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 amendment and arguments filed 1/13/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s Terminal Disclaimer filed 01/13/2026 has overcome the Double Patenting rejection of the claims.
Applicant’s amendment and arguments have not overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection. Applicant first argues “acquiring a waveform of a time series of an R wave” Is not insignificant, extra-solution activity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the rejection, this step amounts to data gathering and mere-data gathering is insignificant extra-solution activity that would not amount to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(2) and §2106.05(g).
Additionally, while Applicant cites the April 202 Cardionet decision, the Examiner notes each case turns on its own set of facts and that the facts of the current application are different from those in the April 2020 decision. As noted on p. 16 of the decision, “At the heart of the district court’s erroneous step one analysis is the incorrect assumption that the claims are directed to automating known techniques. See District Court Op., 348 F. Supp. 3d at 93.” The Examiner notes that such an assertion has not been made in the present application
Instead, the Examiner notes the fact pattern of the current application follows more closely to the July 2020 and October 2021 Cardionet decisions. The Examiner notes the current claims deal with collecting, analyzing and displaying data. Page 8 of the July 2020 decision states: “At step one, we conclude that the claims are directed to collecting, analyzing, and displaying data, which we have repeatedly held to be ab-stract concepts. See, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., LLC v.” Furthermore, even if the abstract concept of the calculations are new, it is still mathematical concept or set of concepts performed on a general purpose computing device, see pp. 10 and 11 of the decision in which such an implementation is not patent-eligible. The October 2021 decision likewise expounds upon this concept indicating “And regardless, even accepting CardioNet’s argument that the T wave filter’s function was innovative, “[a] claim for a new abstract idea,” here, a mathematical calculation, “is still an abstract idea.” SAP, 898 F.3d at 1163 (quoting Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
In summary, the claims recite data collection (a waveform including an R wave); a set of mathematical calculations performed by a generic computing device; and data output via generic computer structure (i.e. a display). The additional elements of data collection and generic computer structure do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are akin “to collecting, analyzing, and displaying data, which we have repeatedly held to be abstract concepts. See, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., LLC v” as noted in the July 2020 Cardionet decision. The rejection is maintained.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims are drawn to a device (i.e. a product)
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 recite the mathematical concepts of taking a difference or weighted difference of a first cumulative distribution function that is a distribution of a first unimodal function and a second cumulative distribution function that is a distribution of a second unimodal function; taking a difference or weighted difference of a third cumulative distribution function that is a distribution of a third unimodal function and a fourth cumulative distribution function that is a distribution of a fourth unimodal function; reversing a time axis of the second target time waveform (see equations 1-18 of the specification for examples of these functions); acquiring parameters identifying the cumulative and unimodal distribution functions (which are described in the specification as averages and standard deviations, see par. [0137], equation 19) and calculating parameters indicating activity of a myocardium of the heart in a time section of an R wave and T wave (the specification indicates it could be a difference in the averages of a first unimodal distribution and the average of a third unimodal distribution (see par. [0233]).
Step 2A, Prong 2
The claims do not include any additional elements that amount to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 recite the additional elements of a biological information acquisitor for acquiring a waveform of a time section of an R wave and acquiring a waveform of a time section of a T-wave; an analyzer unit; and an “outputter”. The biological information acquisitor amounts to the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and the analyzer and outputter are so broadly claimed that they amount to generic computer structure (such as a processor and display) for performing generic computer functions. Therefore, these additional elements to not amount to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 do not include any additional elements that amount, alone or in combination, to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a biological information acquisitor for acquiring a waveform of a time section of an R wave and acquiring a waveform of a time section of a T-wave; an analyzer unit; and an “outputter”. The biological information acquisitor amounts to the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and the analyzer and outputter are so broadly claimed that they amount to generic computer structure (such as a processor and display) for performing generic computer functions. Therefore, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 3, 5 and 8 only further define the data gathering steps and the mathematical concept abstract idea steps.
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 ALLEN PORTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-6:00 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, Carl Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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.
/ALLEN PORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796