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
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 an apparatus, and claims 12-20 are for a method. Thus, the claims are for statutory subject matter.
Step 2a, prong 1
Claim 1 includes an assessment circuit to determine first and second correlations, and to determine an indication of AF or the absence of AF. These steps are considered to be an abstract idea in the form of a mental process. That is, the ordinarily skilled artisan can reasonably perform the steps in his head, or with pen and paper. Similarly, in claim 12 the steps of determining first and second correlations, and determining an indication are also mental steps. 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).
Step 2a, prong 2
In claim 1 the signal receiver circuit is considered to be a data gathering device to provide data for the abstract idea. Further, the detection circuit merely outputs the results of the abstract idea, and does not perform a particular treatment using a specialized device. Neither circuit integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 2-7 merely include elements that provide data for the abstract idea, and are not elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 8-11 merely include further elements of the abstract idea, and not a step that integrates the idea into a practical application. In claim 12, the steps of receiving only provides data for the abstract idea, and the step of detecting is merely an output of the abstract idea. Neither step integrates the abstract idea into practical application. Claims 13,14 merely include elements that provide data for the abstract idea, and not elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 15-20 merely include further elements of the abstract idea, and not a step that integrates the idea into a practical application. 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).
Step 2b
The above claims include receiver circuits to receive cardiac electrical information and cardiac acceleration information. Such circuits are considered to be well understood, routine in the art. Further, a detection circuit is also well understood and routine in the art. The circuitry of the claims, other than the abstract idea, either considered by themselves or considered as a whole do not add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant cited 2017/0119273 to Thakur is the child application of application 16/215,230 discussed on page 11 of applicant’s specification. Further, applicant cited 2004/093035 to Schwartz teaches a plurality of templates of electrical activity of the heart, not templates of accelerations due to heart sound such as S4.
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