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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 26-28 are objected to because of the following informalities: Instead of saying “The system of claim 1”, the limitations from each of these claims should say “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 25”. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the arguments against the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the generation of new data that operates on specific input data and uses specific technology to generate the new data recites specific technical improvements. Examiner asserts that upon further review of the Specification of the Applicant, there is no indication or support of a technology improvement beyond generic implementation of the generative models and other generic computing technologies to perform the generation of new data, which as claimed recites an abstract idea still as described in the updated rejection of this Office Action.
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, 5, and 11-28 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
It is appropriate for the Examiner to determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the claim in accordance to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test as recited in the following Steps: 1, 2A, and 2B, see MPEP 2106(III.).
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 1:
First, the Examiner is to establish whether the claim falls within any statutory category including a process, a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, see MPEP 2106.03(II.) and MPEP 2106.03(I).
Claims 1, 11-16, 26-28 are related to a system, and claims 5, 17-24 are also related to a method (i.e., a process). Claim 25 recites a “non-transitory” computer readable medium. Accordingly, these claims are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong One:
Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test demonstrates whether a clam is directed to a judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(I.). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, where Prong One establishes the judicial exception. Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes, see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(1.) and 2106.04(a)(2).
Independent claim 25 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 25 recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a system, cause the system to:
receive first electrocardiogram data obtained using one or more electrodes configured to respond to electrical signals of a patient when placed on a skin surface of the patient;
generate second electrocardiogram data by inputting the first electrocardiogram data of the patient to a first generative model,
wherein the first generative model comprises a generative adversarial network,
wherein the first generative model is trained by, for each subject of a plurality of subjects:
accessing a set of actual electrocardiogram data, where the actual electrocardiogram data is obtained using a plurality of electrodes placed on a skin surface of the subject,
selecting a subset of the actual electrocardiogram data corresponding to a subset of the plurality of electrodes;
inputting the subset of the actual electrocardiogram data to the first generative model;
generating, using the first generative model, a set of generated electrocardiogram data;
inputting the generated electrocardiogram data and corresponding actual electrocardiogram data to a discriminator model, wherein the corresponding actual electrocardiogram data comprises actual electrocardiogram data not included in the subset of the actual electrocardiogram data; and
determining, using the discriminator model, if the generated electrocardiogram data is generated or actual; and
combining the first electrocardiogram data and the second electrocardiogram data for electronic transmission to a display terminal configured for generation of a graphical representation of the combined first electrocardiogram data and the second electrocardiogram data.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “certain methods of organizing human activity”, more specifically managing interactions between people as the following abstract limitations are for generation of a graphical representation of the combined first electrocardiogram data and the second electrocardiogram data for a patient:
“Generate” second electrocardiogram data by generating a set of generated electrocardiogram data, which is an abstract limitation of analysis for generating data by considering the actual electrocardiogram data,
“Determining” if the generated electrocardiogram data is generated or actual, which is an abstract limitation of analysis of the actual and generated electrocardiogram data,
“Combining” the first electrocardiogram data and the second cardiogram data, which is an abstract limitation of analysis and grouping of the data to then be used for presentation on the graphical representation,
“Generation” of a graphical representation of the combined first and second electrocardiogram data, which is an abstract limitation of considering the previous abstract steps to then graphically represent or present the data, indicating an interaction between people.
The claim limitations as a whole recite steps for the generation of a graphical representation of the combined first electrocardiogram data and the second electrocardiogram data for a patient, and therefore recite managing interactions between people. The abstract steps of analysis of ECG data and then presenting the results of the analysis as claimed recite social activities related to the management of the heart health of the patient.
The abstract idea recited in claims 1 and 5 are similar to that of claim 25.
Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims further define the at least one abstract idea, and thus fails to make the abstract idea any less abstract as noted below:
Claims 14, 21 and 27 recite further detail of the generated electrocardiogram data, further describing the abstract idea. Claims 16, 23, and 28 recites further abstract limitations of “generating” third ECG data where it corresponds to a same set of signal indicators as the first ECG data, and further to “identify” the inputted data as actual data or generated data, further describing the abstract idea.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2A- Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrates the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exceptions into a “practical application,” see MPEP 2106.04(II.)(A.)(2.) and 2106.04(d)(I.).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
Regarding claim 25:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a system, cause the system to (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)):
receive first electrocardiogram data obtained using one or more electrodes configured to respond to electrical signals of a patient when placed on a skin surface of the patient (merely data gathering steps as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Symantec);
generate second electrocardiogram data by inputting the first electrocardiogram data of the patient to a first generative model (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
wherein the first generative model comprises a generative adversarial network,
wherein the first generative model is trained by, for each subject of a plurality of subjects:
accessing a set of actual electrocardiogram data, where the actual electrocardiogram data is obtained using a plurality of electrodes placed on a skin surface of the subject,
selecting a subset of the actual electrocardiogram data corresponding to a subset of the plurality of electrodes;
inputting the subset of the actual electrocardiogram data to the first generative model (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
generating, using the first generative model (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), a set of generated electrocardiogram data;
inputting the generated electrocardiogram data and corresponding actual electrocardiogram data to a discriminator model, wherein the corresponding actual electrocardiogram data comprises actual electrocardiogram data not included in the subset of the actual electrocardiogram data; and (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
determining, using the discriminator model (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)), if the generated electrocardiogram data is generated or actual; and
combining the first electrocardiogram data and the second electrocardiogram data for electronic transmission to a display terminal configured for (amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) generation of a graphical representation of the combined first electrocardiogram data and the second electrocardiogram data.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a system, cause the system to perform steps,
inputting the first electrocardiogram data of the patient to a first generative model, wherein the first generative model comprises a generative adversarial network,
wherein the first generative model is trained by, for each subject of a plurality of subjects, accessing a set of actual electrocardiogram data, where the actual electrocardiogram data is obtained using a plurality of electrodes placed on a skin surface of the subject, selecting a subset of the actual electrocardiogram data corresponding to a subset of the plurality of electrodes,
inputting the subset of the actual electrocardiogram data to the first generative model
use of the first generative model,
inputting the generated electrocardiogram data and corresponding actual electrocardiogram data to a discriminator model, wherein the corresponding actual electrocardiogram data comprises actual electrocardiogram data not included in the subset of the actual electrocardiogram data,
using the discriminator model,
electronic transmission to a display terminal
the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [Page 7 line 25- Page 8 line 16] of Applicant’s Specification recites the overall diagnosis system as being the generic apparatus. [Figure 2, Page 6 lines 4-7] recites the use of the generic apparatus. [Page 13 lines 5-8] recites the use of generative adversarial network algorithm as being trained in a generic matter. [Page 8 lines 4-19] recites generically inputting the data into the models. [Page 11 lines 9-22] recites the generic steps of inputting data into a first generative model and [Page 11 line 9-22] recites the inputting of data into the discriminative model, where the configuration of the models is recited without specific technical detail of how the models are implemented beyond generic computer implementation. [Page 13 lines 25-27] recites the use of a generic terminal to receive output. [Page 10 lines 3-16] recites the generic training steps of the generative models and recites the training data as ECG data from subjects. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Regarding the additional limitation of receive first electrocardiogram data obtained using one or more electrodes configured to respond to electrical signals of a patient when placed on a skin surface of the patient, this is merely pre-solution activity. The Examiner submits that these additional limitations merely add insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). [Page 9 lines 13-23] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the use of electrodes to gather the electrocardiogram data. [Page 13 lines 1-8] recites transfer the data to a device to receive the data as input further described in [Page 6 lines 20-21]. The use of the electrodes on the body is only used to gather data, and where the transmission of data carries the data to the device for the processing related to the abstract idea. The use of the electrode devices and transmission of data recites insignificant pre-solution activities related to the data gathering.
Claim 1 and 5 recites similar additional elements as claim 25.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to generate a graphical representation of the combined first electrocardiogram data and the second electrocardiogram data, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, see MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a), 2106.05(b).
For these reasons, the independent claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set below:
Claims 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, and 27 recite further detail of the first electrocardiogram data that is gathered, however the use of these devices to gather the electrocardiogram data merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea. Claims 16, 23 and 28 recite the use of generic second generative model and second discriminator model, however these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components. Claims 17 and 24 recite further detail of the training data using subject data from subjects with diagnosed arrhythmia or heart disease, however these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, the independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, see additionally MPEP 2106.05(II.). Further, it may need to be established, when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception, that the additional elements recite well understood, routine, and conventional activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 25:
Regarding the additional limitations of:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a system, cause the system to perform steps,
inputting the first electrocardiogram data of the patient to a first generative model, wherein the first generative model comprises a generative adversarial network,
wherein the first generative model is trained by, for each subject of a plurality of subjects, accessing a set of actual electrocardiogram data, where the actual electrocardiogram data is obtained using a plurality of electrodes placed on a skin surface of the subject, selecting a subset of the actual electrocardiogram data corresponding to a subset of the plurality of electrodes,
inputting the subset of the actual electrocardiogram data to the first generative model
use of the first generative model,
inputting the generated electrocardiogram data and corresponding actual electrocardiogram data to a discriminator model, wherein the corresponding actual electrocardiogram data comprises actual electrocardiogram data not included in the subset of the actual electrocardiogram data,
using the discriminator model,
electronic transmission to a display terminal
the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer and generic computing components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). [Page 7 line 25- Page 8 line 16] of Applicant’s Specification recites the overall diagnosis system as being the generic apparatus. [Figure 2, Page 6 lines 4-7] recites the use of the generic apparatus. [Page 13 lines 5-8] recites the use of generative adversarial network algorithm as being trained in a generic matter. [Page 8 lines 4-19] recites generically inputting the data into the models. [Page 11 lines 9-22] recites the generic steps of inputting data into a first generative model and [Page 11 line 9-22] recites the inputting of data into the discriminative model, where the configuration of the models is recited without specific technical detail of how the models are implemented beyond generic computer implementation. [Page 13 lines 25-27] recites the use of a generic terminal to receive output. [Page 10 lines 3-16] recites the generic training steps of the generative models and recites the training data as ECG data from subjects. The additional elements recite the use of generic computing components with a non-specific implementation to carry out steps of the abstract idea without showing an improvement to technology, computers or other technical fields, and thus recites mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding the additional limitations of receive first electrocardiogram data obtained using one or more electrodes configured to respond to electrical signals of a patient when placed on a skin surface of the patient, this is merely pre-solution activity. The Examiner submits that these additional limitations merely add insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), specifically “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)”). [Page 9 lines 13-23] of the Applicant’s Specification recites the use of electrodes to gather the electrocardiogram data. [Page 13 lines 1-8] recites transfer the data to a device to receive the data as input further described in [Page 6 lines 20-21]. The use of the electrodes on the body is only used to gather data, and where the transmission of data carries the data to the device for the processing related to the abstract idea. The use of the electrode devices and transmission of data recites insignificant pre-solution activities related to the data gathering. As recited in the Applicant’s Specification at [Page 9 lines 15-20], the electrodes are merely used to “measure” and gather the data which is then generically transmitted or forwarded to the device for use as an input, which recite well understood, routine, and conventional activities.
Claims 1 and 5 recite similar additional elements are analyzed in the same way as the ones in Claim 25.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
For the reasons stated, the claims fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and therefore claims 1, 5, and 11-28 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS whose telephone number is (571)272-6719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason B Dunham can be reached at (571) 272-8109. 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.
/CONSTANTINE SIOZOPOULOS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3686