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 Arguments
In view of the amended claims submitted 1/8/26, the claims are considered to overcome the applied prior art. Re claim 1, neither applied reference is considered to fairly teach the determining noise data for the extracted portion of the signal based on an identified heartbeat template based on a comparison between a respective signal remainder and heartbeat template remained. Re claim 12, the applied prior art does not fairly teach a template library including the step of identifying a patient specific heartbeat template stored in memory that is specifically associated with the ECG lead. Re claim 19 is allowable for reasons similar to claim 1. However, new rejection have been made ass et forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-11 are for a method, and claims 12-20 are for an apparatus. Thus, the claims are for statutory subject matter.
Step 2a, prong 1
Claim 1 includes the steps of identifying a heartbeat, identifying a template, determining respective noise data based on a comparison, determining signal to noise ratio for the lead, and determining a lead having the highest SNR. These steps are considered to be an abstract idea in the form of metal steps. They can reasonably be performed in the user’s head, or with pen and pencil. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claim 12 includes the step of identifying a patient specific heartbeat template. This step is considered to be an abstract idea in the form of a mental step.
Further, in claim 19, the steps of identifying a heartbeat in ECG data, identifying a heartbeat template, comparing the extracted portion, removing a respective QRS complex, obtaining a heartbeat template remainer, determining respective noise data, determining signal to noise ratio, determining a lead are all considered to be an abstract idea in the form of mental steps that can be performed in the user’s mind, or with pen and paper.
Step 2a, prong 2
Claim 1 also includes obtaining ECG data and extracting a portion of a signal. These steps are considered to be data gathering for use with the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application since they do not improve a technical field or used to treat a specific medical condition. Further, Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). See MPEP 2106.05(f). Claims 2,3 merely describe details re the data that is used in the abstract idea. Claims 4-7 describe further limitations of the abstract idea itself, and do not add limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 8-10 add further limitations of the data gathering step, but do not add limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 11 sets forth that a display is used to display an indication. This step is considered to be post solution activity, and not a limitation that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 12 includes the memory and a processor and a step of outputting a template. These elements are considered to be ither used to gather data for the abstract idea, or to apply the abstract idea. However, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 13-18 include further limitations as to the abstract idea steps. However, they do not add limitations that as a whole, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 19 includes a memory and processor, as well as the steps of obtaining and extracting. These elements are with used to apply the abstract idea or to facilitate obtaining data for use with the abstract idea. None of them are considered to integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 20 merely describes a further limitation of the abstract idea.
Step 2b
The above claims include a memory, display and a processor. These elements, considered by themselves or as a whole with other elements of the claims, are considered to be well understood, routine and conventional. For example, Lian (2013/0116533) shows memory, and a processor, see at least figure 7. Further, Sitzman (8,805,482) shows an output and processor, see at least figure 1.
Since new rejections have been made, this office action is not made final.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott M. Getzow whose telephone number is (571)272-4946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/Scott M. Getzow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights