DETAILED ACTION
Note: 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 arguments filed in the reply on June 29, 2026 were received and fully considered. Claims 1, 5, 7, and 8 were amended. Claims 18-25 are new. The current action is FINAL. Please see corresponding rejection headings and response to arguments section below for more detail.
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, 5-8, 11, 12, and 16-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a method for extracting respiratory information from a bio-impedance signal. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The following limitations set forth a judicial exception:
“A method for extracting respiratory information from a bio- impedance signal, the method comprising the steps of… filtering the bio-impedance signal using a Savitzky-Golay low-pass filter to provide first respiratory information representing a respiratory effort signal, wherein the Savitzky-Golay low-pass filter incorporates a 3rd degree polynomial fit, wherein the Savitzky-Golay low-pass filter is applied on subsets of data points of the bio-impedance signal which are filtered using a frame length in the interval of 1.3 - 1.7 seconds; and differentiating the respiratory effort signal with a Savitzky-Golay first derivative kernel to provide second respiratory information representing a respiratory flow signal, wherein the Savitzky-Golay first derivative kernel incorporates a 2nd degree polynomial fit, and wherein the Savitzky-Golay first derivative kernel is applied on subsets of datapoints of the respiratory effort signal which are filtered using a frame length in the interval of 0.5 - 1.5 seconds…”
These limitations describe a mathematical calculation. Furthermore, the limitations also describe a mental process as the skilled artisan is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggest that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human, or using simple pen/paper.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, integrates the identified judicial exception into a practical application.
For this part of the 101 analysis, the following additional limitations are considered:
“providing a bio-impedance signal of a subject”
These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the additional limitations are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to extra-solution activity, i.e., mere data gathering steps necessary to perform the identified judicial exception fail to integrate the claims into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The additional limitations also do not add significantly more to the identified judicial exception because they pertain to widely-understood, routine, and conventional techniques for obtaining a bio-impedance signal. Examiner takes official notice that using electrodes to derive respiratory effort signals, while not positively claims, is widely known in impedance pneumography. Please see prior art cited in the current office action for example teachings.
Dependent claims 5-8, 11, 12, and 16-25 also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea, recite limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for substantially similar reasons as set forth above, and/or do not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea for substantially similar reasons as set forth above.
Therefore, claims 1, 5-8, 11, 12, and 16-25 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant appears to raise the following arguments:
The claims are directed to an improvement in physiological monitoring technology (remarks, pgs. 5-7);
The claims recite a particular machine (remarks, pg. 7);
The claims causes a physical transformation (remarks, pg. 7);
The claims cannot be practically performed mentally (remarks, pg. 7);
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding applicant’s improvement argument, Examiner is not convinced as the purported improvement appears to lie within the judicial exception itself1. While the claims, as amended, recite structural components (“a plurality of electrodes arranged on the subject”), they do not equate to a particular machine as they are recited at a high level of generality. Examiner also argues that utilizing well-known and conventional electrodes to measure impedance amounts to mere extra-solution activity, which is fails to integrate the claims into a practical application2. Applicant’s “physical transformation” argument is also acknowledged, but is ultimately not persuasive as not all transformations or machine implementations infuse an otherwise ineligible claim with an inventive concept3. Next, Examiner maintains that the claims recite a mental process as nothing suggests that the skilled artisan would not be able to practically perform the limitations corresponding to the identified judicial exception mentally, or using simple pen/paper. Lastly, Examiner maintains that the identified judicial exception also corresponds to mathematical concepts that are not integrated into a practical application. For at least these reasons, the 35 USC 101 rejections are maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections were fully considered, and were persuasive. Therefore, these rejections are withdrawn.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 PUYA AGAHI whose telephone number is (571)270-1906. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 5712724233. 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.
/PUYA AGAHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
1 See MPEP 2106.05(a) “the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”
2 See MPEP 2106.05(g) Examples of Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity includes… mere data gathering
3 See MPEP 2106 “While the machine-or-transformation test is an important clue to eligibility, it should not be used as a separate test for eligibility.”
Prosecution Insights