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 .
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 01/21/2026 have been fully considered.
Claims 1-16 are pending for examination.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exceptions of abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-16 recite a system and a method, which fall within one of statutory categories (i.e. process/ machine) (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One analysis: Claims 1 and 11 recite “calculate a maximum rate of change in arterial blood flow volume V per time, dV/dt, wherein dV/dt is based on at least in part on measurements of the oxygen saturation levels SpO2 in the blood volume flow waveform/ evaluating time rate changes in light absorption levels dA/dt in the blood flow with changes in SpO2 as evidence of waveform modulations resulting from diametrical variations of the artery; and identifying diametrical variations in the artery as being indicative of volumetric flow variations resulting from the efficacy of the patient's ventricular contractability, wherein the identifying comprises calculating a maximum rate of change in arterial blood flow volume V per time, dV/dt”. The claims involve calculation/ evaluation/ identify of parameter(s) constitutes an abstract idea of mathematical relationships/ calculations and/or mental process, which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Mathematical Concepts) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two analysis: Claims 1 and 11 recite “a pulse oximeter/ oximeter”. Claim 1 recites “a computer”, “a processor” and “a display”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since there is no improvement or change in the function of the device (see at least MPEP 2106.05(a), (f) and (g)). And the oximeter/ computer are utilized for collecting and receiving oximetry data and the display is for presenting results, which are considered as data gathering/ outputting steps to be insignificant extra-solution activity. And/ or the abstract idea (mental process) is directed as being performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C) “(Step 2A Prong Two: YES).
Step 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s), when considered separately and in combination, are associated with data gathering steps of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and do not improve the functioning of a computer, e.g. an improvement in the application of the mathematical relationship in determining the parameter(s), which is, itself, an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). The claims merely cover the collection of data obtained from known and existing technology and then using the data to make a correlation for parameter(s) (Step 2B: No). Dependent claims do not recite additional elements/ features and do not add significantly more (i.e. an “inventive concept”) to the exception.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claims, and thus claims 1-16 are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 of Remarks, filed on 01/20/2026, with respect to claims 1-10 and 15-16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 1-10 and 15-16 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9 of Remarks, filed on 01/20/2026, with respect to claims 1-16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1-16 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regard to the 35 USC 101 rejection, applicant alleged that “the recited claim elements improve the function of the computer that us used to determine the ventricular cardiac contractibility”. In response, no performance or processing related functions’ comparison(s) between a computer for conventional ventricular cardiac contractibility monitoring and a computer in the current application can be found in the specification. It is noted that the computers may have different structures/ functions to be utilized to process different types of data associated with the ventricular cardiac contractibility. According to MPEP 2106.05(a) I., the specification should provide discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims are not similar to the examples which the courts have indicated to show an improvement in computer-functionality and do not improve the functioning of a computer, e.g. an improvement in the application of the mathematical relationship in determining the parameter(s), which is, itself, an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(a), “the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”). Furthermore, the abstract idea is/are also directed to mental process as “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.B) and “a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a) I.)
Therefore, the rejections are maintained for the reasons of record.
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 CHU CHUAN LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5507. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-6pm).
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 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.
/CHU CHUAN LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791