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 .
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the steps converting the section waveform into a spectrum, calculating a first power, calculating a second power, calculating a ratio and performing a statistical correlation.
The limitation of converting the section waveform into a spectrum, calculating a first power, calculating a second power, calculating a ratio and performing a statistical correlation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims are direct to concepts relating to organizing information in a way that can be performed mentally or analogous to human mental work and nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “converting”, “calculating” and “performing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually calculating the power ratios of the transformed signal or function. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Similarly, the limitations of converting the section waveform into a spectrum, calculating a first power, calculating a second power, calculating a ratio and performing a statistical correlation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. The steps would fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly the dependent claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept and well-understood, routine and conventional activity is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 1-10 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. Regarding claims 1, 9 and 10, it is unclear what is meant by “signal waveform based on a time sequence”. It is presumed this just means the signal is a time series. It is unclear where the “sampling interval” is determined or set. It is unclear if it is a sampling rate of a sensor collecting the signal or some other sampling rate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. US 2024/0164725.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 10, Zhang discloses a method for analyzing signal waveform, which is executed by a processor, and the method comprising:
obtaining a physiological signal waveform based on a time sequence ([¶5,55] data is collected);
obtaining a section waveform by using a time segment every sampling interval from the physiological signal waveform, and calculating a power ratio of the section waveform, wherein calculating the power ratio of the section waveform comprises ([¶8,67,68] the data is transformed to the frequency domain and power is determined):
converting the section waveform into a spectrum ([¶8,67,68]);
calculating a first power sum within a first frequency range of the spectrum;
calculating a second power sum within a second frequency range of the spectrum, wherein the first frequency range lies within the second frequency range; and
calculating a ratio of the first power sum to the second power sum to obtain the power ratio ([¶65-67] energy ratios of the signals are determined from different ranges);
performing a statistical calculation for a plurality of power ratios corresponding to a plurality of section waveforms in a plurality of time sections obtained from the physiological signal waveform using the time segment; and
outputting a statistical result of the statistical calculation to a user interface ([¶80-83] the ratios are averaged and output).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang discloses the physiological signal waveform is a blood pressure waveform, and the method further comprises: obtaining the blood pressure waveform within a measurement time through a blood pressure monitor ([¶49,141] blood pressure is measured).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang discloses the statistical calculation comprises at least one of the following: calculating an average value of the power ratios; calculating a coefficient of variation of the power ratios; calculating a first quartile, a second quartile, and a third quartile of the power ratios; and calculating an area occupied by power ratios greater than a default value in a power ratio tendency waveform obtained based on the power ratios ([¶80-83] the ratios are averaged and output).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Weinberg et al. “Extraction of Pulmonary Vascular Compliance, Pulmonary Vascular Resistance, and Right Ventricular Work From Single-Pressure and Doppler Flow Measurements in Children With Pulmonary Hypertension: a New Method for Evaluating Reactivity”
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses obtaining a blood pressure waveform within a measurement time through a first sensor; obtaining a blood flow velocity waveform within the measurement time through a second sensor; and obtaining a plurality of blood pressures and a plurality of blood flow velocities corresponding to a plurality of heartbeat cycles from the blood pressure waveform and the blood flow velocity waveform ([¶49,141] blood pressure is measured).
Zhang does not specifically disclose calculating a cerebrovascular resistance value of each of the heartbeat cycles, respectively, and obtaining the cerebrovascular resistance waveform. Weinberg teaches a similar pressure and flow measurement system that collects pressure and Doppler ultrasound data to determine vascular resistance and compliance ([pg. 2610,2614] the pressure reading and doppler flow readings are used to determine resistance). Weinberg does not specifically disclose determining cerebrovascular resistance but it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the same sensing and calculation to that vasculature as well. The combination therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Zhang with the resistance determination of Weinberg in order to evaluate changes and reactivty of the vasculature.
Regarding claim 3, Weinberg discloses wherein calculating the cerebrovascular resistance value of each of the heartbeat cycles comprises: calculating a blood pressure average value corresponding to the blood pressures of each of the heartbeat cycles; calculating a speed average value of the cerebral blood flow velocities corresponding to each of the heartbeat cycles; and dividing the blood pressure average value by the speed average value to obtain the cerebrovascular resistance value ([pg. 2611] equation 2).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses the first sensor is a blood pressure monitor ([¶49,141] blood pressure is measured) but does not disclose ultrasound. Weinberg teaches the second sensor is a transcranial Doppler ultrasonic device ([pg. 2610]).
Regarding claim 5, Weinberg teaches the physiological signal waveform is a blood flow velocity waveform, and the method further comprises: obtaining the blood flow velocity waveform within a measurement time through a Doppler ultrasonic device ([pg. 2610,2614] the pressure reading and doppler flow readings are used to determine resistance). Weinberg does not specifically disclose determining cerebrovascular resistance but it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the same sensing and calculation to that vasculature as well. The combination therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Zhang with the resistance determination of Weinberg in order to evaluate changes and reactivty of the vasculature.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Deriu et al. “Sympathetically-induced changes in microvascular cerebral blood flow and in the morphology of its low-frequency waves”
Regarding claim 8, Zhang does not disclose the first frequency range is 0.02-0.04 Hz, and the second frequency range is 0.02-0.07 Hz. Deriu teaches a Doppler sensor system that determines power in frequency ranges of 0-0.8Hz ([pg. 68]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Zhang with the ranges taught by Deriu in order to determine changes in the microvasculature of the brain ([pg. 66]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ANTHONY CATINA whose telephone number is (571)270-5951. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6pm.
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, Robert Chen can be reached at 5712723672. 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.
/MICHAEL A CATINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /TSE W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791