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 .
Remarks
This action is in response to the remarks filed 04/12/2026.
Claims 1-9, 11, and 12 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 04/12/2026, with respect to the objection of claims 3-5, 7, and 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 3-5, 7, and 9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 04/12/2026, with respect to the interpretation of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claim 10 has been cancelled. Therefore, this claim interpretation is moot.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 04/12/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to non-statutory subject matter is withdrawn. Claim 12 has been amended to recite a non-transitory readable storage medium and therefore overcomes the rejection.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 04/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 101
Independent claim 1 has been amended to recite “displaying the target pump blood flow value to a user”. Independent claim 10 has been cancelled. Applicant argues (see pages 8-9) that the claims include significantly more than an abstract idea.
However, this is not found to be persuasive. As recited, it would be possible to perform the recited features in the human mind using generic computer components. For example, determining pump blood flow in the context of this claim encompasses a user obtaining a correspondence between current differences and pump blood flow values, obtaining reference current values, calculating differences between the reference current value and current value to determine a second current difference, determining a pump blood flow value corresponding to the second current difference, determining a target pump blood flow value, and outputting the target pump blood flow value. The added limitation of displaying the target pump blood flow value is the insignificant extra-solution activity of data outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As recited, the limitations of the claims are directed towards data collection and analysis. Therefore, there is no further description, in the claims or the specification, of any particular technology for performing the steps recited in the claim other than generic computer components used in their ordinary capacity as tools to apply the abstract idea. Nor does the claimed invention use a particular, or special, machine. In other words, the claims “are not tied to any particular novel machine or apparatus” capable of rescuing them from the realm of an abstract idea.
Therefore, the claims do not recite any additional elements that: (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) are applied with any particular machine, (3) effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (4) are applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Please See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(c), (e)-(h). Therefore, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained, as explained in the office action below.
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 1-9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method and system for determining pump blood flow. To determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility, the claim is evaluated according to a stepwise process as described in MPEP 2106(III) and 2106.03-2106.04. The instant claims are evaluated according to such analysis.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 1 is directed towards a method and thus meets the requirements for step 1.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Claim 1 recites a method for determining pump blood flow, comprising obtaining a correspondence between current differences and pump blood flow values, obtaining reference current values, calculating differences between the reference current value and current value to determine a second current difference, determining a pump blood flow value corresponding to the second current difference, determining a target pump blood flow value, and displaying the target pump blood flow value to a user.
The limitation of determining pump blood flow, as drafted in claims 1-9, 11, and 12, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using pen and paper. For example, determining pump blood flow in the context of this claim encompasses a user obtaining a correspondence between current differences and pump blood flow values, obtaining reference current values, calculating differences between the reference current value and current value to determine a second current difference, determining a pump blood flow value corresponding to the second current difference, determining a target pump blood flow value, and outputting the target pump blood flow value.
Further, claim 1 recites limitations that are mathematical relationships (e.g. calculating differences between the reference current value and current values at different moments). These limitations fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
As claimed and understood, the crux of the invention is the data analysis performed in order to determine the target pump blood flow. The steps of obtaining a correspondence between current differences and pump blood flow values and obtaining reference current values are considered to be the pre-solution activity of data gathering by no more than routine means. The steps of calculating differences between the reference current value and current value to determine a second current difference, determining a pump blood flow value corresponding to the second current difference, and determining a target pump blood flow value are considered to be data analysis steps. The step of displaying the target pump blood flow value is considered to be a mere data output step.
The additional element of the electronic device is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components for inputting, processing, and storing data). Specifically, these additional elements are generically recited computing elements that perform the steps of gathering and analyzing data.
Accordingly, these additional elements do no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements when considered individually and in combination is not enough to qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the electronic device amounts to no more than generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to more than generically linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-9, 11, and 12 depend on claim 1 and recite the same abstract idea as claim 1 from which they depend. Further, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the mental process). For example, the additional limitations recited in claims 2-9 (i.e. further defining the processing steps) are further data analysis steps. The additional limitations recited in claims 11 and 12 (i.e. defining a device and storage medium for use with the method) simply provides generic components to perform the method. The additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception explained above (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves any technology or includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provides a conventional computer implementation, i.e. the computer (processor) is simply a tool to perform the claimed invention.
No prior art was found teaching individually, or suggesting all of the features of the claimed invention, specifically “for each current cycle at each rotational speed, calculating differences between the first reference current value and current values at different moments within the current cycle, so as to obtain an absolute value of at least one second current difference; for the absolute value of the at least one second current difference corresponding to each current cycle at each rotational speed, searching in the first correspondence to obtain a second pump blood flow value corresponding to the absolute value of the second current difference, wherein the absolute value of each second current difference corresponds to a second pump blood flow value; and for each rotational speed, determining a target pump blood flow value on the basis of at least one second pump blood flow value in each current cycle” as recited in claim 1. Casas (US 2016/0144092, of record), the closest prior art of record, discloses monitoring operation of a blood pump including determining flow rate values based on a combination of first and second flow rate values with a weighting parameter, but does not disclose calculating differences between the first reference current value and current values at different moments within the current cycle to determine an absolute value of a second current difference, determining a second pump blood flow value by searching in the first correspondence, and determining a target pump blood flow valve for each rotational speed based on the second pump blood flow value as claimed in claim 1.
While there are no prior art rejections for claims 1-9, 11, and 12, they are not indicated as allowable due to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, as explained above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ito (US 2020/0282120, of record) is directed towards a motor for a blood pump.
Casas et al. (US 2012/0245681, of record) is directed towards flow estimation in a blood pump.
Siess et al. (US 2020/0360582, of record) is directed towards estimating blood flow in a blood pump.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHREYA P ANJARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-9083. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00 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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/SHREYA ANJARIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/ALLEN PORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights