CTNF 18/739,455 CTNF 89438 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/03/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. STEP 2A PRONG ONE: Claims 1, 14 and 15 recite(s) specific limitations/method steps of: displaying on a graph a blood pressure signal of a patient; indicating, on the graph, an autoregulation threshold that separates an intact autoregulation area of the graph and an impaired autoregulation area of the graph; indicating, on the graph, a plurality of threshold offsets that are each separated from the autoregulation threshold, wherein each one of the plurality of threshold offsets is selectable by a user; receiving, by one or more processors, an indication of user input that corresponds to selection of a threshold offset from the plurality of threshold offsets; and updating, by the one or more processors, the autoregulation threshold on the graph based on the selected threshold offset. This limitation recites a mental process, because the claimed limitation describes a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). For example, a physician can indicate autoregulation threshold from a graph and by monitoring the blood pressure signal for a period of time, the physician can update or adjust the autoregulation threshold. Thus, the claims are drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea. STEP 2A PRONG TWO: Claims 1, 14 and 15 does not recite additional elements that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 1, 14 and 15 recites the following additional elements beyond the judicial exception: A) display screen and B) processor. Accordingly, the combination of the additional element/step A does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the use of a display screen is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. using those elements for mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Element B does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the use of a controller/processor amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, each of the additional elements or a combination of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they fail to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. STEP 2B: Claims 1, 14 and 15 does/do not include additional structural elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements, such as, A) display screen and B) processor The combination of element A of a display screen does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the use of a display screen is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. using those elements for mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the element A is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as is evidenced by Addison et al (US 10,932,673) and Benni et al (WO 2019126484 A1) which all show processor as claimed in claims 1, 14 and 15 evidencing that these elements are well-understood, route, and conventional in the applanation arts. Element B does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because adding a controller/processor is simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g. a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see MPEP 2106.05(d)II). Accordingly, the additional elements individual or in co do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they fail to recite additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. When viewed alone or in combination, the limitations of claims 1-15 merely instruct the practitioner to implement the concept of collecting data with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. The inventive concept cannot be furnished by the abstract idea; instead, the application must provide something inventive, beyond mere “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” (Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial L.L.C.). The additional elements of independent claims when viewed alone or as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In other words, this claim merely applies an abstract idea to a computer and does not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 9, 10, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Addison et al (US 2020/0121193) . As to claims 1, 14 and 15, Addison teaches a device and a method for displaying autoregulation status (system for monitoring autoregulation, abstract, the system and method shown in fig.1 and 2A), comprising: Memory (memory 120, par.26 and par.29, fig.1); and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instruction that, when executed by processing circuitry (processing circuitry 110, par.32-33, fig.1), cause the processing circuitry to: displaying, on a graph on a display screen (user interface 130 displays graph 200 representing autoregulation status, par.31 and par.65-69, fig.1-2B), a blood pressure signal of a patient (blood pressure signal 202, par.65-69, fig.2); indicating, on the graph, an autoregulation threshold (autoregulation value 206, par.65-69, fig.1) that separates an intact autoregulation area of the graph (area on graph above value 206 is intact autoregulation area, as best seen in fig.2A, par.65-69) and an impaired autoregulation area of the graph (area on graph below value 206 is impaired autoregulation area, as best seen in fig.2A, par.65-69); indicating, on the graph, a plurality of threshold offsets that are each separated from the autoregulation threshold, wherein each one of the plurality of threshold offsets is selectable by a user (autoregulation values 204 and 208, a display may include fewer or more non-cerebral autoregulation status values than illustrated in FIG. 2A, par.65-69, fig.2A, each value is more than capable of being selected by a user/caregiver); receiving, by one or more processors, an indication of user input that corresponds to selection of a threshold offset from the plurality of threshold offsets (alerts for each associated impaired autoregulation scenario, autoregulation monitoring system 100 may enable a clinician to make a more informed decision to correct a blood pressure of patient 101, e.g., to maintain autoregulation of selected organs or organ systems, compared to autoregulation monitoring systems that do not determine and/or display non-cerebral autoregulation status values, par.67-68); and updating, by the one or more processors, the autoregulation threshold on the graph based on the selected threshold offset (adjusting autoregulation value and/or correcting blood pressure of a patient based on alerts, par.67-69). As to claim 9, Addison teaches the method, wherein a particular threshold offset out of the plurality of threshold offsets and the autoregulation threshold define an autoregulation threshold offset area in the graph between the particular threshold offset and the autoregulation threshold (area on graph between autoregulation value 206 and any of autoregulation values 208 or 204, apr.65-69, fig.2A). As to claim 10, Addison teaches the method, wherein the intact autoregulation area of the graph, the impaired autoregulation area of the graph, and the autoregulation threshold offset area in the graph are represented by different colors in the graph (the indication of autoregulation status may include text, colors, and/or audio presented to a user, par.62 and par.73). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAY A ABOUELELA whose telephone number is (571)270-7917. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5. 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, JACQUELINE CHENG can be reached at 5712725596. 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. /MAY A ABOUELELA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/739,455 Page 2 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/739,455 Page 3 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/739,455 Page 4 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/739,455 Page 5 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/739,455 Page 6 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/739,455 Page 7 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/739,455 Page 8 Art Unit: 3791
Prosecution Insights