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 .
This action is in response to the filing on 6/15/2026. Since the initial filing, claims 10, 13, 18-21 and 24 have been amended, claims 12 and 23 have been cancelled and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 10-11, 13-22 and 24-29 are pending in the application.
In regards to the previous 101 Rejections, Applicant has argued that the amendments overcome these rejections. Nevertheless, the amendments do not overcome the 101 Rejection and they are maintained, modified for the amendments, below.
In regards to the previous 102 and 103 Rejections, Applicant has amended to overcome these rejections and they are therefore withdrawn.
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 10-11, 13-22 and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
[STEP 1]
In regards to claim 10, the claim is a method consisting of abstract ideas and is one of the four statutory categories.
[STEP 2A, Prong One]
The claim recites the following limitations the recite and abstract idea: acquiring, via processing circuitry, an acceleration from an acceleration sensor during a plurality of reciprocations, the acceleration sensor being disposed between a chest of a patient and hand of a user; performing, via the processing circuitry, gravity correction processing for the acceleration using a gravity correction value corresponding to a gravitational acceleration; calculating, via the processing circuitry, a velocity by performing integration processing for the acceleration that has been subjected to the gravity correction processing; calculating, via the processing circuitry, a distance by performing integration processing for the velocity; and extracting from the distance, via the processing circuitry, feature points corresponding to a start point and an end point in a forward stroke of a reciprocation and calculating a moving distance of the forward stroke of the reciprocation based on a difference value of the distance between the extracted start and end points; extracting two feature points from feature points repeatedly appearing in waveforms of the velocity or the distance obtained in a plurality of past reciprocations as a start feature point and an end feature point; calculating a tilt correction coefficient based on a tilt of a virtual straight line extending from the start feature point to the end feature point in the waveform of the velocity or the distance; correcting the velocity or the distance using a tilt correction value obtained based on an elapsed time from the start feature point and the tilt correction coefficient; and displaying the moving distance on a display part as a compression depth of a compression operation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (judgment of evaluation which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG). The above limitations are limited to a mental process that can be done by a person simply collection data regarding user actions, evaluating that data and making a determination based upon that evaluation.
[STEP 2A, Prong Two]
The claim recited additional element of processing circuitry and an acceleration sensor. These additional elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because of the following: they are generic devices. The generic devices do not improve the function of the system of any other technology or technical field. The elements do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because there are no distinguishing elements of the device. Thus, for these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in the independent claim 10 (and its respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
[STEP 2B]
The claim does not cite any additional structure that would make it significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are described with a high degree of generality without any features or elements to distinguish over the conventional and well known device of the art as shown by Sagiroglu (US 2013/0282068; paragraph 49) and Giacometti (US 2019/0374429; paragraph 198).
In regards to claim 11 and 14-17, these claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus do not make the abstract idea any less abstract) (claim 13 introduce extracting data points, calculating a coefficient and correcting initial data with the coefficient; claim 14 and 15 introduce correcting data; claim 16 and 17 introduce acquiring data, calculating a coefficient and correcting data using the coefficient) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
[Step 1]
In regards to claim 18, the claim is a method consisting of abstract ideas and is one of the four statutory categories.
[STEP 2A, Prong One]
The claim recites the following limitations that recite an abstract idea: acquiring an acceleration from an acceleration sensor during a plurality of reciprocations of the first information processing device, the first information processing device being disposed between a chest of a patient and a hand of a user; performing gravity correction processing for the acceleration using a gravity correction value corresponding to a gravitational acceleration; calculating a velocity by performing integration processing for the acceleration that has been subjected to the gravity correction processing; calculating a distance by performing integration processing for the velocity; extracting, from the distance, feature points corresponding to a start point and an end point in a forward stroke of a reciprocation and calculating a moving distance of the forward stroke of the reciprocation based on a difference value of the distance between the extracted start and end points; extracting two feature points from feature points repeatedly appearing in waveforms of the velocity or the distance obtained in a plurality of past reciprocations as a start feature point and an end feature point; calculating a tilt correction coefficient based on a tilt of a virtual straight line extending from the start feature point to the end feature point in the waveform of the velocity or the distance; correcting the velocity or the distance using a tilt correction value obtained based on an elapsed time from the start feature point and the tilt correction coefficient; and transmitting the acceleration, the velocity, and the distance or the moving distance from the first information processing device to the second information processing device (judgment of evaluation which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG). The above limitations are limited to a mental process that can be done by a person simply collection data regarding user actions, evaluating that data and making a determination based upon that evaluation.
[STEP 2A, Prong Two]
The claim recites the additional elements of information processing devices and an acceleration sensor. These additional elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because of the following: they are generic devices. The generic devices do not improve the function of the system of any other technology or technical field. The elements do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because there are no distinguishing elements of the device. Thus, for these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in the independent claim 18 is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
[STEP 2B]
The claim does not cite any additional structure that would make it significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are described with a high degree of generality without any features or elements to distinguish over the conventional and well known device of the art as shown by Sagiroglu (US 2013/0282068; paragraph 49) and Giacometti (US 2019/0374429; paragraph 198).
[STEP 1]
In regards to claim 19, the claim is a device with components to do a method consisting of abstract ideas and is one of the four statutory categories.
[STEP 2A, Prong One]
The claim recites the following limitations that recite an abstract idea: acquire an acceleration from an acceleration sensor during a plurality of reciprocations of the information processing device, the first information processing device being disposed between a chest of a patient and a hand of a user; perform gravity correction processing for the acceleration using a gravity correction value corresponding to a gravitational acceleration, calculate a velocity by performing integration processing for the acceleration that has been subjected to the gravity correction processing, calculate a distance by performing integration processing for the velocity, and extract, from the distance, feature points corresponding to a start point and an end point in a forward stroke of a reciprocation and calculate a moving distance of the forward stroke of the reciprocation based on a difference value of the distance between the extracted start and end points, extract two feature points from feature points repeatedly appearing in waveforms of the velocity or the distance obtained in a plurality of past reciprocations as a start feature point and an end feature point, calculate a tilt correction coefficient based on a tilt of a virtual straight line extending from the start feature point to the end feature point in the waveform of the velocity or the distance, correct the velocity or the distance using a tilt correction value obtained based on an elapsed time from the start feature point and the tilt correction coefficient, and display the moving distance on a display part of the information processing device as a compression depth of a compression operation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (judgment of evaluation which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG). The above limitations are limited to a mental process that can be done by a person simply collection data regarding user actions, evaluating that data and making a determination based upon that evaluation.
[STEP 2A, Prong Two]
The claim recites the additional elements of a processing device and an acceleration sensor. These additional elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because of the following: they are generic devices. The generic devices do not improve the function of the system of any other technology or technical field. The elements do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because there are no distinguishing elements of the device. Thus, for these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in the independent claim 18 is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
[STEP 2B]
The claim does not cite any additional structure that would make it significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are described with a high degree of generality without any features or elements to distinguish over the conventional and well known device of the art as shown by Sagiroglu (US 2013/0282068; paragraph 49) and Giacometti (US 2019/0374429; paragraph 198).
[STEP 1]
In regards to claim 20, the claim is a device with components to do a method consisting of abstract ideas and is one of the four statutory categories.
[STEP 2A, Prong One]
The claim recites the following limitations that recite an abstract idea: acquire an acceleration from an acceleration sensor during a plurality of reciprocations of the information processing device when the information processing device is disposed between a chest of a patient and a hand of a user, perform gravity correction processing for the acceleration using a gravity correction value corresponding to a gravitational acceleration, calculate a velocity by performing integration processing for the acceleration that has been subjected to the gravity correction processing, calculate a distance by performing integration processing for the velocity, extract, from the distance, feature points corresponding to a start point and an end point in a forward stroke of a reciprocation and calculate a moving distance of the forward stroke of the reciprocation based on a difference value of the distance between the extracted start and end points, extract two feature points from feature points repeatedly appearing in waveforms of the velocity or the distance obtained in a plurality of past reciprocations as a start feature point and an end feature point, calculate a tilt correction coefficient based on a tilt of a virtual straight line extending from the start feature point to the end feature point in the waveform of the velocity or the distance, correct the velocity or the distance using a tilt correction value obtained based on an elapsed time from the start feature point and the tilt correction coefficient, and transmit the acceleration, the velocity, and the distance or the moving distance to a second information processing device, the second information processing device communicably connected to the information processing device, communicably connected to the information processing device, and display the moving distance on a display part of at least one of the first information processing device and the second information processing device as a compression depth of a compression operation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (judgment of evaluation which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG). The above limitations are limited to a mental process that can be done by a person simply collection data regarding user actions, evaluating that data and making a determination based upon that evaluation.
[STEP 2A, Prong Two]
The claim recites the additional elements of processing circuitry and an acceleration sensor. These additional elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because of the following: they are generic devices. The generic devices do not improve the function of the system of any other technology or technical field. The elements do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because there are no distinguishing elements of the device. Thus, for these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in the independent claim 18 is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
[STEP 2B]
The claim does not cite any additional structure that would make it significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are described with a high degree of generality without any features or elements to distinguish over the conventional and well known device of the art as shown by Sagiroglu (US 2013/0282068; paragraph 49) and Giacometti (US 2019/0374429; paragraph 198).
[STEP 1]
In regards to claim 21, the claim is a device with components to do a method consisting of abstract ideas and is one of the four statutory categories.
[STEP 2A, Prong One]
The claim recites the following limitations that recite an abstract idea: acquiring an acceleration from an acceleration sensor during a plurality of reciprocations, the acceleration sensor being disposed between a chest of a patient and a hand of a user; performing gravity correction processing for the acceleration using a gravity correction value corresponding to a gravitational acceleration; calculating a velocity by performing integration processing for the acceleration that has been subjected to the gravity correction processing; calculating a distance by performing integration processing for the velocity; and extracting, from the distance, feature points corresponding to a start point and an end point in a forward stroke of a reciprocation and calculating a moving distance of the forward stroke of the reciprocation based on a difference value of the distance between the extracted start and end points, extracting two feature points from feature points repeatedly appearing in waveforms of the velocity or the distance obtained in a plurality of past reciprocations as a start feature point and an end feature point; calculating a tilt correction coefficient based on a tilt of a virtual straight line extending from the start feature point to the end feature point in the waveform of the velocity or the distance; correcting the velocity or the distance using a tilt correction value obtained based on an elapsed time from the start feature point and the tilt correction coefficient; and displaying the moving distance on a display part as a compression depth of a compression operation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (judgment of evaluation which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG). The above limitations are limited to a mental process that can be done by a person simply collection data regarding user actions, evaluating that data and making a determination based upon that evaluation.
[STEP 2A, Prong Two]
The claim recites the additional elements of a computer with a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and an acceleration sensor. These additional elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because of the following: they are generic devices. The generic devices do not improve the function of the system of any other technology or technical field. The elements do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because there are no distinguishing elements of the device. Thus, for these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in the independent claim 18 is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
[STEP 2B]
The claim does not cite any additional structure that would make it significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are described with a high degree of generality without any features or elements to distinguish over the conventional and well known device of the art as shown by Sagiroglu (US 2013/0282068; paragraph 49) and Giacometti (US 2019/0374429; paragraph 198) and Freeman (US 2016/0120469; paragraph 102).
In regards to claims 22 and 24-29, these claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus do not make the abstract idea any less abstract) (claim 24 introduces extracting data points, calculating a coefficient and correcting initial data with the coefficient; claim 25 and 26 introduce correcting data; claim 27 and 28 introduce acquiring data, calculating a coefficient and correcting data using the coefficient; claim 29 introduces transmitting data) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
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 Arielle Wolff whose telephone number is (571)272-8727. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:00.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/ARIELLE WOLFF/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights