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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 2/13/2026 are entered. Claims 1-17 are canceled. Claims 18-20 are pending. The previous objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
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 18-20 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.
Independent claim 18 recites, for example, the following abstract ideas: “…apply the trained computational model to the to the measurement data to…”, falls within mental process. There is no specific machine or device that is not known or generic recited in the claim limitations, see MPEP § 2106.05(b). The limitations have no specifics to the algorithmic foundation or dimensionality associated with the input measurement data and as such can be considered computations that can be performed in the mind using visual inspection or simple pen and paper. Further the usage of a computational model does not provide the process/algorithm specifics in the recited claims and thus can be considered a process/algorithm that is generic and of the simplest form that one can be performed by hand. Further, limitations “…receive input measurement data…” and “…input the measure measurement data to a trained computational model…” are considered extra solution activity recited at a high level of generality with no specific machine or device disclosed that is not generic or known to perform the limitations.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a “practical application” as defined by the Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis documented in Federal Register 84(4), issued on 07 January 2019, and MPEP § 2106. The limitation of “…cause the processor to…” in claim 18, simply represents implementing the abstract ideas with a computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f) notes that “using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea” is not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application as interpreted by the court(s). Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972) “held that simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle and Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) established that mental processes encompass acts which, absent anything beyond generic computer components, may be “performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.” Intellectual Ventures additionally established that if a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category of abstract ideas unless the step(s) cannot be practically performed in the mind. Therefore, a positive recitation of the associated computer would not necessarily result in patent eligible subject matter.
The dependent claims 19-20 do not sufficiently link the subject matter to a practical application or recite element(s) which constitute significantly more than the abstract ideas identified. The depending claims are directed to additional limitations which encompass abstract ideas consistent with those identified above that are well-understood, routine and/or conventional activity. Further, dependent claims 19-20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Chan et. al. (U.S. 20130131499, May 23, 2013)(hereinafter, “Chan”) in view of Nikou (U.S. 20230019543, January 19, 2023)(hereinafter, “Nikou”) and Dagdeviren et. al. (U.S. 20200121281, April 23, 2020)(hereinafter, “Dagdeviren”).
Regarding Claim 18, Chan teaches: A tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium that stores instructions, which when executed by a processor (“… the present invention can take the form of a computer program product accessible from a computer-usable or computer-readable medium providing program code for use by or in connection with a computer or any instruction execution system. For the purposes of this description, a computer-usable or computer readable medium can be any apparatus that may include, store, communicate, propagate, or transport the program for use by or in connection with the instruction execution system, apparatus, or device. The medium can be an electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system (or apparatus or device) or a propagation medium.” [0028]), cause the processor to:
receive input measurement data from a sensor along a length of the ultrasound (US) cable (“…FIG. 2, a fiber triplet 30 includes three fibers 34 and three FBGs 32. One advantage of employing the triplet 30 or a multiple fiber/FBG element is that various sensor elements can be distributed over the length of a fiber. For example, incorporating three cores with various sensors (gauges) along the length of the fiber embedded in a structure, the three dimensional form of such a structure can be precisely determined. Along a length of a fiber 34 at various positions, FBG sensors 32 are located.” [0035]);
and determine an actual (3D) shape of the US cable (“From the strain measurement of each FBG 32, the curvature of the structure 30 can be inferred at that position in three dimensional space (x, y, z). From the multitude of measured positions, the total three dimensional form is determined.” [0035]; “Cable 108 includes at least one strain/shape sensing assembly therein. Detail 202 shows a cross-sectional view of the cable 108. Strain/shape sensing assembly 204 includes fibers 110 with sensors (e.g., FBGs) 122 which permit optical sensing of strain and shape. In the illustrative embodiment of FIG. 4, sensing assembly 204 includes a fiber triplet to better track the shape, rotation and position of the fiber Bragg gratings.” [0043]. See Figs. 2 and 4).
Chan does not explicitly teach: the measurement data comprising voltage signals proportional to a force incident on the sensor; input the measure measurement data to a trained computational model and apply the trained computational model to the measurement data to perform the determination.
Dagdeviren in the field of ultrasound systems teaches: “each ultrasound transducer in a phased array is a piezoelectric crystal. The crystals in the array may both transmit and receive (detect) ultrasound. When voltage is applied to a piezoelectric crystal, the crystal may change size and shape, thereby causing the crystal to produce an ultrasound. When mechanical force is applied to a piezoelectric crystal, the crystal may generate a voltage. Thus, a piezoelectric crystal may detect and measure ultrasound that reflects from tissue. In some cases, each single piezoelectric crystal is employed for both transmitting and receiving ultrasound. In other cases, one or more piezoelectric crystals transmit ultrasound and one or more other piezoelectric crystals receive (detect and measure) ultrasound.” [0110].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the measurement data in Chan to comprise voltage signals proportional to a force incident on the sensor as taught in Dagdeviren to “…detect and measure ultrasound that reflects from tissue.” (Dagdeviren, [0110]).
Dagdeviren does not teach input the measure measurement data to a trained computational model and apply the trained computational model to the measurement data to perform the determination.
Nikou in the field of ultrasound systems teaches: “Historical data sets from the online database are used as inputs to a machine learning model such as, for example, a recurrent neural network (RNN) or other form of artificial neural network. As is generally understood in the art, an artificial neural network functions similar to a biologic neural network and is comprised of a series of nodes and connections. The machine learning model is trained to predict one or more values based on the input data. For the sections that follow, it is assumed that the machine learning model is trained to generate predictor equations.” [0141].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the processor in the combination of references to include a trained computational model as taught in Nikou to input the measure measurement data into and apply the trained computational model to the measurement data to perform the determination of Chan since the model predictor equations can be optimized to determine the optimal information to achieve the best outcome or satisfaction level (Nikou, [0141]) of the cable.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Chan, Dagdeviren and Nikou teach the claim limitations as noted above.
Chan further teaches: wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to determine one or more of: an actual 3D shape of the; a position of a clinician handling a US probe connected to the US cable; movements of the clinician operating a US probe; determine a position of the US probe based on a three dimensional (3D) shape of the US cable and a 3D position of a cart; and determine a 3D surface anatomy based on positions of the US probe cable (“From the strain measurement of each FBG 32, the curvature of the structure 30 can be inferred at that position in three dimensional space (x, y, z). From the multitude of measured positions, the total three dimensional form is determined.” [0035]; “Cable 108 includes at least one strain/shape sensing assembly therein. Detail 202 shows a cross-sectional view of the cable 108. Strain/shape sensing assembly 204 includes fibers 110 with sensors (e.g., FBGs) 122 which permit optical sensing of strain and shape. In the illustrative embodiment of FIG. 4, sensing assembly 204 includes a fiber triplet to better track the shape, rotation and position of the fiber Bragg gratings.” [0043]; “In the illustrative embodiment of FIG. 4, sensing assembly 204 includes a fiber triplet to better track the shape, rotation and position of the fiber Bragg gratings. Device 101 includes sensing assembly 204 along with ultrasound transducer elements 102. In this way, based on the positional information provided by the sensing assembly 204, the positions and orientations of the transducer elements 102 can be determined relative to a reference and tracked throughout a procedure. Recorded images may now include shape/positional information along with the ultrasonic images in real-time or for later retrieval.” [0043]. See Figs. 2 and 4;).
Chan does not explicitly teach: the computational model and training of the model
Nikou in the field of ultrasound systems teaches: “Historical data sets from the online database are used as inputs to a machine learning model such as, for example, a recurrent neural network (RNN) or other form of artificial neural network. As is generally understood in the art, an artificial neural network functions similar to a biologic neural network and is comprised of a series of nodes and connections. The machine learning model is trained to predict one or more values based on the input data. For the sections that follow, it is assumed that the machine learning model is trained to generate predictor equations.” [0141].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the processor in Chan to include a trained computational model as taught in Nikou and to train the computational model to perform the determination of Chan since the model predictor equations can be optimized to determine the optimal information to achieve the best outcome or satisfaction level (Nikou, [0141]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan, Dagdeviren and Nikou as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Thackston et. al. (U.S. 20140213108, July 31, 2014)(hereinafter, Thackston”).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Chan, Dagdeviren and Nikou teach the claim limitations as noted above.
With regards to limitation: wherein the sensor is embedded in an electronic textile (E-textile) fabric positioned along the length of the US cable, Chan teaches: “…FIG. 2, a fiber triplet 30 includes three fibers 34 and three FBGs 32. One advantage of employing the triplet 30 or a multiple fiber/FBG element is that various sensor elements can be distributed over the length of a fiber. For example, incorporating three cores with various sensors (gauges) along the length of the fiber embedded in a structure, the three dimensional form of such a structure can be precisely determined. Along a length of a fiber 34 at various positions, FBG sensors 32 are located.” [0035].
The combination of references does not teach an electronic textile (E-textile) fabric positioned along the length of the cable.
Thackston in the field of electronic connectors teaches: “The cable 20 may have any length. In other words, the connector 12 terminates the electrical cable 20. In alternative to the cable 20, the connector 12 may be mounted directly to the electronic device 16 or may be electrically connected to the electronic device 16 via an e-textile (not shown) that includes fabrics that enable computing, digital components, electrical pathways, and/or electronic devices to be embedded therein.” [0016].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cable in the combination of references to have an electronic textile (E-textile) fabric positioned along the length of the cable as taught in Thackston to provide technology “…that allows for the incorporation of built-in technological elements into the fabric…” (Thackston, [0016]).
Response to Arguments
With regards to Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 claims 18-20 directed to unpatentable subject matter is patent eligible due to the amended limitations in claim 18 of “voltage signals proportional to a force incident sensor” being not generic and is not merely extra solution activity (Remarks, pg.2). Examiner respectfully disagrees that the amended claim 18 limitations are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. The amended claim 18 limitation, “…receive input measurement from a sensor…the measurement data comprising voltage signals proportional to a force incident sensor…”, is a narrowing of the data gathered which is an extra solution activity. As provided in MPEP 2106.05(d), “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink."…ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) …iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014)…Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and vi. A Web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” The received data in the claims is broad and can be considered received in numerous forms including a printed sheet of data. There is no specifics that indicate the received measurement data is not routine or conventional. Analyzing the claims with respect to the 2019 PEG example 47, again amended claim 18 machine learning limitations are not sufficient to be considered eligible subject matter. Examiner respectfully maintains claims 18-20 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding amended claim 18 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is moot in view of the new grounds of rejections.
Conclusion
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 AMAL FARAG whose telephone number is (571)270-3432. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:30 M-F.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571) 270-1790. 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.
/AMAL ALY FARAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights