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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending and under consideration for patentability.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea, without significantly more. The claims recite mathematical relationships, mathematical calculations, and mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements, such as a computing unit, a memory unit, and a detecting unit, do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, as they simply amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements gather, store, retrieve, and compare information, with such concepts being well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Step 1
The claimed invention as recited in claims 1-14 is directed to statutory subject matter as the claims recite a device, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium for determining an extremum of a periodic blood pressure signal.
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding independent claims 1, 9, 10, and 11, the recited steps are directed to mathematical concepts and mental processes of performing mathematical concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (please see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Regarding independent claims 1, 9, 10, and 11, the limitations of “detecting a periodic blood pressure signal with the detecting unit, dividing the periodic blood pressure signal into a plurality of equally long intervals, each interval having an interval length, wherein the interval length is chosen such that it is longer than an expected maximum periodic time of the periodic blood pressure signal, determining at least one of an absolute maximum and an absolute minimum of the periodic blood pressure signal within each interval, calculating at least one of an average value of the determined absolute maxima and an average value of the determined absolute minima, [and] storing or outputting the calculated average value of the determined absolute maxima and/or the calculated average value of the determined absolute minima as extremum of the periodic blood pressure signal” (borrowing from the language of independent claim 1 as being representative) amount to using the mathematical concepts of dividing information into groups, averaging the information, comparing the information, and locating highest/lowest points in the information in order to make a determination of the overall data.
Regarding independent claims 1, 9, 10, and 11, the limitations of “dividing the periodic blood pressure signal into a plurality of equally long intervals, each interval having an interval length, wherein the interval length is chosen such that it is longer than an expected maximum periodic time of the periodic blood pressure signal, determining at least one of an absolute maximum and an absolute minimum of the periodic blood pressure signal within each interval, [and] calculating at least one of an average value of the determined absolute maxima and an average value of the determined absolute minima” (borrowing from the language of independent claim 1 as being representative) are processes that can be performed by a human mind (including making an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional analyzing a printout or computer display of blood pressure signals to determine highest and/or lowest points in the signals.
Step 2A, Prong Two
For independent claims 1, 9, 10, and 11, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite “a computing unit, a memory unit, and a detecting unit configured to detect a periodic blood pressure signal” The detecting unit is nothing more than a pre-solution activity of data gathering, and the use of a computing unit and a memory unit do not recite any form of practical application. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The claims implicitly are implemented on a generic computer structure.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computing unit, a memory unit, and a detecting unit amount to nothing more than mere pre-solution activity of data gathering, which does not amount to an inventive concept. Moreover, the computer components of data gathering, storing, and retrieval units are well-understood, routine, and conventional, and the claims simply append the well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984) (please see MPEP 2106.05(d)). In this case, elements of general computer are being used to implement the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 2-8 and 12-14, the limitations recited in the dependent claims further define the limitations previously indicated as being directed to the abstract idea.
Claims 2 and 3 further define the medical device as being miniature, with no recitation of a practical application.
Claim 4 further defines the medical device as being an implant, with no recitation of a practical application.
Claims 5-7 further define the signals which are gathered and the mathematical concepts which are implemented.
Claim 8 further defines the computing unit as being a microprocessor, which is another well-understood, routine, and conventional computer component.
Claims 12-14 further define the mathematical concepts which are implemented.
Statement on Communication via Internet
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. Where a written authorization is given by the applicant, communications via Internet e-mail, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used. USPTO employees are NOT permitted to initiate communications with applicants via Internet e-mail unless there is a written authorization of record in the patent application by the applicant. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please refer to MPEP 502.03 for guidance on Communications via Internet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Ankit D. Tejani, whose telephone number is 571-272-5140. The Examiner may normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30AM through 5:00PM 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, Niketa Patel, can be reached by telephone at 571-272-4156. 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 at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/Ankit D Tejani/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights