CTNF 18/884,061 CTNF 93104 DETAILED ACTION 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. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 contains the limitation “…collaborative filtering, with the at east one processor…” The examiner has understood this to be a typo and should read “…collaborative filtering, with the at least one processor…” Claim 1 contains the limitation “…determining, with the at least one processor, an approximation of an electrocardiography (ECG) signal based the filtered beat-aligned EEG signal” The examiner has understood this to be a typo and should read“…determining, with the at least one processor, an approximation of an electrocardiography (ECG) signal based on the filtered beat-aligned EEG signal.” Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention details a system and method ( Step 1 ) directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 1-5 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions. Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a) Each of Claims 1-5 recites at least one step or instruction for approximating an electrocardiography (ECG) signal based on the beat-aligned EEG signal, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, each of Claims 1-5 recites an abstract idea. Specifically, Claim 1 recites A method comprising: determining, with at least one processor ( additional element ), heartbeat timestamps from a heartrate signal ( additional element ); ( Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) and/or observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) ) obtaining an electroencephalography (EEG) signal from an EEG sensor; ( additional element ) aligning, with the at least one processor, the EEG signal with the heartbeat timestamps; ( Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) and/or observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) ) collaborative filtering, with the at least one processor, the beat-aligned EEG signal; and ( Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) and/or observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) ) determining, with the at least one processor, an approximation of an electrocardiography (ECG) signal based the filtered beat-aligned EEG signal. ( Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) and/or observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) ) Similarly, Claim 4 recites An apparatus comprising: At least one processor; (additional element) Memory (additional element) storing instructions that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform the method of claim 1. Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d) The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-5) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claim 1) either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). More specifically, the additional elements of: processor, heartrate signal, EEG sensor and memory are generic and used for data gathering adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception in independent Claims 1 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d). Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., external programming device or computer as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 21, 30 and 38 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Accordingly, independent Claims 1 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d). Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05 None of Claims 1-5 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons. These claims require the additional elements of: processor, heartrate signal, EEG sensor and memory. The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. , Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs. , 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Per Applicant’s specification, [0030] the processor can be one or more hardware data processors, image processors, and/or processors which are a variety of types of processing hardware which details that this is a generic processing system without special computer algorithms or hardware. Further, in applicant’s specification [0018] that the heart rate signal can be measured by a heart rate sensor such as one or more PPG sensors located at various locations suitable for PPG sensing which is a generic sensor that is commercially available. Additionally, the instant specification details in [0018] that the EEG sensors are electrodes which is a well-known generic sensor that is commercially available. Per Applicant’s specification, [0038]-[0039] details the use of a memory interface/memory which can include a variety of options such as high-speed random-access memory and/or non-volatile memory, such as one or more magnetic disk storage devices, one or more optical storage devices and/or flash memory which are generic and commercially available. Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term processor is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available technology, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for computers. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “ ‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible ( TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)). The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-5 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV , 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto , LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016) , the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. For at least the above reasons, the method and system of Claims 1-5 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claim 1 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05. Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 1-5 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-5 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 5 is directed to transitory forms of signal transmission. Per the MPEP 2106.03, the BRI of machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Even when a product has a physical or tangible form, it may not fall within a statutory category. For instance, a transitory signal, while physical and real, does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine, is not a tangible article or commodity under the definition of a manufacture (even though it is man-made and physical in that it exists in the real world and has tangible causes and effects), and is not composed of matter such that it would qualify as a composition of matter. Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03. As such, a transitory , propagating signal does not fall within any statutory category. Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1294, 112 USPQ2d 1120, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Natarajan (US 2019/0036545 A1) discloses an apparatus and method utilizing a bio-signal (ECG, PPG, or EEG signal) and converting the signal into a data stream in matrix form and reconstructing the signal based on configuration parameters for the type of signal (e.g. Figs. 5 and 6 [0024]-[0025]; [0073]-[0085]). Kothe (US 2016/0113587 A1) details a signal decomposition of a first and second signal in matrix form and then non-linearly combining the matrices and producing an output signal based on quantifiable characteristics of the signal (e.g. [0026-[0032]] Fig 1A). Wu (US 2021/0315470 A1) discloses a system and method for reconstructing ECG signals using machine learning on PPG signals (e.g. abstract [0058]-[0062] Fig 1) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSANDRA F HOUGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7902. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 am - 4 pm. 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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)270-5625. 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. Jessandra Hough March 22, 2026 /J.F.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3796 /William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/884,061 Page 2 Art Unit: 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/884,061 Page 3 Art Unit: 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/884,061 Page 4 Art Unit: 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/884,061 Page 5 Art Unit: 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/884,061 Page 6 Art Unit: 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/884,061 Page 7 Art Unit: 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/884,061 Page 8 Art Unit: 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/884,061 Page 9 Art Unit: 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/884,061 Page 10 Art Unit: 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/884,061 Page 11 Art Unit: 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/884,061 Page 12 Art Unit: 3796 Application/Control Number: 18/884,061 Page 13 Art Unit: 3796
Prosecution Insights