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 07/01/2026 have been fully considered.
Claims 25-35 are pending for examination. Claims 1-24 are cancelled.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a signal interface configured to receive” in claim 25.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Supports can at least be found in paragraph [0034] of the PGPUB (e.g. wired or wireless links).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: In regard to claim 31, “(199)” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 26-27 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 26, the claim recites “the apparatus comprises a sensor system for producing the signal indicative of the cardiac angular rotations”. Claim 25, which claim 26 depends” recites “the signal being based on a gyroscope or an accelerometer”. The relationship(s) between the “sensor system” and “a gyroscope or an accelerometer” is/are not clearly recited. It is unclear whether the sensor system comprises the gyroscope or accelerometer or the sensor system is an additional element for generating the same signal as “the signal”. Clarification is requested by amendments.
In regard to claim 27, the claim recites “the sensor system comprises a gyroscope for measuring the cardiac angular rotations”. It is unclear whether “a gyroscope” refers to the “gyroscope” recited in claim 25 or it is an additional gyroscope. Clarification is requested by amendments. If they are the same, it is suggested that “the gyroscope” should be set forth.
In regard to claim 35, the claim recites “An apparatus according to claim 28”. It is unclear whether “an apparatus” refers to the “apparatus” according to claim 28 or it is an additional apparatus. Clarification is requested by amendments. If they are the same, it is suggested that “the apparatus” should be set forth.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In regard to claim 32, claim 30 which claim 32 depends recites all the limitations of claim 32. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 25-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exceptions of abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 31-51 recite an apparatus and a non-transitory computer readable medium, which fall within one of statutory categories (i.e. machine/ process) (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One analysis: Claims 31 and 42 recite “extract, from the signal, temporal portions which belong to diastolic phases of a heart, generate an indicator quantity indicative of energy of the temporal portions belonging to the diastolic phases, and set an output signal of the apparatus to express presence of a heart failure with reduced ejection fraction based on a result of a comparison between the indicator quantity and a threshold value, wherein the processing system is configured to extract, from the signal, the temporal portions so that each of the extracted temporal portions represents a middle third of the corresponding diastolic phase”. The claims involve calculation/ determination 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 25 and 30 recite “processing system…a gyroscope or an accelerometer”. Claim 25 further recites “a signal interface”. Claim 26 recites “a sensor system”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the gyroscope or accelerometer or sensor system is considered merely provide signal for processing. Thus, there is no improvement or change in the function of the device (see at least MPEP 2106.05(a), (f) and (g)). And the receiving functions or signal associated with the gyroscope or accelerometer or sensor system are considered as data gathering 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/ comparison for parameter(s) output signals (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.
The dependent claims 26-29 and 31-35 further limit the judicial exception (mathematical calculation/ computations) and/or are reciting elements that are well understood, routine, and conventional. Therefore dependent claims 26-29 and 31-35 do not add significantly more (i.e. an “inventive concept”) to the exception and are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
It is noted that claim 28 recites a type of Coriolis gyroscope with a vibrating structure, however Overall et al. (USPGPUB 2007/0032749 – cited in previous action) teaches that Coriolis acceleration measurement in a vibratory gyroscope including those in MEMS are commercially available and known in the art ([0065]) for implantable measuring configuration of heart. If the invention is directed to utilized a specific sensor element with detail structure(s) and configured to be applied at a specific location(s) of the user to obtain cardiac angular rotation data of the heart (e.g. configured to be placed on the chest or a non-invasive location near the heart of the user), these feature(s) should be set forth in the claims in order to be considered as significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8 and 14-17 of Remarks, filed on 07/01/2026, with respect to claim objections, 35 USC 112(a) rejections, 35 USC 101 rejection, 35 USC 103 rejections, and double patenting rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive due to cancellation of claims 1-24. The claim objections, 35 USC 112(a) rejections, 35 USC 103 rejections, 35 USC 103 rejections, and double patenting rejection have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regard to the 35 USC 101 rejections, applicant alleged that the new claims 25-35 are not directed to abstract ideas and are directed to a specific, unconventional apparatus with specific components of gyroscope or accelerometer for cardiac diagnostic function with specific technical improvements. In response, the recited components are considered as mere data gathering at a high level of generality without significantly more (see above). It is also noted that according to MPEP 2106.05(a): It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). As indicated above, if the invention is directed to utilized a specific sensor element with detail structure(s) and configured to be applied at a specific location(s) of the user to obtain cardiac angular rotation data of the heart for further processing (e.g. configured to be placed on the chest or a non-invasive location near the heart of the user), these feature(s) should be set forth in the claims in order to be considered as significantly more.
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
Prosecution Insights