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 9-15 and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1: claims 9 and 15 recite a series of steps or acts to analyze vascular sound. Thus, the claims are directed to a process. which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: Claim 9 recite(s) specific limitations/method steps of: acquiring audio data of a vascular sound of a vessel; extracting an audio feature from the audio data; analyzing the audio feature using an artificial intelligence model; and outputting an abnormal classification corresponding to the audio data according to an analysis result of the audio feature.
Claim 15 recite(s) specific limitations/method steps of: building an artificial intelligence model for analyzing vascular sound; acquiring an angiography image of a subject; identifying a stenosis site of a vessel of the subject in the angiography image; determining a recording site on a body surface of the subject based on the stenosis site identified; acquiring audio data of a vascular sound of the vessel of the subject from the recording site; extracting an audio feature from the audio data; forming a labeled training record; generating a ground truth dataset comprising the labeled training record; and training the artificial intelligence model using the ground truth dataset.
These limitations recite a mathematical concept and mental process, because the claimed limitation describes training an artificial intelligence model using measured and calculated data and describes a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). For example, a caregiver can use angiography image to determine stenosis site without the use of the artificial intelligence model. Thus, the claims are drawn to a Mathematical Concept and Mental Process, which are both an Abstract Idea. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggest that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human, or using simple pen/paper.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: Claims 9 and 15 does not recite additional elements that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 9 and 15 recite the following additional elements beyond the judicial exception: A) auscultation apparatus and B) artificial intelligence model.
Accordingly, the combination of the additional element/step A and B does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the use of auscultation apparatus and artificial intelligence model 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)).
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 9 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) auscultation apparatus and B) artificial intelligence model.
The combination of elements A and B an auscultation apparatus and artificial intelligence model does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the use of auscultation apparatus 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 elements A and B are well-understood, routine, and conventional, as is evidenced by Wonseok et al (KR 20220110358 A), Isgum et al (US 11599996) and Kirk et al (KR 20070056137 A), which all show using auscultation apparatus/stethoscope and artificial intelligence model to determine vessel stenosis as claimed in claims 9 and 15 evidencing that these elements are well-understood, route, and conventional in the art.
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 9-15 and 17-23 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).
Therefore, claims 9-15 and 17-23 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Response to Arguments
Regarding previous/cancelled independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 101, 112, 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101, 112, 102 and 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended independent claim(s) 9 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
