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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non- statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to receive a plurality of incoming signals indicative of a plurality of reflections back- scattered from a live target without significantly more
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of lack of structures and could be done mentally.
"The processing circuitry" "one or more tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media" is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is 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. This determining step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (one or more processors and computer storage memory)
That is, other than reciting "the processing circuitry", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. The additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claim is ineligible.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional recited "receiver"; " do not amount to "significantly more" since they are recited at a high level of generality and perform nothing more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
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.
Claim(s) 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabakov et al (Pub. No.: US 2013/0158406) in view of Drew et al (Pub. No.: US 2006/0195039).
Regarding claim 14, Kabakov et al disclose one or more tangible, non-transitory, computer- readable media comprising instructions that [see 0023-0024, claim 17], when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to:
receive a plurality of incoming signals (reflected signal from the heart of the fetus) indicative of a plurality of reflections back-scattered from a live target [see 0019-0020, 0031];
generate first biometric time-series data (heartbeat, heart rate) associated with the live target based on a first subset of incoming signals of the plurality of incoming signals (reflected signal from the heart of the fetus)
generate second biometric time-series data (heartbeat, heart rate) associated with the live target based on a second subset of incoming signals of the plurality of incoming signals (reflected signal from the heart of the fetus)
generate output biometric time-series data (heartbeat, heart rate) of the live target based on the first biometric time-series data (heartbeat, heart rate) and the second biometric time-series data (heartbeat, heart rate) [see 0019-0020, 0024, 0029-0031, fig 2].
Kabakov et al disclose processor 32 generates control signals causing transducer to emit ultrasound beams and receive reflected ultrasound signals at each of the depth zones. In one example, processor 32 causes transducer 24 to emit and receive signals from the following overlapping 6 cm depth zones: 3-9 cm, 6-12 cm, 9-15 cm, 12-18 cm, 15-21 cm, 18-24 cm, 21-27 cm and 24-30 cm [see 0029] and measuring heart rate from a particular zone and a detected heart rate from a collection of zones [see 0031].
As disclosed herein, data acquired for the first zone represent a first subset of incoming signals consequently the heart rate acquired from the zone constitutes the first biometric time-series data (heartbeat, heart rate).
Kabakov et al don’t disclose combine the first biometric time-series data and the second biometric time-series data to generate output biometric time-series data.
Nonetheless, Drew et al combine the first biometric time-series data and the second biometric time-series data to generate output biometric time-series data [see 0114].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Kabakov et al and Drew et al by combining the first biometric time-series data and the second biometric time-series data to generate output biometric time-series data; tp provide a final image.
Regarding claim 15, Kabakov et al disclose one or more tangible, non-transitory, computer- readable media of claim 14, wherein the plurality of incoming signals (reflected signal from the heart of the fetus) are indicative of the plurality of reflections back-scattered from a single (a single fetus) live target [see 0019-0020, 0031 and fig 2].
Regarding claim 16, Kabakov et al disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to: determine the first subset of incoming signals (reflected signal from the heart of the fetus) based on a first distance range [see 0025, 0029], azimuth range, elevation range or Doppler dimensions range of the plurality of reflections [see 0031]
determine the second subset of incoming signals (reflected signal from the heart of the fetus) based on a second distance range [see 0025, 0029], azimuth range, elevation range Doppler dimensions range of the plurality of reflections [see 0031].
combine the first biometric time-series data and the second biometric time-series data to generate output biometric time-series data of the live target
Kabakov et al disclose processor 32 generates control signals causing transducer to emit ultrasound beams and receive reflected ultrasound signals at each of the depth zones. In one example, processor 32 causes transducer 24 to emit and receive signals from the following overlapping 6 cm depth zones: 3-9 cm, 6-12 cm, 9-15 cm, 12-18 cm, 15-21 cm, 18-24 cm, 21-27 cm and 24-30 cm [see 0029] and measuring heart rate from a particular zone and a detected heart rate from a collection of zones [see 0031].
As disclosed herein, data acquired for the first zone represent a first subset of incoming signals consequently the heart rate acquired from the zone constitutes the first biometric time-series data (heartbeat, heart rate).
Regarding claim 17, Kabakov et al disclose wherein the plurality of incoming signals (reflected signal from the heart of the fetus) are based on a combination of the plurality of reflections (reflected signal from the heart of the fetus) and an instance of a plurality of transmitted signals transmitted toward the live target [see 0019-0020, 0031] by disclosing generate ultrasonic waves or ultrasound beams directed towards the unborn child or fetus 42, wherein the waves or beams are reflected from fetus 42 and bounced back to transducer 24 [see 0020].
Regarding claim 18, Kabakov et al disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to:
determine a first set of differential phases (by performing envelope detection for different zones thus different sets of signals acquired at the different zones, emphasis added) based on the first subset of incoming signals [see 0031, 0058].
generate the first biometric time-series data (heartbeat, heart rate) based on the first set of differential phases [see 0058].
Regarding claim 19, Kabakov et al disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to:
determine a second set of differential phases (by performing envelope detection for different zones thus different sets of signals acquired at the different zones, emphasis added) based on the second subset of incoming signals [see 0031, 0058];
generate the second biometric time-series data (heartbeat, heart rate) based on the second set of differential phases [see 0058].
Regarding claim 20, Kabakov et al disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to
generate the output biometric time-series data (heartbeat, heart rate) based on a mean, a median, or an average [see 0041, 0049, 0122] of the first biometric time-series data (heartbeat, heart rate) and the second biometric time-series data (heartbeat, heart rate) [see 0019-0021, 0031, 0041, 0049, 0122].
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-13 are allowed.
Applicant’s arguments, see REM, filed 7/27/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14-20 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Drew et al (Pub. No.: US 2006/0195039).
Applicant argues Kabakov is silent as to "combine the first biometric time-series data and the second biometric time-series data to generate output biometric time-series data of the live target,"
The examiner agrees and however, Drew et al combine the first biometric time-series data and the second biometric time-series data to generate output biometric time-series data [see 0114].
Applicant argues Applicant submits that claim 14 is not directed to an abstract idea. Prong One of the revised Step 2A analysis requires a threshold determination that the claim recites a judicial exception falling within one of the enumerated groupings. Applicant submits that the office action has not made this determination. The office action alleged only that the claims recite concepts that can be "performed in the human mind" and that the claims do not include additional elements amounting to "significantly more" than the exception, without ever identifying the abstract idea to which claim 14 are directed. Because a claim is "directed to" a judicial exception only if it first recites such an exception under Prong One, and because the "significantly more" inquiry of Step 2B is reached only after a judicial exception has been identified, the rejection is deficient.
The examiner disagrees because This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of lack of structures and could be done mentally.
"The processing circuitry" "one or more tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media" is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
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 JOEL F BRUTUS whose telephone number is (571)270-3847. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat, 11:00 AM to 7:00 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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/JOEL F BRUTUS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
