DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the claims filed October 16, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending
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 Amendment
The claims 1-20 are pending
Claim Rejection - 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 1-20 are rejected to under 35 U.S.C 101 as not being directed to eligible subject matter the grounds set out in detail below:
Independent Claims 1, 9, and 14:
Eligibility Step 1 (does the subject matter fall within a statutory category?):
Independent claim 1 falls within the statutory category of method.
Independent Claim 9 falls within the statutory category of machine.
Independent Claim 14 falls within a statutory category of article of manufacture.
Eligibility Step 2A-1 (does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?): Independent claims 1, 9, and 14 claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception.
The claim elements in the independent claims (claim 1 being representative) which set forth the abstract idea are:
A method comprising to obtain ultrasound images and annotations with a first patient during a first ultrasound procedure
deriving, based on an image content depicted in the ultrasound images, tracking data of the ultrasound transducer during the first ultrasound procedure
determining a recommended disinfection classification based on the tracking data of the ultrasound transducer and providing, based on the recommended disinfection classification,
an alert to a user to conduct a disinfection procedure before a second patient during a second ultrasound procedure;
which falls within “certain methods of organizing human activity” as following rules or instructions to manage a user’s decision to conduct a post exam disinfection procedure. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Eligibility Step 2A-2 (does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?): For Independent Claims 1, 9, and 14 this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In Claims 1, 9, and 14 (claim 1 being representative) the additional elements are:
a processor
A non-transitory machine-readable storage media having encoded thereon program code executable by a processor
an ultrasound transducer of a cart-based ultrasound system
Examiner takes the applicable considerations stated in MPEP 2106.04 (d) and analyzes them below in light of the instant applications disclosure and claim elements as a whole.
The additional elements, (a), is performing the abstract idea and stated as general purpose computer tools or equivalent to apply the abstract idea as “apply-it” (see instant application para. [0024])
The additional elements, (b), is performing the abstract idea and to be a general purpose computer tools or equivalent to apply the abstract idea as “apply-it” (see instant application para. [0024])
The additional elements, (c), is merely “apply-it” as a tool to gather data
Accordingly, claims 1, 9, and 14 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Eligibility Step 2B (Does the claim amount to significantly more?): The independent claims 1, 9, and 14 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed above in step 2A prong 2 above, these additional elements, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, amount to no more than applying and/or generally linking the abstract idea thus insufficient to provide “significantly more”. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more and the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-8, 10-13, 15-20:
Eligibility Step 1 (does the subject matter fall within a statutory category?):
The dependent claims 2-8 and 16-20 fall within the statutory category of method.
The dependent claims 10-13 fall within the statutory category of machine.
The dependent claim 15 falls within a statutory category of article of manufacture.
Eligibility Step 2A-1 (does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?): Dependent claims 2-8, 10-13, 15-20 claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-13, 15-20 continue to limit the abstract idea in the independent claims by (1) limiting the clinical informatics data, (2) determination of areas to clean and output of a heat map, (3) the tracing data, and (3) alerting of interactions thus, inheriting the same abstract idea which falls within “certain methods of organizing human activity” as following rules or instructions to manage a user’s decision to conduct a post exam disinfection procedure. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
Eligibility Step 2A-2 (does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?): In Claims 2-8, 10-13, and 15-20 this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In Claims 2-8, 10-13, and 15-20 the additional elements not already recited in the independent claims are:
an EHR or EMR system
an ultrasound imaging module
a button
a system service log file
video data
atleast one camera
ultrasound system equipment surfaces
display
backlight
an artificial neural network
Examiner takes the applicable considerations stated in MPEP 2106.04 (d) and analyzes them below in light of the instant applications disclosure and claim elements as a whole.
The additional elements,(b) and (g), are generally linking the abstract idea to radiological medical equipment
The additional elements, (a), (c), (d), (e), (f), (h), and (i) are generally linking the abstract idea to computer implementation
The additional elements, (j) is generally linking the abstract idea to artificial intelligence
Accordingly the dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Eligibility Step 2B (Does the claim amount to significantly more?): Dependent claims 2-8, 10-13, and 15-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed above in step 2A prong 2 above, these additional elements, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, amount to no more than generally linking and thus insufficient to provide “significantly more”. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more and the claims are ineligible.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims would be found allowable if the claims overcome the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection. The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claims for the reasons seen on pages 4-6 of applicant’s remarks filed October 16, 2025.
The most remarkable prior art of record is as follows:
SHIROISHI (US20210350912A1)
A medical image diagnosis apparatus according to an embodiment is installed in an examination room and includes an obtaining unit, a judging unit, and an output unit. The obtaining unit is configured to obtain patient information abouta patient undergoing an image diagnosing process that uses the medical image diagnosis apparatus. The judging unit is configured to determine specifics of control related to disinfection, on the basis of the patient information. The output unit is configured to output the determined specifics of the control.
Orzechowski (US11272823B2)
In one embodiment , a user indicates one or more virtual zones on an area map on a user device for a particular robot . The zones are then transferred to the robot . The robot determines an optimum order for multi
ROSS (US20220100196A1)
The present disclosure describes a system and method for using thermal cameras to detect surfaces that have been in contact with individuals . The detection can be used to guide focused cleaning of the surfaces .
COLE (US20170296686A1)
A germicidal system for use in disinfecting one or more contact surfaces includes one or more germicidal devices each comprising a germicidal light source . The one or more germicidal devices may be connected to a network , which allows for controlling the operational parameters of the one or more germicidal devices and / or collecting information from the one or more germicidal devices.
MCNAMARA et. al (hereinafter MCNAMARA)(US20210011443A1)
Systems and methods for providing visualization of health risks within a building . Health risk levels for building spaces are determined using occupancy data and health risk data relating to a risk of contracting or spreading an infectious disease . A visualization of the health risk levels is generated and presented on a user interface .
Bonutti et. al (hereinafter Bonutti)(US20210353785A1)
Systems and methods for detection , treatment ,prevention and protection are shown and described . UVC may be used in such applications
FERRANTE et. al (hereinafter FERRANTE )(US20220358761A1)
A cleaning wizard monitors and provides feedback for cleaning of medical equipment to ensure that cleaning is performed based on best practices . The cleaning wizard receives a video stream comprising an item of medical equipment and inputs a first set of video frames from the video stream into a first machine learning model . The first machine learning model is trained to output whether the first set of video frames corresponds to activity that initiates a cleaning protocol for the item of medical equipment . Responsive to the cleaning protocol being initiated , the cleaning wizard inputs a second set of video frames into a second machine learning model trained to output whether the second set of frames meets criteria of the cleaning protocol . Responsive to all criteria of the cleaning protocol being met , the cleaning wizard transmits a notification to an operator that the cleaning protocol is complete .
Baarman et. al (hereinafter Baarman) (US20230120290A1)
A disinfecting tracking network for creating healthier environments. The system and methods for tracking and utilizing this information to build and maintain healthier environments with a laboratory approach to data inputs. This system is a cloud based system with IOT interface and APis to enable broad reaching inputs for analysis. This system creates a safer ecosystem and cross statistic sharing of performance parameters.
Chatterjea et. al (hereinafter Chatterjea) (US11476006B2)
A system ( 10 ) includes a real - time locating system ( RTLS ) ( 12 ) configured to track locations of tags ( 14 , 15 ) in a monitored area . A non - transitory storage medium stores , a map ( 30 ) of the monitored area ; a nodes database ( 32 ) storing information on nodes ( 18 ) ; and a pathogen database ( 34 ) storing infectious transmission information.
NESTERENKO et. al (hereinafter NESTERENKO)(US20210059784A1)
Systems and methods for enforcing a cleaning of a medical device are disclosed . A method includes receiving an indication that a medical device has been exposed to a contaminate , providing , responsive to receiving the indication , an instruction to disable the medical device , receiving , after transmitting the instruction , cleaning information indicating that a cleaning of the medical device was attempted , identifying a predetermined cleaning procedure corresponding to the medical device and the contaminate , determining , based on the cleaning information , that the medical device was cleaned according to the predetermined cleaning procedure corresponding to the medical device and the contaminate , and enabling the medical device responsive to determining that the medical device was cleaned according to the pre determined cleaning procedure .
Kupa et. al (hereinafter Kupa)(US20210018884A1)
A building automation system may control ultraviolet lights to intelligently disinfect susceptible environments based on occupant density . The system comprises multiple occupancy sensors , a disinfection environment tracking engine , and an ultraviolet light control engine . The multiple occupancy sensors generate real time occupancy data associated with multiple objects detected within an area . The disinfection environment tracking engine determines real time occupant density of the multiple objects detected within the area based on the real time occupancy data generated by the multiple occupancy sensors . The ultraviolet light control engine controls operation of one or more ultraviolet lights to disinfect the area based on the real time occupant density determined by the disinfection environment tracking engine .
TAVORI et. al (hereinafter TAVORI)(US20180357886A1)
A system , devices and methods for training of a health care worker , real time monitoring of a health care worker and providing real time corrective guidance for procedures related to hospital infection control . Furthermore , the devices , systems and methods of the present invention are configured to provide monitoring the performance and the quality of a hand hygiene procedure and providing real time , in accordance with the World Health Organization ' s “ 5 Moments Hand Hygiene ” events protocol , corrective guidance to the health care worker procedures and practice related to hospital infection control .
Johnson et. al (hereinafter Johnson)(US20180174682A1)
The system and method disclosed herein provides an inte grated and automated workflow , sensor , and reasoning sys tem that automatically detects breaches in protocols , appro priately alarms and records these breaches , facilitates staff adoption of protocol adherence , and ultimately enables the study of protocols for care comparative effectiveness . The system provides real - time alerts to medical personnel in the actual processes of care , thereby reducing the number of negative patient events and ultimately improving staff behavior with respect to protocol adherence.
19 . Starkweather et al. (US20220370671A1)
Systems, apparatus, and methods are described for a disinfection system formed of a plurality of modular units, wherein each modular unit is (1) coupleable to at least one other modular unit from the plurality of modular units and (2) includes an energy source from a plurality of energy sources. The plurality of energy sources can be configured to provide energy having an intensity capable of disinfecting a surface of the object located in a disinfecting area. The disinfection system can be used with object indicator tags and/or include one or more safety features.
Canfield (US11723994B2)
A method for using an ultrasound imaging system including a disinfection system is disclosed. The disinfection system may include one or more ultraviolet light sources. The UV light sources may be included in a display. The disinfection system may be configured to operate when the display is parallel to a control panel of the ultrasound imaging system. The disinfection system may provide indications of the disinfection status of the ultrasound imaging system.
Response to Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C § 101 Rejection
Applicant argues the following: Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Without conceding that the rejection is proper and in the interest of furthering prosecution, independent claims 1, 9, and 14 have been amended as set forth above. Applicant submits that claims 1-15 satisfy the requirements of § 101.
Prong Two of Step 2A Amended independent claim 1 integrates any potential judicial exception into a practical application such that the claims are patent eligible at least under Prong Two of Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis.
First, amended independent claim 1 recites a particular machine that is integral to the claim Claim 1 explicitly requires "an ultrasound transducer" and "a cart-based ultrasound system", which a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize are particular machines (emphasis added). Practice of any potential judicial exception requires and relies upon the particular machines recited in the claim. In that regard, claim 1 recites: "controlling an ultrasound transducer of a cart-based ultrasound system to obtain ultrasound images while the ultrasound transducer is in physical contact with a first patient during a first ultrasound procedure", "deriving, based on an image content depicted in the ultrasound images, tracking data of the ultrasound transducer during the first ultrasound procedure", and "providing, based on the recommended disinfection classification, an alert to a user to conduct a disinfection procedure for the cart-based ultrasound system before the ultrasound transducer is in physical contact with a second patient during a second ultrasound procedure" (emphasis added).
Second, amended independent claim 1 integrates any potential judicial exception into a practical application because the recited elements reflect an improvement to a technology or technical field. In particular, the recited features of claim 1 reflect an improvement to infection- control technology for ultrasound systems. "Transducers can come in contact with a patient's blood, mucosal surfaces (such as digestive tract, urinary tract, and respiratory tract), biopsy sites, and/or wounds." (Present application, 3) Patients may be infected with "bacteria, pathogens, and viruses "that" can be transmitted between procedures and pose significant risks to ultrasound practitioners and patients without proper infection prevention and disinfection practices." (Present application, 3) Existing approaches rely on ultrasound system operators to inspect a patient's skin conditions for unhealthy tissue and to inspect protective covers for evidence of leaks. (Present application, 13) Medical staff carrying out medical examinations, who are already dealing with a large workload, decide themselves whether or not an infection preventive countermeasure is required with respect to each patient, so there is a possibility that human- induced errors occur.
The recited features of claim 1 reflect a solution to the existing problems by deriving tracking data of the ultrasound transducer (e.g., a relative position between the ultrasound transducer and one or more internal structures) based on image content depicted in the ultrasound images, and then determining a recommended disinfection classification based on that tracking data. (See present application, 73, 89.) For example, the tracking data can be indicative of the type of physical contact that the ultrasound transducer has with the patient (e.g., contact with blood, bodily fluid, mucosal surfaces, skin). (See present application, 73, 89; see also id., 5-7, 13.) Different protocols for the disinfection procedure can be used for different types of physical contact. (See present application, 88; see also id., 10-13.) Displaying the disinfection alert instead of a new ultrasound exam order form upon finishing the first ultrasound can advantageously provide automatic enforcement and reminder of cleaning and disinfection requirements before the second ultrasound procedure. (See present application, 65, 78.)
With respect to the subject matter eligibility analysis, Director Squires has specifically instructed: "Examiners and panels should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality." See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I). (Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567, p. 9 (Sept. 26, 2025).) Consistent with Director Squires's guidance, claim l's recited features-deriving transducer tracking data from ultrasound image content and automatically determining and enforcing a disinfection classification prior to a subsequent procedure-constitute a specific, technology-rooted solution that improves infection-control technology for ultrasound systems. Considered as a whole and not at an unduly high level of generality, claim 1 integrates any potential judicial exception into a practical application and therefore is not directed to an abstract idea under § 101. For at least these reasons, amended independent claim 1 integrates any potential judicial exception into a practical application and is thus patent-eligible under Prong Two of Step 2A.
Step 2B Amended independent claim 1 is also eligible under Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis. In this regard, claim 1 recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Claim 1 is eligible under Step 2B because it recites a combination of features that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field,5 including "deriving, based on an image content depicted in the ultrasound images, tracking data of the ultrasound transducer during the first ultrasound procedure", and "determining a recommended disinfection classification based on the tracking data of the ultrasound transducer" (emphasis added). Applicant submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this combination of elements is not well-understood, routine, or conventional.
For at least the reasons, amended independent claim 1 satisfies the requirements of § 101. Amended independent claims 9 and 14 recite features similar to those recited in amended independent claim 1. For at least the same reasons, claims 9 and 14 satisfy the requirements of § 101.
Claims 2-8, 10-13, and 15 depend from and add additional features to claim 1, and recite patent-eligible subject matter under § 101 for at least the same reasons. Accordingly, Applicant requests that the § 101 rejection of claims 1-15 be withdrawn. See MPEP § 2106.05. See MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A).
Examiner appreciates applicant’s arguments but does not find them persuasive. The MPEP 2106.05 states when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception, into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two and whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B, examiners should consider whether the judicial exception is applied with, or by use of, a particular machine. "The machine-or-transformation test is a useful and important clue, and investigative tool" for determining whether a claim is patent eligible under § 101. Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 604, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010).
It is noted that while the application of a judicial exception by or with a particular machine is an important clue, it is not a stand-alone test for eligibility. Id.
All claims must be evaluated for eligibility using the two-part test from Alice/Mayo. If a claim passes the Alice/Mayo test (i.e., is not directed to an exception at Step 2A, or amounts to significantly more than any recited exception in Step 2B), then the claim is eligible even if it fails the machine-or-transformation test ("M-or-T test"). Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 604, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010) (explaining that a claim may be eligible even if it does not satisfy the M-or-T test); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]here is nothing that requires a method ‘be tied to a machine or transform an article’ to be patentable"). And if a claim fails the Alice/Mayo test (i.e., is directed to an exception at Step 2A and does not amount to significantly more than the exception in Step 2B), then the claim is ineligible even if it passes the M-or-T test. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1104 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("[I]n Mayo, the Supreme Court emphasized that satisfying the machine-or-transformation test, by itself, is not sufficient to render a claim patent-eligible, as not all transformations or machine implementations infuse an otherwise ineligible claim with an 'inventive concept.'").
Examiners may find it helpful to evaluate other considerations such as the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and the field of use and technological environment consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)), when making a determination of whether an element (or combination of elements) is a particular machine. For information on the definition of the term "machine," see MPEP § 2106.03.
When determining whether a machine recited in a claim provides significantly more, the following factors are relevant.
The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines). One example of applying a judicial exception with a particular machine is Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 40 USPQ 199 (1939). In this case, a mathematical formula was employed to use standing wave phenomena in an antenna system. The claim recited the particular type of antenna and included details as to the shape of the antenna and the conductors, particularly the length and angle at which they were arranged. 306 U.S. at 95-96; 40 USPQ at 203. Another example is Eibel Process, in which gravity (a law of nature or natural phenomenon) was applied by a Fourdrinier machine (which was understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web. Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923).
It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See also TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that Alappat’s rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court’s Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions). If applicant amends a claim to add a generic computer or generic computer components and asserts that the claim recites significantly more because the generic computer is 'specially programmed' (as in Alappat, now considered superseded) or is a 'particular machine' (as in Bilski), the examiner should look at whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("We are not persuaded by the appellant's argument that the claimed method is tied to a particular machine because it ‘would not be necessary or possible without the Internet.’ . . . Regardless of whether "the Internet" can be viewed as a machine, it is clear that the Internet cannot perform the fraud detection steps of the claimed method"). For example, as described in MPEP § 2106.05(f), additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. See, e.g., Versata Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must "play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly").
Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978)), and CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citations omitted) ("[N]othing in claim 3 requires an infringer to use the Internet to obtain that data. The Internet is merely described as the source of the data. We have held that mere ‘[data-gathering] step[s] cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory.’" 654 F.3d at 1375, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citation omitted)). See MPEP § 2106.05(g) & (h) for more information on insignificant extra-solution activity and field of use, respectively.
Examiner notes in response to applicant’s arguments of a particular machine that for the ultrasound cart based system to be considered a particular machine the claims must recite the particularity of the machine as required to achieve the performance of the method. It is clear to examiner that the processor or general purpose computer (see instant application para. [0024]) of the system claim is applying the abstract idea and therefore cannot be considered a particular machine. Furthermore, the ultrasound cart with ultrasound transducer is merely an object on which the method operates. Furthermore machine or transformation test is not a sole test for eligibility, the integral output of the claims is alerting to what type of disinfection needs to occur between patients which the ultrasound cart with ultrasound transducers is merely applied as the source of the data to implement this abstract idea.
Examiner notes in response to applicant’s arguments of an improvement to technology that the MPEP 2106.05(a) states the abstract idea cannot provide the improvement but rather the additional elements must provide the improvement. It also recites. “It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). Similarly, a claimed process covering embodiments that can be performed on a computer, as well as embodiments that can be practiced verbally or with a telephone, cannot improve computer technology. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1328, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (process for encoding/decoding facial data using image codes assigned to particular facial features held ineligible because the process did not require a computer).”
First examiner notes the claims do not recite any improvement to the ultrasound technology itself rather the claims recite the application of an ultrasound to gather data to make a decision on a disinfection classification between patients. Applicant’s arguments that the field of infection control and disinfection practices is not reasonably understood to be a problem in technology, as it is instead a problem in human infection prevention The claim limitations argued are abstract and thus cannot bring forth the improvement even with the recitation of a general purpose computer performing the steps to automated the enforcement of infection prevention.
In response to applicant’s arguments of Desjardins there is no nexus between the instant application and the case law argued. Desjardins was claiming specific improvement to machine learning technology and not improvement to an abstract idea. The instant application is not improving ultrasound technology but improving the abstract idea of disinfection classification decisions between patients.
Examiner maintains the 35 U.S.C § 101 rejection.
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 Ashley Elizabeth Evans whose telephone number is (571) 270-0110. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mamon Obeid can be reached on (571) 270-1813. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned 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. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ASHLEY ELIZABETH EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 3687
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687