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 .
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claims are determined to be directed to a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claimed inventions in claims 1-10 are directed to statutory subject matter as the claim(s) recite(s) a method and a device for correcting an ECG signal.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claims 1, 9 and 10 recite the following steps or instructions for “acquiring electrogram signals”, “estimating(estimates) an error…”, and “correcting(corrects) an electrocardiogram signal”, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or a mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). For example, these limitations concern data collection (acquiring step) and data analysis using mathematical concepts (estimating and correcting steps), directed to mental processes of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper and mathematical concepts. These limitations are nothing more than a medical professional receiving an ECG signal (either pre-acquired or a generic test signal) and performing mathematical calculations for estimating an error and correcting that error as a result of those calculations.
Accordingly, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
In addition, Claim 1 recites additional elements of “a computing device” and “at least one processor”, Claim 9 recites additional elements of “a computer-readable storage medium” and “one or more processors”, and Claim 10 recites the additional elements of “a computing device”, “a processor”, “memory”, and “a network unit”.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 9, and 10 (and the respective dependent claims 2-8) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1, 9, and 10), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) and appear to be extra solution activity where data to be analyzed by the abstract idea is acquired or obtained.
More specifically, the additional elements as recited Claim 1 – “a computing device, “at least one processor”, Claim 9 – “a computer-readable storage medium” and “one or more processors”, and Claim 10 - “a computing device”, “a processor”, “memory”, and “a network unit”, are generically recited computer elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 9, and 10 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and using mathematical concepts) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., “a computing device, “at least one processor”, “a computer-readable storage medium”, “one or more processors”, “a computing device”, “a processor”, “memory”, and “a network unit”, as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 9, and 10 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 9, and 10 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B
Claims 1, 9, and 10 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons:
These claims require the additional elements: Claim 1 – “a computing device, “at least one processor”, Claim 9 – “a computer-readable storage medium” and “one or more processors”, and Claim 10 - “a computing device”, “a processor”, “memory”, and “a network unit”.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification:
The “computing device” and “at least / one or more processor” are described as components that are generic and conventionally used and known in the art: “The processor 110 for performing such data processing may include a central processing unit (CPU), a general purpose graphics processing unit (GPGPU), a tensor processing unit (TPU), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or a field programmable gate array (FPGA). Since the types of processor 110 described above are only examples, the type of processor 110 may be configured in various manners within a range understandable to those skilled in the art based on the content of the present disclosure” (published application ¶¶ 44). In addition, “memory” is described as a component that is generic and conventionally used and known in the art: “The memory 120 according to an embodiment of the present disclosure may be understood as a configuration unit including hardware and/or software for storing and managing data that is processed in the computing device 100 (published application ¶¶ 49). Furthermore, the “network unit” is described as a component that is generic and conventionally used and known in the art: “The network unit 130 according to an embodiment of the present disclosure may be understood as a configuration unit that transmits and receives data through any type of known wired/wireless communication system. For example, the network unit 130 may perform data transmission and reception using a wired/wireless communication system such as a local area network (LAN), a wideband code division multiple access (WCDMA) network, a long term evolution (LTE) network, the wireless broadband Internet (WiBro), a 5th generation mobile communication (5G) network, a ultra wide-band wireless communication network, a ZigBee network, a radio frequency (RF) communication network, a wireless LAN, a wireless fidelity network, a near field communication (NFC) network, or a Bluetooth network.” (published application ¶¶ 51).
Additionally, the claimed terms of “a computing device, “at least one processor”, “a computer-readable storage medium”, “one or more processors”, “a computing device”, “a processor”, “memory”, and “a network unit”, is reasonably construed as components of a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for “a computing device, “at least one processor”, “a computer-readable storage medium”, “one or more processors”, “a computing device”, “a processor”, “memory”, and “a network unit”. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1, 9, and 10 (and respective dependent claims) amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using 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 provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the method, program, and device of Claims 1, 9, and 10 (and respective dependent claims 2-8) are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 9, and 10 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
As such, claim 1-10 when analyzed as a whole, do not appear to be patent eligible for the reasons set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aversano et al. (US 2004/0034284; hereinafter “Aversano”). Aversano teaches a method of correcting an error in an electrocardiogram signal, the method being performed by a computing device including at least one processor, the method comprising: acquiring electrocardiogram signals (e.g. ¶¶ 74, 127, etc.); estimating an error in the acquired electrocardiogram signals based on correlations between leads for measurement of the acquired electrocardiogram signals and correcting an electrocardiogram signal, estimated to have the error, based on correction information for correction of an error in an electrocardiogram signal (e.g. ¶¶ 128 – “The system includes means for preventing and/or detecting and correcting limb lead reversal using existing ECG analysis algorithms such as the Marquette Analyzer.”).
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feild et al. (US 2007/0232946; hereinafter “Feild”).
Regarding claim 1, Feild teaches a method of correcting an error in an electrocardiogram signal, the method being performed by a computing device including at least one processor, the method comprising: acquiring electrocardiogram signals (e.g. ¶¶ 38; Fig. 2, #58); estimating an error in the acquired electrocardiogram signals based on correlations between leads for measurement of the acquired electrocardiogram signals (e.g. ¶¶ 7, 18, etc. – “detects ECG electrode misplacement, including interchanged electrodes”) and correcting an electrocardiogram signal, estimated to have the error, based on correction information for correction of an error in an electrocardiogram signal (e.g. ¶¶ 18 – “…the system 10 additionally corrects detected ECG electrode misplacement by determining which leads are reversed in the saved ECG data, swapping the lead signals, and re-calculating the ECG.”).
Regarding claim 9, Feild discloses computer program stored in a computer-readable storage medium, the computer program performing operations of correcting an error in an electrocardiogram signal when executed on one or more processors (e.g. ¶¶ 34-36), wherein the operations comprise operations of: acquiring electrocardiogram signals (e.g. ¶¶ 38; Fig. 2, #58); estimating an error in the acquired electrocardiogram signals based on correlations between leads for measurement of the acquired electrocardiogram signals (e.g. ¶¶ 7, 18, etc. – “detects ECG electrode misplacement, including interchanged electrodes”); and correcting an electrocardiogram signal, estimated to have the error, based on correction information for correction of an error in an electrocardiogram signal (e.g. ¶¶ 18 – “…the system 10 additionally corrects detected ECG electrode misplacement by determining which leads are reversed in the saved ECG data, swapping the lead signals, and re-calculating the ECG.”).
Regarding claim 10, Feild discloses a computing device for correcting an error in an electrocardiogram signal, the computing device comprising: a processor including at least one core, memory including program codes that are executable on the processor; and a network unit configured to acquire electrocardiogram signals (e.g. ¶¶ 34-36); wherein the processor acquires electrocardiogram signals (e.g. ¶¶ 38; Fig. 2, #58), estimates an error in the acquired electrocardiogram signals based on correlations between leads for measurement of the acquired electrocardiogram signals (e.g. ¶¶ 7, 18, etc. – “detects ECG electrode misplacement, including interchanged electrodes”), and corrects an electrocardiogram signal, estimated to have the error, based on correction information for correction of an error in an electrocardiogram signal (e.g. ¶¶ 18 – “…the system 10 additionally corrects detected ECG electrode misplacement by determining which leads are reversed in the saved ECG data, swapping the lead signals, and re-calculating the ECG.”).
Regarding claim 2, Feild teaches estimating the error in the acquired electrocardiogram signals comprises: generating a correlation matrix representing electrocardiogram signal relationships between the leads based on the acquired electrocardiogram signals; and detecting an electrocardiogram signal, in which lead reversal has occurred, among the acquired electrocardiogram signals based on the correlation matrix (e.g. ¶¶ 22 – “the original ECG information and the combinations thereof can be stored in a matrix or other data structure. The data can then be concurrently provided to the processor 30 via the matrix or other data structure. Using a matrix, reversal of the leads can be achieved relatively effortlessly and computationally efficiently (e.g., in about 1/100.sup.th of a second) by simply shifting columns of the transformation matrix.”).
Regarding claim 3, Feild teaches detecting the electrocardiogram signal in which lead reversal has occurred comprises classifying the electrocardiogram signal, in which the lead reversal has occurred, among the acquired electrocardiogram signals by inputting the correlation matrix to a pre-trained first neural network model (e.g. ¶¶ 22-24).
Regarding claim 4, Feild teaches estimating the error in the acquired electrocardiogram signals comprises classifying the electrocardiogram signal, in which the lead reversal has occurred, among the electrocardiogram signals by inputting the electrocardiogram signals to a pre-trained second neural network model (e.g. ¶¶ 22-24, 39-40, etc.).
Regarding claim 5, Feild teaches estimating the error in the acquired electrocardiogram signals comprises extracting target signals for analysis of the correlations from the acquired electrocardiogram signals by using a band-pass filter (e.g. ¶¶ 22-24, 26, etc.).
Regarding claim 6, Feild teaches the correction information comprises a correction table representing conversion relationships between electrocardiogram signals of normal leads and electrocardiogram signals in which lead reversal has occurred (e.g. ¶¶ 39-40).
Regarding claim 7, Feild teaches electrodes attached to a human body to acquire the electrocardiogram signals comprise one or more of a plurality of electrodes attached to distal ends of limbs and a plurality of electrodes attached to preset locations on a chest (e.g. ¶¶ 4).
Regarding claim 8, Feild teaches the acquired electrocardiogram signals comprise one or more of a first electrocardiogram signal generated based on a first electrode corresponding to a right arm and a second electrode corresponding to a left arm, a second electrocardiogram signal generated based on the first electrode and a third electrode corresponding to a left leg, a third electrocardiogram signal generated based on the second electrode and the third electrode, and precordial electrocardiogram signals corresponding to a plurality of precordial electrodes, respectively (e.g. ¶¶ 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael D’Abreu whose telephone number is (571) 270-3816. The examiner can normally be reached on 7AM-4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571) 270-5625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) 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.
/MICHAEL J D'ABREU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796