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 .
Status of Claims
In the preliminary amendment filed December 8, 2025, Applicant amended claims 1-7, and added claims 8 and 9. Claims 1-9 are pending in the current application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) received on February 9, 2026 has been considered by examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner thanks Applicant for amending the claims. The rejection and invocation has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Applicant asserts that the interpolation process of “set a wave height or a cycle of a waveform after interpolation based on a peak position of an R wave or an S wave of a waveform obtained by interpolating the loss portion” should not be classified as a mental process and is analogous to Example 46 because monitoring component in the processor performs necessary software tasks. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). That is, other than the processor, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps form practically being performed in the mind. For example, the identified limitations encompass a user observing and evaluating electrocardiographic signals via a generic ECG measuring instrument and/or using simple mathematical measurements to analyze peak loss of a waveform. Second, Applicant asserts that the interpolation process is directed to an improvement to electrocardiographic signal analysis systems. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The interpolation process is a calculation to estimate missing data points. Applicant’s specification discloses this process without showing how the process is improved. Last, Applicant asserts that the claims amounts to significantly more under step 2B. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As a whole, the processor in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, based on the two-part Mayo analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself. The rejection is maintained.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 1-9 do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims recite a machine (i.e., system).
Although claims 1-9 fall under at least one of the four statutory categories, it should be determined whether the claim wholly embraces a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106 I and II).
Claims 1-9 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Part I: Step 2A, Prong One: Identify the Abstract Idea
Under step 2A, Prong One of the Alice framework, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). The determination consists of a) identifying the specific limitations in the claim that recite an abstract idea; and b) determining whether the identified limitations fall within at least one of the three subject matter groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity).
The identified limitations of independent claim 1 recite
a processor, the processor being configured to:
receive input of the electrocardiographic information;
perform segmentation and extract unit waveform data based on a peak of an R wave or an S wave from waveform data included in the electrocardiographic information;
detect a loss portion of a peak of an R wave or an S wave in the unit waveform data using an extreme value immediately before or immediately after the peak or using a point of inflection immediately before or immediately after the peak; and
set a wave height or a cycle of a waveform after interpolation based on a peak position of an R wave or an S wave of a waveform obtained by interpolating the loss portion.
The identified limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). That is, other than the processor, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps form practically being performed in the mind. For example, the identified limitations encompass a user observing and evaluating electrocardiographic signals via a generic ECG measuring instrument and/or using simple mathematical measurements to analyze peak loss of a waveform. The claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes groupings of abstract ideas. Thus, the claimed invention recites a judicial exception.
Part I: Step 2A, prong two: additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Under step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice framework, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claims are evaluated to determine if there are additional elements or a combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claims are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. As a whole, the processor in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-9, when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. For instance, the dependent claims recite measuring peak loss by observing and analyzing waveform data.
Since these claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Office must determine whether the remaining limitations “do significantly more” than describe the abstract idea.
Part II. Determine whether any Element, or Combination, Amounts to“Significantly More” than the Abstract Idea itself
Under Part II, the steps of the claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not improve another technology or technical field, do not improve the functioning of the computer itself, and are not enough to qualify as "significantly more". For example, the steps require no more than a conventional computer to perform generic computer functions. As a whole, the processor in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, based on the two-part Mayo analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself. Claims 1-9, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-9, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional claims do no recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stickney (US 2021/0106246 A1), Devices And Methods For Analyzing Electrocardiogram (ECG) Signals For Artifact And Notification Of Culprit Electrode
Matsuura et al. (US 10,918,302 B2), Biological Signal Processing Method And Biological Signal Processing Apparatus
Okerlund et al. (US 2004/0042581 A1), R-peak Detection Corrections For Improved Cardiac Gated Reconstruction
The aforementioned prior art references all teach using an ECG instrument to receive input of electrocardiographic information. However, the prior art references do not teach or suggest “a unit waveform data extracting unit configured to perform segmentation and extract unit waveform data based on a peak of an R wave or an S wave from waveform data included in the electrocardiographic information; a loss detection unit configured to detect a loss portion of a peak of an R wave or an S wave in the unit waveform data using an extreme value immediately before or immediately after the peak or using a point of inflection immediately before or immediately after the peak; and a data interpolation unit configured to set a wave height or a cycle of a waveform after interpolation based on a peak position of an R wave or an S wave of a waveform obtained by interpolating the loss portion” as recited in claim 1. Stickney discloses loss of R wave caused by myocardial infarction (Paragraph [0138]), but does not teach detecting a loss of an R wave using an “extreme value immediately before or immediately after the peak or using a point of inflection immediately before or immediately after the peak” as recited in claim 1.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHINYERE MPAMUGO whose telephone number is (571)272-8853. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/CHINYERE MPAMUGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685