filtered signal may be utilized for detecting respiration events, such as apnea periods (see ¶[0048]). Here, the respiration signal is being interpreted as the pattern, as the claim does not indicate that the reflected signal and pattern are different, nor require any additional elements. As the filtering is continuous and the moving average updated, the determination would also reflect a change in amplitude of the respiration signal.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the cardiac moving average filtering of Radrich with the radar sensed respiration and cardiac signals of Kagawa because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device/method ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) the continuously filtered reflected signal would help to remove the cardiac artifact (see Radrich ¶[0033]), avoid false detections (see Radrich ¶[0035] and ¶[0049]), and be utilized to detect apnea periods (see Radrich ¶[0048]).
Regarding Claims 3 and 11, Kagawa in view of Radrich teaches the device/method of claims 1 and 9 as stated above. Kagawa further teaches to derive the event occurrence information by detecting a sleep breathing event (see § 2.1-2.3, the automatic detection of the respiratory disturbance events, including apneas and hypopnea during the sleep time, according to apnea/hypopnea criteria given in Table 1; Figs. 2 and 4) and a sleep motion event of the subject (see § 2.2, the paradoxical movement detection).
Regarding Claims 4 and 12, Kagawa in view of Radrich teaches the device/method of claims 3 and 11 as stated above. Kagawa further teaches to set parameters for the plurality of sleep items and to derive the event occurrence information based on the parameters (see § 2.1, the parameters set for detecting the apnea/hypopnea events, such as the optimal threshold), and the parameters include event occurrence-related parameters (see § 2.1, the optimal threshold) and signal processing parameters (see § 2 Methods, the band-pass filter, the parameters being the frequency range, and the automatic gain control technique and associated parameters). See also Radrich ¶[0033] and ¶[0040]-[0047], the moving average filter over the respiration signals; Fig. 4.
Regarding Claims 5 and 13, Kagawa in view of Radrich teaches the device/method of claims 1 and 9 as stated above. Kagawa further teaches the breathing-related index information includes a value obtained by dividing a total number of times corresponding to the event occurrence information by the sleep time information (see § 2 Methods ¶2, § 3.2, and § 4 Discussion, the indexes that are calculated for each hour, which could be the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) or the respiratory disturbance index (RDI), which may also include respiratory effort-related arousals (RERAs); Fig. 4).
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, Kagawa in view of Radrich teaches the device/method of claims 1 and 9 as stated above. Kagawa further teaches the breathing-related index information includes apnea-hypopnea index information, and the index calculation unit is further configured to calculate the apnea-hypopnea index information based on event occurrence information related to an apnea item among the plurality of sleep items and event occurrence information related to a hypopnea item among the plurality of sleep items (see § 2 Methods ¶2, § 3.2, and § 4 Discussion, the indexes that are calculated for each hour, which could be the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) or the respiratory disturbance index (RDI), which both include the number of apneas and hypopneas per hour of sleep; Fig. 4).
Regarding Claims 7 and 15, Kagawa in view of Radrich teaches the device/method of claims 1 and 9 as stated above. Kagawa further teaches the breathing-related index information includes respiratory disturbance index information, and the index calculation unit is further configured to calculate the respiratory disturbance index information based on event occurrence information for an apnea item among the plurality of sleep items, event occurrence information for a hypopnea item among the plurality of sleep items and event occurrence information for a respiratory effort item among the plurality of sleep items (see § 2 Methods ¶2, § 3.2, and § 4 Discussion, the indexes that are calculated for each hour, the respiratory disturbance index (RDI), which includes the number of apneas and hypopneas per hour of sleep, and may also include the respiratory effort-related arousals (RERAs) per hour of sleep; Fig. 4).
Regarding Claims 8 and 16, Kagawa in view of Radrich teaches the device/method of claims 1 and 9 as stated above. Kagawa further teaches the disease determination unit is configured to determine whether the subject has the sleep-related disease by comparing disease group distribution information of the sleep-related disease and control group distribution information of the sleep-related disease with the breathing- related index information (see § 3.3 and § 4, the RDI was utilized to classify the subjects into one of three groups, Healthy & SAHS-mild, SAHS-moderate, and SAHS-severe, the AHI of the PSG system were used as the standard to determine which class the patients belonged, in this case, the AHI of the PSG system would be considered the control group and the RDI would be considered the disease group; Table 2 and Fig. 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed October 16, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection are made that were necessitated by Applicant’s amendment filed on October 16, 2025.
Applicant’s arguments, 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8-9, filed October 16, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection (i.e., the rejection regarding “a computer-readable storage medium”) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9-15, filed October 16, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are NOT persuasive. The Applicant first argues that, under step 2A prong one, the claimed subject matter is not directed towards mathematical concepts, specifically the features related to the transceiver. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Under step 2A prong one, the claim is evaluated to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). As recited above, the limitations include, under the BRI, mathematical calculations/evaluations. Therefore, step 2A prong one is “yes” and analysis continues with step 2A prong two. Additional elements are not analyzed in step 2A prong one. Nevertheless, the elements related to the transceivers are not sufficient to integrate the recited exceptions into a practical application because the radar/transceiver does not qualify as integration into a practical application because this limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a high level of generality – see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g) using a generic component (i.e., the radar/transceiver is claimed generically). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Next, Applicant argues that, under step 2A prong one, the claimed subject matter is not directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity. The examiner agrees, and the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection does not assert that the claimed subject matter is directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Next, Applicant argues that, under step 2A prong one, the claimed subject matter is not directed towards mental processes, because the claims recite features that cannot be performed in the human mind, particularly with the transmission and receiving of the radar signal. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, under step 2A prong one, the claim is evaluated to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). As recited above, the limitations include, under the BRI, multiple evaluations and judgements. Therefore, step 2A prong one is “yes” and analysis continues with step 2A prong two. Additional elements are not analyzed in step 2A prong one. Nevertheless, the elements related to the transceivers are not sufficient to integrate the recited exceptions into a practical application because the radar/transceiver does not qualify as integration into a practical application because this limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a high level of generality – see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g) using a generic component (i.e., the radar/transceiver is claimed generically). Furthermore, there is no indication in the claims that the generic computer implemented processing elements cannot be performed in the human mind. There is no temporal requirement for analyzing the data, or quantity of data to be analyzed. The examiner maintains that a human with pen and paper could perform the generic computer implemented evaluations and judgements. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Next, Applicant argues that, under step 2A prong two, the recited exceptions are integrated into a practical application because the claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, specifically with regard to improving accuracy of event occurrence information. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In this case, the improvement is not directed towards the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as the improvement is directed towards the generic computer implemented data processing, i.e., to the abstract ideas themselves. An improved mental process is still a mental process even if such a mental process results in more accurate results.1,2 Also, having the claims focus on determining event occurrence is not itself limiting the claims to improving the technology because cases that involve practical, technological improvements extend beyond simply improving the accuracy of a prediction.3 See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The claimed process uses a combined order of specific rules that renders information into a specific format that is then used and applied to create desired results: a sequence of synchronized, animated characters.”); Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding patent eligible a claim drawn to a behavior-based virus scan that protects against viruses that have been “cosmetically modified to avoid detection by code-matching virus scans”); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1330, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (discussing patent eligible claims directed to “an innovative logical model for a computer database” that included a self-referential table allowing for greater flexibility in configuring databases, faster searching, and more effective storage); CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (explaining that the claims at issue focus on a specific means for improving cardiac monitoring technology; they are not “directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery” (quoting McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314)). Therefore, the improvement cannot integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the improvement is directed towards the abstract ideas, and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Next, Applicant argues that, under step 2B, the combination of elements of the claims when viewed as a whole, amount to significantly more because the features of the claims are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant is reminded that “the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination” and that “[a]s made clear by the courts, the “‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.”” See MPEP 2106.05. In this case, even if the specific generic computer processing steps were to be novel and non-obvious, as the steps are generic computer processes implemented on a generic computer, the elements would still be considered well-understood, routine and conventional. Nevertheless, the prior art rejection has been updated based upon Applicant’s amendments, and the claims are not considered to be non-obvious. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no
indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for
example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is
no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based
problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective
functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a) (1)
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed October 16, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a) (1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection are made in view of Radrich (WIPO Publication WO 2019/126452).
Applicant’s arguments, nonstatutory double patenting
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed October 16, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-17 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection are made in view of Radrich (WIPO Publication WO 2019/126452).
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 JONATHAN D. MORONESO whose telephone number is f(571)272-8055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30AM - 6:00 PM, MST.
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 M. ROBERTSON can be reached at (571)272-5001. 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.
/J.D.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JUSTIN XU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
1 “[T]he improvement in computational accuracy alleged here does not qualify as an improvement to a technological
process; rather, it is merely an enhancement to the abstract mathematical calculation of haplotype phase itself...The
different use of a mathematical calculation, even one that yields different or better results, does not render patent
eligible subject matter.” In re Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University, 991 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir.
2021).
2 “[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp, 839 F.3d 1138
(Fec. Cir. 2016).
3 See In re Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University, 991 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2021).