DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/14/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/10/2026 and 07/22/2026 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1, 3-4 and 6-7. Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn.
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 6-7 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 6-7, applicant uses the language “the processor is configured to attempt”, however it is unclear to what applicant is referring to when using these terms “the processor is configured to attempt”, thus the claims is left unclear and indefinite to the metes and bounds of the invention. Furthermore, applicant specification is silent to properly describe the terms “the processor is configured to attempt” in a clear and definite way for a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand the invention.
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, 3-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility launder 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include mental processes; certain methods of organizing human activities; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
Analysis has been updated based on the new 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (exemplary) recites an apparatus.
The claim is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites an apparatus that comprises the limitations of:
an electronic circuit configured to output a frame sequence;
a processor configured to;
process the frame sequence output from the electronic circuit
transfer the frame sequence to an external apparatus
determine whether or not frame congestion occurs in the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus by monitoring the transfer of the frame sequence
reduce a data amount in the frame sequence to be transmitted to the external apparatus by changing at least one of a transmission and reception condition in the electronic circuit or a processing condition in a case where it is determined that the frame congestion occurs;
wherein the processor is configured to reduce a data amount in each frame constituting the frame sequence by changing the processing condition in a case where it is determined that the frame congestion occurs, wherein the data amount in each frame is reduced by lowering a resolution of each frame,
wherein the processor is configured to change the processing condition by lowering the resolution of each frame until the frame congestion is eliminated,
wherein the processor is further configured to: calculate an actual transfer rate for the frame sequence;
and determine that the frame congestion occurs in a case where the actual transfer rate is lower than a frame rate in the electronic circuit, wherein the actual transfer rate is calculated based on a number of transfer frames per unit time.
The claimed process simply describes series of steps for an apparatus, based on to process, to transfer, to reduce, to change, to calculate, and to determine. These limitations set forth a judicial exception, because this is simply the organization and comparison of data which can be performed with pen and paper and is an idea of itself. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations activities that falls within the enumerated group of “mental processes” in the 2019 PEG.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitation of using an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus, an electronic circuit and a processor to perform the steps. The processor in the steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. The processor is a general-purpose processor (see para [0006 and 0034] of the specification) that performs general-purpose functions of to process, to transfer, to reduce, to change, to calculate, and to determine. The recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Also, these limitations are an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed above, the recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea and have additional elements present in the claims of an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus, an electronic circuit and a processor. These additional limitations of an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus, an electronic circuit and a processor are mere generic implantations of storing and compiling/organizing data which can be performed by pen and paper and falls under enumerated group of “mental processes” and do not transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at or provide an inventive concept.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention including claim 1.
Furthermore, the dependent claims 3-4 and 6-7 do not resolve the issues raised in the independent claims. The dependent claims do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea. The dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claims. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Lastly, dependent claims do not include any additional elements and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1, 3-4 and 6-7 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
The instant claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 in view of The Decision in Alice Corporation Ply. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the patent claims in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, el al. ("Alice Corp. ") are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLAH ABULABAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-3:00pm EST.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
