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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-8 recites a contactless electrocardiogram monitoring method based on a millimeter-wave radar (Step 1: Yes). In this case, the judicial exception relied upon by the instantly claimed invention is an abstract idea (Step 2A: Yes), and the limitation(s) that set(s) forth or describe(s) the abstract idea(s) is/are: “performing a signal processing…extract cardiac mechanical activity data hidden in the echo signal” and “constructing an end-to-end network architecture for the extracted cardiac mechanical activity data, so as to complete a cross-domain mapping from a cardiac mechanical activity to a cardiac electrical activity”. The reason(s) that the limitation(s) are considered an abstract idea is because they are directed to functionally-described algorithmic processes that require performing mathematical calculations, and the Supreme Court has explicitly characterized mathematical relationships/formulas as abstract ideas (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, December 16, 2014 at 74622, column 2). The claims are basically just process and extract feature from signal using algorithm (deep learning neural network). The instantly claimed invention is also similar to claims already found to be directed to an abstract idea and patent ineligible. See at least the following court decisions:
• SmartGene, Inc. v Advanced Biological Labs., 555 Fed. Appx. 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014), directed to systems, methods and computer program products for guiding the selection of therapeutic treatment regimens (ineligible)
• TLI Communications LLC v. A. V. Automotive, LLC (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2016) directed to generalized steps for recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner (ineligible)
• Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015)., directed to a method of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (ineligible)
• Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014), directed to methods of payment of intellectual property royalties by interposed sponsor over a telecommunications network (ineligible)
• Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014), drawn to device profiles for use in a digital image processing system (ineligible)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional limitation of an “transmitting a millimeter-wave signal”. The additional element is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, these 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. The transmit of millimeter-wave is well-known and generic to the sensing field. For prong 1 of Step 2A the claim is an abstract idea as stated above. For prong 2 of Step 2A, the claims do not integrate into practical application because the claims do not claim any particular medical treatment or condition. It is merely processing signal using a computer.
With regards to the instantly rejected dependent claim(s), these claims when analyzed as a whole are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an judicial exception and/or do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible. 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. For example, claims 2-8 are merely claiming using mathematical function/algorithm (convolutional neural network)to extract feature. The dependent claims do not claim any particular medical treatment or condition to be considered practical application. Thus, claims 1-8, as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (Step 2B: No).
Applicant is reminded that additional steps/elements may be enough to qualify as “significantly more” if they meaningfully limit the judicial exception, improve the technology or technical field, improve the functioning of a computer itself, or add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field or unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application.
For additional guidance, applicant is directed generally to MPEP 2106 and to the USPTO's Guidance on Subject Matter Eligibility (October 2019 Update). This information can be found at: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/2014-interim-guidance-subject-matter-eligibility-0.
Examiner suggests amend claims 2 and 9 into claim 1 to overcome 101 rejection. Claims 2 and 9 claim specific medical application, specific hardware and arrangement that is not generic to the field.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-4 and 9 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. Limitations “end-to-end network” and “cross-domain mapping” are unclear. There is no boundary define for “end-to-end network” and “cross-domain mapping”. The specification does not define what they are. Examiner just interpreted the limitations as receive signal using the millimeter-wave radar and then process the signal to determine ECG heart electrical activity. Examiner suggests amend claim 5 into claim 1 to limit “end-to-end network” and “cross-domain mapping” to these method steps to overcome the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al. (CardiacWave: A mmWave-based Scheme of Non-Contact and High-Definition Heart Activity Computing (provided in the IDS)).
Addressing claim 1, Xu discloses a contactless electrocardiogram monitoring method based on a millimeter-wave radar, comprising (see abstract):
step S1: transmitting a millimeter-wave signal to a target to be tested and
receiving an echo signal using the millimeter-wave radar (see abstract, Figs. 1 and 2);
step S2: performing a signal processing on the received echo signal to extract cardiac mechanical activity data hidden in the echo signal (see page 135:5 and Fig. 4; isolate/extract chest movement induced by heartbeat is extracting mechanical activity data);
step S3: constructing an end-to-end network architecture for the extracted cardiac mechanical activity data, so as to complete a cross-domain mapping from a cardiac mechanical activity to a cardiac electrical activity (see page 135:5 and Fig. 4; get rid of the noise cause by mechanical activities to get electrical activities of the heart).
Addressing claim 9, Xu discloses:
step S4: based on a deep learning network architecture which has learned a cross-domain mapping of the cardiac mechanical activity and the cardiac electrical activity, inputting cardiac mechanical activity data extracted at a current moment, and outputting an ECG measurement result for the current moment, so as to finally complete a contactless electrocardiogram monitoring (see page 135:5, page 135:3, page 135:6, 135:23, conclusion section and Fig. 4; feed the sense data into deep learning neural network to extract/isolate noise cause by mechanical heart activity and produce ECG signal that shows heart electrical activity).
No art rejection for claims 2-8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2024/0398259; US 11,278,241; US 2021/0045656; US 2020/0386879; US 10/310,073; WO 2015/174879; US 2011/0245690; US 2008/0077015 and Cardiopulmonary Activity Monitoring Using Millimeter Wave Radars.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEN NGOC NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/HIEN N NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3797