DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
2. This communication is in response to the communication filed 3/20/2024. Claims 1-13 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
3.1. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because while the claims (1) are to a statutory category (i.e., process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, the claims (2A1) recite an abstract idea (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon); (2A2) do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and (2B) are not directed to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In regards to (1), the claims are to a statutory category (i.e., statutory categories including a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter). In particular, independent claims 1 and 11-13, and their respective dependent claims are directed, in part, to a method, program product, medium and system for processing a signal representing a physiological rhythm of a subject.
In regards to (2A1), the claims, as a whole, recite and are directed to an abstract idea because the claims include one or more limitations that correspond to an abstract idea including mathematical concepts and mental processes. For example, independent claims 1 and 11-13, as a whole, are directed to processing a signal representing a physiological rhythm of a subject by receiving signal data, estimating period characteristics, generating probabilities on the characteristics, determining spectral likelihoods, defining localization points in the physiological rhythm, determining temporal likelihoods, estimating the localization points, etc. which are mathematical concepts and mental processes. The dependent claims include all of the limitations of their respective independent claims and thus are directed to the same abstract idea identified for the independent claims but further describe the elements and/or recite field of use limitations.
More specifically, the claims are directed to an abstract idea because the claims, except for certain limitations (* identified below in bold), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, can be reasonably and practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper using observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion. That is, other than reciting the certain additional elements, nothing in the claims precludes the limitations from being practically performed in the mind and/or with pen and paper.
CLAIM 1:
A method of processing a signal representing a physiological rhythm of a subject, the physiological rhythm having a period characteristic (T, ti), the method comprising:
receiving the signal;
estimating a first group of period characteristic (T, ti) estimations based on the signal;
generating a prior probability (P(Θ)) for the period characteristic (T, ti) based on at least a subset of the first group of period characteristic (T, ti) estimations;
estimating a second group of period characteristic (T, ti) estimations based on the first group and the prior probability (P(Θ));
determining a spectral likelihood (fs) of at least part of the signal,
wherein the spectral likelihood (fs) is representative of a likelihood that the first group of
period characteristic (T, ti) estimations corresponding to the at least part of the signal represents the period characteristic (T, ti) of the physiological rhythm,
wherein estimating the second group of period characteristic (T, ti) estimations is based on the spectral likelihood (fs) of the signal;
defining a localization point in the physiological rhythm, wherein the localization point characterizes a phase in a period of the physiological rhythm;
determining a temporal likelihood (fT) of the signal corresponding to the period,
wherein the temporal likelihood (fT) is representative of a likelihood that the signal represents the localization point;
estimating the localization point based on the spectral likelihood (fs), the temporal likelihood (fr), and the prior probability (P(Θ)).
CLAIM 2:
The method of claim 1, comprising
wherein estimating the location point comprises using a maximum a-posteriori probability (MAP) estimation,
wherein the maximum a-posteriori probability (MAP) estimation is based on the spectral likelihood (fs), the temporal likelihood (fr), and the prior probability (P(Θ)).
CLAIM 3:
The method of claim 1, wherein the second group of period characteristic (T, ti) estimations estimates the period characteristic (T, ti) of the physiological rhythm with more accuracy than the first group of period characteristic (T, ti) estimations.
CLAIM 4:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the period characteristic (T, ti) comprises at least one of a period length (T) and a time stamp (ti).
CLAIM 5:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the physiological rhythm is a spontaneous breathing rhythm of the subject.
CLAIM 6:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the physiological rhythm is a cardiac rhythm of the subject.
CLAIM 7:
The method according to claim 6, comprising estimating at least one of an inter-beat interval and a heart rate variability of the cardiac rhythm based on the second group of period characteristic (T, ti) estimations.
CLAIM 8:
The method according to claim 5, wherein the signal comprises a signal from an accelerometer arranged on the chest of the subject.
CLAIM 9:
The method according to claim 1, comprising: determining an occurrence of a sleep disorder breathing (SDB) event based on the second group of period characteristic (T, ti) estimations.
CLAIM 10:
The method according to claim 1, comprising: determining a sleep stage of the subject based on the second group of period characteristic (T, ti) estimations.
CLAIM 11:
A computer program product, comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 1.
CLAIM 12:
A computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 1.
CLAIM 13:
A system for processing a signal representing a physiological rhythm of a subject, the physiological rhythm having a period characteristic (T,ti), the system comprising a sensor and a computer, wherein the computer is coupled to the sensor, wherein the computer is configured to perform the method
of claim 1.
* The limitations that are in bold are considered “additional elements” that are further analyzed below in subsequent steps of the 101 analysis. The limitations that are not in bold are abstract and/or can be reasonably and practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen paper.
In regards to (2A2), the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements in the claims (i.e., * identified above in bold) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea; merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; and/or simply append technologies and functions, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea (i.e., the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer).
Here, the additional elements (e.g., computer, computer program, sensor, accelerometer, etc.) are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer technologies. Moreover, the claims recite “by a computer”, “cause the computer to”, etc. devoid of any meaningful technological improvement details and thus, further evidence the additional elements are merely being used to leverage generic technologies to automate what otherwise could be done manually. Accordingly, the 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.
Furthermore, the additional elements do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field—the additional elements merely recite general purpose computer technology; the additional elements do not recite applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition—there is no actual administration of a particular treatment; the additional elements do not recite applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine—the additional elements merely recite general purpose computer technology; the additional elements do not recite limitations effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing—the additional elements do not recite transformation such as a rubber mold process; the additional elements do not recite applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment—the additional elements merely leverage general purpose computer technology to link the abstract idea to a technological environment.
In regards to (2B), the claims, individually, as a whole and in combination with one another, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of (A) a generic computer structure(s) that serves to perform computer functions that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., computers); and/or (B) functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Here, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer technologies. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer technologies cannot provide an inventive concept.
Moreover, paragraphs [0117]-[0119] of applicant's specification (US 2024/0315645) recites that the system/method is implemented using a computer and a processor without any further details and thus merely well-known general purpose or generic-type computers and/or technologies. The use of generic computer components recited at a high level of generality to process information through an unspecified processor/computer does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Furthermore, the additional elements are merely well-known general purpose computers, components and/or technologies that receive, transmit, store, display, generate and otherwise process information which are akin to functions that courts consider well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry, such as, performing repetitive calculations; receiving or transmitting data over a network; electronic recordkeeping; retrieving and storing information in memory; and sorting information (See, for example, MPEP § 2106).
Therefore, the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
3.2.. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 12 is directed toward "A computer-readable storage medium". A computer program not explicitly stored in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium is non-statutory. The Examiner could not immediately find within the specification any recitation that would define said computer readable medium. The computer readable medium could read on both statutory (such as a non-transitory computer readable storage medium) and non-statutory subject matter (such as forms of computer readable transmissions). Without evidence to the contrary and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, a computer program or code is merely a set of instructions capable of being executed by a computer, the computer program or code itself does not fall within any of the statutory categories of invention (i.e., a process, article of manufacture, machine and a composition of matter); thus, since the claim language is interpreted to read on non-statutory subject matter, the claims are rejected as being directed to a non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tomaszewski whose telephone number is (313)446-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30 am - 2:30 pm.
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, Peter H Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/MICHAEL TOMASZEWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681