DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on November 18, 2025 concerning application No. 18/574,975 filed on December 28, 2023.
Claims 1-3, 6-11 and 13-15 are currently pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 18, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 regarding the prior art rejection have been fully considered. The amendments to the claims have been entered and overcome the prior art rejections previously set forth.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/2025 regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments that claim 1 recites a particular machine and is therefore patent eligible, examiner respectfully disagrees. While an ultrasound transducer itself may be considered a particular machine, the ultrasound transducer in claim 1 is considered extra-solution activity such that it is required for a data gathering step and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Additionally, in order for the particular machine to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the judicial exception must be applied with, or by use of, the particular machine. See MPEP 2106.05(b) and 2106.04(d).
In response to applicant’s arguments that claim 1 is integrated into a practical application because the recited elements reflect an improvement of a technology or technical field, examiner respectfully disagrees. The judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement, the improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. Therefore since the limitations of the claims are considered the judicial exception, except for the ultrasound transducer which is required for data gathering, the claim does not reflect an improvement of a technology or technical field. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
In response to applicant’s arguments that claim 1 is eligible under Step 2B because it recites a combination of features that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field, examiner respectfully disagrees. The determination of whether a claim amounts to significantly more under Step 2B is an analysis for additional elements recited in a claim with a judicial exception. Therefore since, each of the limitations within the claim (except for the ultrasound transducer which is required for data gathering and is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field (see rejection below)), recite a judicial exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 13 and 15 recite the limitations “a landmark location being detected as moving such that…less than all of the ultrasound images in the ultrasound video stream depict the landmark location” and “using only a portion of the ultrasound video stream that…includes less than all of the ultrasound images in the ultrasound video stream” which are both considered new and are not described in the specification in such a way to reasonably convey the inventor had possession of the limitations at the time the application was filed. No where in the specification could it be found where it discloses the landmark location is depicted in less than all of the ultrasound images in the ultrasound video stream and that the video processing is performed using only a portion of the ultrasound video stream that includes less than all of the ultrasound images in the ultrasound video stream. For at least these reasons the limitations recited above are considered new matter.
Claims dependent upon the rejected claims above, but not directly addressed, are also rejected because they inherit the indefiniteness of the claim(s) they respectively depend upon.
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 1-3, 6-11 and 13-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the ultrasound images" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not previously recite ultrasound images.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the ultrasound images" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not previously recite ultrasound images.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the ultrasound images" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not previously recite ultrasound images.
Claims dependent upon the rejected claims above, but not directly addressed, are also rejected because they inherit the indefiniteness of the claim(s) they respectively depend upon.
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, 6-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 13 and 15 recite “a processor configured to:…initiate video processing to identify a breathing pattern in the ultrasound video stream responsive to detection of the trigger event…extract from the ultrasound video stream, at least one breathing-related parameter associated with the breathing pattern”.
The limitation of identifying a breathing pattern and extracting a breathing-related parameter, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor configured to” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor configured to” language, “identify” in the context of the claims encompasses a user viewing an ultrasound video stream, identifying a pattern within the video stream and outputting a breathing-related parameter based on the pattern identification. The user can simply count the number of inhales and exhales that occur within the video stream to determine the breathing rate. Claim 15 additionally, discloses the limitation is performed using a processor which is considered a generic computer component and therefore the limitation of claim 15 can be performed in the mind. 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, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea. Claims 1, 13 and 15 additionally recite “a processor configured to…detect a trigger event indicative of a breathing pattern in the ultrasound video stream using an image-based trigger comprising a specific motion in the ultrasound video stream”, which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor configured to” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor configured to” language, “detect” in the context of the claims encompasses the user or analyzing an ultrasound video stream and identifying something within the video stream that is a trigger event. Claim 15 additionally discloses the limitation is performed using a processor which is considered a generic computer component and therefore the limitation of claim 15 can be performed in the mind. Claims 1, 13 and 15 additionally recite “a processor configured to…output, to a user, a record with the at least one breathing-related parameter” which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor configured to” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor configured to” language, “output” in the context of the claims encompasses the user writing down or taking mental note of the breathing-related parameter. Claim 15 additionally discloses the limitation is performed using a processor which is considered a generic computer component and therefore the limitation of claim 15 can be performed in the mind.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of claims 1, 13, and 15 is an ultrasound transducer which acquires an ultrasound video stream. The acquiring of an ultrasound video stream using an ultrasound transducer amounts to data gathering recited at a high level of generality which is required to obtain the input data for the identifying step. 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 claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The acquiring of the ultrasound video stream using an ultrasound transducer has been determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. acquiring an ultrasound video stream with an ultrasound transducer is widely known in the art, as evidenced by Samset et al. (US 20170112473), [0002] discloses “conventional ultrasound imaging systems usually include ultrasound scanning devices, such as ultrasound probes having transducer…to acquire one or more ultrasound images or videos”).
Claims 2-3 recite the processor is configured to use an artificial intelligence algorithm for performing the estimating of the breathing-related parameter which, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an artificial intelligence algorithm” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. 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, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 6 recite the additional step of using the processor to filter out probe motion from the video stream based on tracking data for the ultrasound probe which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor configured to” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor configured to” language, “filter” in the context of the claims encompasses a user viewing an ultrasound video stream, identifying parts of the video stream that have probe motion within them and filtering those parts out of the video stream. 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, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 6-7 recites the additional step of receiving the tracking data of the ultrasound probe using an inertial measuring unit. The receiving of the tracking data amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality which is required to obtain the input data for the filtering step.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The receiving of tracking data of the ultrasound probe using an inertial measuring unit has been determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Toporek et al. (US 20200187898) discloses in [0079] “an orientation of 3D US transducer 23 is therefore tracked using an inertial measurement unit (IMU) 70 as known in art of the present disclosure”.
Claims 8-11 further limit the breathing parameters being extracted by providing examples of the extracted breathing parameters. The claims do not recite additional elements.
Claim 14 recites an additional step of uploading the record to an electronic medical record system with a mitigation step. the addition of the uploading step does not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception because uploading (storing) data in an electronic medical record system (memory) is seen as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Examiners Note
Claims 1-3, 6-11 and 13-15 could be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph and 35 USC 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW BEGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at 5712701790. 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.
/ANDREW W BEGEMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3798