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 Arguments
Upon further consideration a 112b has been added which was based on the original claim (claim 8), as such in fairness to the applicant the current rejection has been a NF rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 13-15, filed 8/21/25, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 7 (and by extension the rest of the claims) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to 101 Applicants argue that the claims provide a specific improvement in the technical field of diagnosing cardiac conditions. Applicants point to elements which are part of the judicial exception/abstract idea and not the additional elements. Applicants are arguing that the abstract idea is improved, more specifically that the model is more accurate because it preserves temporal correlation by zero padding. Examiner notes, MPEP 2106.05(a): "However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology." Examiner notes that this is not improving an ECG sensor itself or the computer technology such as by storing more data in the same space etc.
Applicants next argue that the abstract idea is not WRC therefore the claim as a whole is not WRC. Applicants point to elements (“zero padding” to genera compensated ECG data of a lead) which are part of the judicial exception/abstract idea and not the additional elements; and argue those elements they point to are not WRC but that is not the proper analysis and not persuasive.
Applicants next argue the claims are directed to a specific improvement in the technology similar to McRO, however Examiner disagrees. The Specifics of that case provide a fact specific outcome to the claims in McRO (structure of the limited rules), and the current claim recitation of “zero-padding” is not equivalent and does not provide something as specific as claimed in that case. McRO was directed to an improvement in that specific technical field; however, as discussed above the current claims are nonanalogous and not an improvement in the technical field. As such this is not persuasive.
Applicants next argue that the current claims are analogous to Cardionet, Examiner disagrees. The facts and claims of the current case are different than those of the Cardionet case and Cardionet is non-analogous because of the differences. Cardionet was directed to an improvement in that specific technical field; however, as discussed above the current claims are nonanalogous and not an improvement in the technical field. Applicants are not claiming something akin to the adaptive real time analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, 17-18 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.
Claims 1 and 10 recite “wherein the third time span being the complete period and corresponding to the electrocardiogram data of the second lead comprises the first time span being the partial period and the at least one second time span” the way this is phrased is unclear. Turning to the specification to understand the claims Examiner believes Applicants are referring to a zero padded “integrated” Lead I. Is the corresponding part, reciting that “the partial period” is corresponding to the “partial period” of full time of lead II? And that the complete period is the combination of that and the “at least one second time span”? For the above reasons the claim does not clearly define the metes and bounds of the claim and it is indefinite.
Claims 8 and 17 recites the limitation " the fourth time span ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim element is not recited earlier in this claim nor in the claim from which this claim depends on and recites a plurality of “time spans” thus it is unclear what the “fourth time span” is referring too. As such the claim does not clearly define the metes and bounds of the claim and the claim is indefinite.
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 1-6, 8-15, 17-18 are rejected under 101 see the analysis below.
Step 1
The invention claimed in claims 1-6, 8-15, 17-18 are directed to statutory subject matter as the claims recite an apparatus or process.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, the recited steps of “generating” an integrated ECG data and “generating” a diagnostic result of a heart state based on the integrated ECG data are directed to a mental process of performing concepts in the human mind (including by a human using the aid of pen and paper) and/or a mathematical concept. For example, this limitation simply amounts to the mental process of a clinician reviewing data (such as ECG data) rearranging the data into a 2D Array and performing a mental analysis and using their knowledge and the data to generate a diagnostic result of a heart state. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas; while the use of mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations are mathematical concepts (stacking/organizing into an array format; zero-padding). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Claims 1 and 17, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims include the additional elements of “obtaining” data and “converting”. The steps of “obtaining” data and “converting” the data into the computing system amounts to insignificant, extra-solution activity in that it is data gathering. The processor (i.e., “processor”, “computer processor”, “cloud-computing device”, “mobile device”, “user device”) in computing steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determining outputs from inputs) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As with step 2A, Prong 2 above, the claims include the additional elements of “obtaining” data and “converting”. The steps of “obtaining” data and “converting” the data into the computing system amounts to insignificant, extra-solution activity in that it is data gathering. The processor (i.e., “processor”, “computer processor”, “cloud-computing device”, “mobile device”, “user device”) in computing steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determining outputs from inputs) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Additionally, per the Berkheimer requirement, ECG sensing, processing and data storage: (1) US 20220384045 see [0204], Figs. 1-4B; (2) US 20240266071 see Figs. 1-3; (3) US 20140107511 abstract, Figs. 13, 15; For the converting step Examiner notes Applicants disclose in [0024] (using PG Pub for paragraph numbers) “It should be noted that converting the PDF file format into the SVG file format is a known technology, and will not be repeated herein.”. As such the elements are shown to be WURC.
The claim limitations when viewed individually and in combination therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are therefore ineligible.
Claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-15, 17-18 only further define the data gathering or displaying of the result (insignificant, extra-solution activity) or further define elements of the inputting/classifying (i.e., only further define the mental process). Therefore, the claims do not include any additional elements that show integration into a practical application and do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240221936 – see Fig. 3
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R MOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-3506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9:30 am - 5:30 pm).
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571)272-8506. 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.
/James Moss/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
