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 .
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 1-8, 10, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Although the claims fall within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection as judicial exceptions.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is directed to a method and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites “performing first signal processing on the biosignal, based on variable frequency complex demodulation (VFCDM); performing, at least once, second signal processing based on the VFCDM on a periodic signal having an instantaneous frequency as a center frequency, the instantaneous frequency being obtained based on the first signal processing; estimating bio-information, based on at least one processing signal obtained based on the second signal processing.” This recitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses steps that are mathematical concept-type abstract ideas. The claim describes a process of organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations. The court explained that claims that describe a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations are directed to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).A.).
The additional elements set forth in the claim “receiving a biosignal from a sensor” is pre-solution data gathering” and “displaying the bio-information” are pre-solution data gathering and insignificant post-solution activity. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, Claim 1 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the claim is directed to a method and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites “the second signal processing is performed N times, where N is an integer of at least 2, and wherein (n+1)th second signal processing is performed on the periodic signal having a time-varying frequency as the center frequency, the time-varying frequency being obtained based on nth-performed second signal processing, where n is an integer which is at least 1 and less than N.” This recitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses steps that are mathematical concept-type abstract ideas.
There are no additional elements set forth in the claim. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, Claim 2 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is directed to a method and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites “complex-demodulating the biosignal to generate a first signal; removing a signal component, which is greater than or equal to the center frequency, from the first signal to generate a second signal; reconstructing the biosignal, based on an amplitude and a phase, each obtained from the second signal; and calculating the instantaneous frequency from a reconstructed biosignal.” This recitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, further limits steps that are mathematical concept-type abstract ideas.
No additional elements set forth in the claim. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, Claim 3 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is directed to a method and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites “complex-demodulating the periodic signal to generate a third signal; removing a signal component, which is greater than or equal to the center frequency, from the third signal to generate a fourth signal; reconstructing the periodic signal, based on an amplitude and a phase, each obtained from the fourth signal; and obtaining a time-varying frequency from a reconstructed periodic signal.” This recitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, further limits steps that are mathematical concept-type abstract ideas.
No additional elements set forth in the claim. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, Claim 4 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is directed to a method and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites “wherein the obtaining of the time-varying frequency comprises: performing Hilbert transform on the reconstructed periodic signal to obtain a time-varying amplitude and a time-varying phase of the reconstructed periodic signal; and
calculating the time-varying frequency, based on the time-varying phase.” This recitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, further limits steps that are mathematical concept-type abstract ideas.
No additional elements set forth in the claim. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, Claim 5 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is directed to a method and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites “wherein the obtaining of the time-varying frequency comprises: performing Hilbert transform on the reconstructed periodic signal to obtain a time-varying amplitude and a time-varying phase of the reconstructed periodic signal; and
calculating the time-varying frequency, based on the time-varying phase.” This recitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, further limits steps that are mathematical concept-type abstract ideas.
No additional elements set forth in the claim. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, Claim 6 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is directed to a method and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites “wherein the estimating of the bio-information comprises:
obtaining the reconstructed periodic signal as a de-noised biosignal; and estimating a biological parameter, based on the de-noised biosignal.” This recitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, further limits steps that are mathematical concept-type abstract ideas.
No additional elements set forth in the claim. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, Claim 7 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is directed to a method and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites “wherein the estimating of the bio-information comprises:
comparing the reconstructed periodic signal with the biosignal; and determining quality of the biosignal, based on a comparison result.” This recitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses steps that can practically be performed in the mind, with the aid of pen/paper, or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform. The step is therefore deemed to recite a mental process type abstract idea.
No additional elements set forth in the claim. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, Claim 8 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is directed to a method and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites the steps of the base claim This recitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, further limits steps that are mathematical concept-type abstract ideas.
The additional elements set forth in the claim “wherein the biosignal has periodicity based on time” are further limiting pre-solution data gathering. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, Claim 10 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is directed to an apparatus and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites “perform first signal processing based on variable frequency complex demodulation (VFCDM) on a first periodic signal obtained from the biosignal; perform, at least once, second signal processing based on the VFCDM on a second periodic signal having an instantaneous frequency as a center frequency, the instantaneous frequency being obtained based on the first signal processing; estimate bio-information, based on at least one processing signal obtained based on the second signal processing.” This recitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses steps that are mathematical concept-type abstract ideas. The claim describes a process of organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations. The court explained that claims that describe a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations are directed to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).A.).
The additional elements set forth in the claim “the biosignal processing apparatus comprising: a display; a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor operatively connected to the display and the memory, the at least one processor being configured to execute the instructions to:” and “instruct the display to display the bio-information” are instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and insignificant post-solution activity. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, Claim 17 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is directed to an apparatus and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites “complex-demodulate the second periodic signal; low-pass filter a complex-demodulated signal, based on a cut-off frequency which is lower than the center frequency; reconstruct the second periodic signal, based on an amplitude and a phase each obtained from a filtered signal; and obtain a time-varying frequency from a reconstructed second periodic signal.” This recitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses steps that can practically be performed in the mind, with the aid of pen/paper, or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform. The step is therefore deemed to recite a mental process type abstract idea.
The additional elements set forth in the claim “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:” are instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, Claim 18 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is directed to an apparatus and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites “normalize the amplitude obtained from the filtered signal to obtain a weight; and apply the weight to an amplitude obtained through Hilbert transform from the reconstructed second periodic signal.” This recitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, further limits steps that are mathematical concept-type abstract ideas.
The additional elements set forth in the claim “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:” are instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, Claim 19 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is directed to an apparatus and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites the steps of base claim and “estimate the bio-information, based on the reconstructed second periodic signal” that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass steps that are mathematical concept-type abstract ideas.
The additional elements set forth in the claim “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to” are instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, Claim 20 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is directed to an apparatus and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites “compare the reconstructed second periodic signal with the biosignal; and determine quality of the biosignal, based on a comparison result.” This recitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses steps that can practically be performed in the mind, with the aid of pen/paper, or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform. The step is therefore deemed to recite a mental process type abstract idea.
No additional elements set forth in the claim. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, Claim 21 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 4 recite “a signal component, which is greater than or equal to the center frequency”. This recitation is unclear because a signal component is being compared to a frequency. For examination purposes, the Examiner of record takes this to be “a signal component with a frequency that is greater than or equal to the center frequency”.
Claim 4 recites “a third signal… a fourth signal” in lines 3 and 5. This recitation is unclear because a first signal and a second signal are not claimed in claim 1. It is therefore unclear how many signal the Applicant is attempting to claim. For examination purposes, the Examiner of record takes this to be “a first signal … a second signal”.
Claims dependent upon the rejected claims above, but not directly addressed, are also rejected because they inherit the indefiniteness of the claim(s) they respectively depend upon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXEI BYKHOVSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-1556. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Pascal Bui Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXEI BYKHOVSKI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights