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 1-3, 5-10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention
is directed to the abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, and 13 are within the four statutory categories. However, as will be
shown below, claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, and 13 are nonetheless unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1 and 8 are representative of the inventive concept and recite:
Claim 1
A method performed in a system comprising one or more processors for managing output data of a biosignal analysis model, comprising steps of:
acquiring, by the one or more processors, analysis result data for a plurality of pieces of biosignal data from a biosignal analysis model;
performing, by the one or more processors, clustering on a plurality of pieces of first-type biosignal data analyzed as corresponding to a first type, among the plurality of pieces of biosignal data, on the basis of the analysis result data;
randomly extracting at least one piece of sample biosignal data from at least one cluster generated by the clustering;
acquiring, by the one or more processors, feedback on whether the clustering of the at least one piece of sample biosignal data to the at least one cluster is accurate, wherein the feedback is input by an examiner through the examiner's device;
and reperforming the clustering with reference to the feedback acquired from the examiner's device, wherein the feedback acquired from the examiner's device includes feedback to the effect that the clustering of the at least one piece of sample biosignal data to the at least one cluster is accurate or inaccurate, wherein in response to acquiring, from the examiner's device, feedback to the effect that the clustering of the at least one piece of sample biosignal data to the at least one cluster is inaccurate, the clustering is reperformed, and
wherein the reperforming the clustering comprises:
excluding, from a clustering target, the at least one piece of sample biosignal data determined, based on the feedback, to have been inaccurately clustered;
reperforming the clustering on the clustering target after excluding the at least one piece of sample biosignal data determined to have been inaccurately clustered;
and changing a clustering algorithm used for the clustering in response to determining that both (i) a first piece of sample biosignal data that has been given feedback to the effect that the clustering of the first piece of sample biosignal data to the at least one cluster is accurate, and (ii) a second piece of sample biosignal data that has been given feedback to the effect that the clustering of the second piece of sample biosignal data to the at least one cluster is inaccurate occur together within the at least one cluster at or above a predetermined level.
*Claim 8 recites similar limitations as claim 1
Step 2A Prong One
The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps includes mental processes because the
highlighted components can practically be performed by the human mind (in this case, the process of (re)performing, changing, ) or using pen and paper. Other than reciting generic computer components/functions such as “processor”, “model”, and “device”, nothing in the claims precludes the highlighted portions from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in claim 1, but for the system language, the claim encompasses the user collecting data before analyzing and organizing it. 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/functions, then it falls within “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, and 12-13 recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claim 2, reciting specifically what type of biosignal data is to be analyzed and clustered, but for recitation of generic computer components/functions).
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the
following additional elements:
Claim 1 recites: “system”, “model”, “processor”, “device”, “algorithm”, “acquiring, by the one or more processors, feedback on whether the clustering of the at least one piece of sample biosignal data to the at least one cluster is accurate, wherein the feedback is input by an examiner through the examiner's device”, and “randomly extracting at least one piece of sample biosignal data from at least one cluster generated by the clustering”.
In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application,
other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than
limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations are recited as being performed by a “system”, “model”, “processor”, “algorithm”, and “device” . These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The “model” and “algorithm” are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how it functions. They are described at a high level such that it amounts to using a computer with generics models to apply the abstract idea.
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea such as the
recitation of “acquiring, by the one or more processors, feedback on whether the clustering of the at least one piece of sample biosignal data to the at least one cluster is accurate, wherein the feedback is input by an examiner through the examiner's device”, and “randomly extracting at least one piece of sample biosignal data from at least one cluster generated by the clustering”.
Dependent claims 5, 6, 12, and 13 recite device
Dependent claims 12-13 recite processor
In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application,
other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than
limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations are recited as being performed by a “processor” and “device”. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Dependent claims 2-3, 7, and 9-10 do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited
in independent claims 1 and 8 and dependent claims 5-6, and 12-13, hence do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer improves any other technology. Their collective function merely provides conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1 and 8 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements: A system in claim 1; amount to no
more than mere instructions to apply an exception to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional
limitations, other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than limitations which amount to
elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular
fields as demonstrated by the recitation of an additional element such as:
Acquiring, which refers to the process of obtaining information over a communication channel
(TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Extracting, which refers to the process of retrieving, gathering, or identifying data from various sources to move it to a system for storage, processing, or analysis (Para 0004, Tripathi(US 20190005322 A1) discloses: “Additionally, the conventional data extraction techniques use a parser in order to analyze contents of the digital document. “) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Dependent claims 2-3, 7, and 9-10 do not include any additional elements beyond those already addressed above for independent claims 1 and 8 and dependent claims 5-6, and 12-13. Therefore, they are not deemed to be significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the limitations of the aforementioned dependent claims amount to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or do not recite and additional elements not already recited in independent claims 1 and 8, hence does not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective function merely provides conventional computer implementation.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1 and 8 distinguish over the prior art for the following reasons:
Claims 1 and 8 (in part):
“…changing a clustering algorithm used for the clustering in response to determining that both (i) a first piece of sample biosignal data that has been given feedback to the effect that the clustering of the first piece of sample biosignal data to the at least one cluster is accurate, and (ii) a second piece of sample biosignal data that has been given feedback to the effect that the clustering of the second piece of sample biosignal data to the at least one cluster is inaccurate occur together within the at least one cluster at or above a predetermined level.”
The underlined limitations above indicate the determination required to change the algorithm is considered subject matter free of prior art.
The closest available prior art of record as follows:
Zeng(US10117594B2): Zeng discloses a system for the analysis and detection for arrythmia drivers, but does not fairly disclose or suggest the aforementioned configuration for the
claimed invention.
Battacharya(US20120072421A1): Battacharya discloses a system and method for interactive clustering, but does not fairly disclose or suggest the aforementioned configuration for the
claimed invention.
Based on the evidence presented above, none of the closest available prior art of record fairly
discloses or suggests the claimed invention. For this reason, claims 1 and 8 would be found to
be subject matter free of prior art as would be claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-10, and 12-13.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101
(Pages 7-10) Regarding the assertion that the amended claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea. The claims are interpreted under BRI, not only for 102 and 103, but also for 101. As recited, the claims mainly recite abstract concepts/steps. When removing the general computer and algorithms from the claim, what remains can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper. The adaptive computational workflow described is recited generally and provides minimal technical detail on how this “black box” functions. It merely relies on generic computers and computer functions to carry out functions that can be performed by human. The “specific mechanism” mentioned in the remarks on page 9, are not described in the claim in technical detail but rather the steps(addresses the “what” rather than “how”). On page 10 of the remarks, Ex Parte Desjardins is referenced. There is no indication on the technical details the improved algorithm/model itself other than defining the inputs and outputs of the mode, which thereby improve the results of a generic model itself.
(Pages 11-12) Regarding the assertion that Step 2B is unnecessary considering the claims qualify as patent-eligible under Step 2A Prong Two.
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1 and 8 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements: A system in claim 1; amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Coleman(US11635813B2): Coleman discloses a system for collecting, analyzing, and sharing bio-signal and non-bio-signal data. Some disclosures are similar to that of this instant pending application. (Specification, para 34-41)
Guttag(US20140296724A1): Guttag discloses method and apparatus for predicting patient outcomes from a physiological segmentable patient signal. Some disclosures are similar to that of this instant pending application. (Specification, para 34-41)
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 SHERYL GOPAL PATEL whose telephone number is (703)756-1990. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 5:30am to 2:30pm PST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/S.G.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
