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
Applicant's arguments filed 5/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the addition of a microphone and a processor makes the invention not directed toward an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The processor and microphone are recited at a high level of generality and merely use the computer elements (the processor and microphone) as a tool. When analyzed under step 2a, prong 2, the processor and microphone perform generic computer functions like receiving, storing and processing data. Further, when the analysis is extended to step 2b, the processor and microphone are considered to use the computer elements as tools, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Finally, obtaining an audio recording of a heartbeat using generic elements, determining a pattern, determining a window based on the audio pattern, analyzing the windows to determine a generic physiological boundary and excluding windows that do not have a pattern can easily be done in the human mind with modeling done using pen and paper.
The Examiner considers the analysis of acoustic signals to be mentally performable. A cardiologist can identify physiological boundaries and murmurs, and provide feedback based on said data. A cardiologist may further perform any of the algorithms cited as they represent mathematical operations on data. The Algorithms further contain no limitations on their execution -merely assigning a name to the algorithm, with no limitations on any of the various steps required to perform the algorithm(s) that remove the algorithm from the realm of mentally performable processes. The Applicant further argues that the various complexity assessments cannot be practically performed within the mind. Further, while it may be easier to use a computer to improve speed and efficiency of an existing process, simply adding a generic computer/processor and insignificant data gathering structure to perform the process has been considered by the courts to be insufficient for eligibility (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, as argued above, the claimed algorithms contain no limitations on their execution merely assigning a name to the algorithm, with no limitations on any of the various steps required to perform the algorithm(s) that remove the algorithms from the realm of mentally performable processes. Further the Applicant argues that the system performs the analysis in real-time. While the limitation is not in the current claims, it is noted that the human mind can only process data in real-time. Therefore, the argument is moot.
Further the processor outputting data is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic devices, a “computer-implemented” method, performing generic computer functions like sending, receiving, and visually displaying data) is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data output). Thus, the claims are considered to be patent ineligible subject matter. Therefore, the rejections stand. It is noted that the claims are directed toward a system that only finds a window length and then does not use it for anything. The system provides no prophylaxis or treatment. The fact that the claims are directed toward a digital stethoscope provides no patentable weight as the processor is external and the claims are only directed toward data manipulation using the external processor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1- Claim 1
Claim 1 and dependent claims 3-17 are drawn to a device and thus meet the requirements for step 1.
Step 2a (prong 1) - Claim 1
Claims 1 recites the step of “determining audio patterns” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this step covers a concept capable of being performed in the human mind, and thus falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Other than reciting the method is “computer-implemented” in the preamble, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2a (prong 2) – Claim 1
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
receiving an audio signal is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering),
Determining audio patterns is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering),
Determining a window length is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering),
Analyzing windows to determine at least one physiological characteristic is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., statistics/data gathering),
Output a result indicating a presence or absence of at least one physiological condition is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic devices, a “computer-implemented” method, performing generic computer functions like sending, receiving, and visually displaying data) is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data output).
These steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are insignificant extra solution activity.
Step 2b- Claim 1
The additional elements when considered individually and in combination are not enough to qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, providing a (window length) is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic devices, a “computer-implemented” method, performing generic computer functions like sending, receiving, and visually displaying data). Further, receiving an audio signal comprising the acoustic signal is considered data gathering. It is noted that the first and second electrodes are recited at a high level of generality.
The additional elements that were considered insignificant extra solution activity have been re-analyzed and do not amount to anything more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional when considered individually and in combination with evidence provided. Specifically:
Obtaining, by use of a microphone, an audio signal is well understood, routine, and conventional (i.e., receiving data MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Determining, by use of a processor, the audio patterns is well-understood routine and conventional (i.e., gathering data/statistics MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Determining, by use of a processor, a window length of the acoustic signal is well-understood routine and conventional (i.e., gathering data/statistics MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Windowing a signal is well-understood routine and conventional (i.e., gathering data/statistics MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Analyzing windows to determine at least one physiological characteristic is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., gathering data/statistics MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Output a result indicating a presence or absence of at least one physiological condition is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (i.e., presenting data MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Claim 1 is thus consider to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 3-17 depend from claim 1. The type of data analyzed as stated in claims 3-4 and 6-17 is considered extra solution activity. Claim 5 is directed to the extra solution activity of presenting the data. Thus, the dependent claim do not change the overall analysis that claims 3-17 are also directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 20 and 21
Independent claims 20 and 21 contain limitations similar to claims 1 and 18 and is rejected as patent ineligible subject matter.
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 REX R HOLMES whose telephone number is (571)272-8827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/REX R HOLMES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights