Ex Parte Gupta et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 3, 2019

14364360 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/364,360 06/11/2014 LalitGupta
24737 7590 05/07/2019
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2011P02141WOUS 1071
EXAMINER
BOR, HELENE CATHERINE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/07/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LALIT GUPTA, PALLA VI V AJINEP ALLI,
RAJENDRA SINGH SISODIA, GANESAN RAMACHANDRAN,
CELINE FIRTION, JOHN PETRUZZELLO, and AJAY ANAND
Appeal 2018-006178
Application 14/364,360
Technology Center 3700
Before BRETT C. MARTIN, LISA M. GUIJT, and SEAN P. O'HANLON,
Administrative Patent Judges.
GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-7, 13, 14, 17-20, and 23-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. ("Appellant"), the applicant as
provided for under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.46, is also identified as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Appeal is taken from the Non-Final Office Action dated July 12, 2017.
Appeal2018-006178
Application 14/364,360
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1, 18, and 24, reproduced below, are all of the independent
claims, and also exemplary of the subject matter, on appeal.
1. A device configured for examining pulsatile blood
flow, the device comprising:
an ultrasound probe configured to collect echo data from
a volume of interest comprising at least one blood vessel;
a demodulator configured to extract a Doppler signal from
the echo data;
a processor configured to receive the Doppler signal,
wherein the processor is further configured, for each cycle of a
plurality of cycles of the Doppler signal, to:
calculate a frequency response over a spectral band;
calculate a length of time of each cycle;
calculate a time to peak of each cycle;
determine a number of peaks and a number of
valleys of each cycle;
exclude a cycle from the plurality of cycles if
determined that the frequency response is insufficient, the
length of time is abnormal, the time to the peak is
abnormal, or the number of peaks or number of valleys is
greater or less than one;
calculate a median peak systolic frequency shift, a
median end diastolic frequency shift, and a median length
of cardiac cycle for remaining cycles of the plurality of
cycles; and
select a set of cycles from the remaining cycles and
calculate a quality metric for the set of cycles, based at
least in part, on the median peak systolic frequency shift,
the median end diastolic frequency shift, and the median
length of cardiac cycle for remaining cycles of the
plurality of cycles.
18. A device configured for examining pulsatile blood
flow, the device comprising:
2
Appeal2018-006178
Application 14/364,360
an ultrasound probe configured to obtain a Doppler signal
from echoes received from a volume of interest comprising at
least one blood vessel;
a processor configured to receive the Doppler signal,
wherein the processor is further configured, for each cycle of a
plurality of cycles of the Doppler signal, to:
calculate at least one parameter;
exclude a cycle from the plurality of cycles if the at
least one parameter of the cycle is determined to be
abnormal;
calculate a median peak systolic frequency shift, a
median end diastolic frequency shift, and a median length
of cardiac cycle for remaining cycles of the plurality of
cycles; and
select a set of cycles from the remaining cycles and
calculate a quality metric for the set of cycles, wherein the
quality metric is based, at least in part, on a sum of three
bases, wherein each of the three bases is raised to a power
of a corresponding exponent, wherein a first exponent is
an absolute value of a deviation in the peak systolic
frequency shift, a second exponent is an absolute value of
a deviation in the end diastolic frequency shift, and a third
exponent an absolute value of a deviation in the length of
cardiac cycle, wherein the three bases are each above
unity.
24. A method comprising:
receiving, at a processor a Doppler signal obtained
responsive to echoes detected by an ultrasound probe from a
volume of interest comprising at least one blood vessel, wherein
the Doppler signal includes a plurality of cycles;
calculating at least one parameter for each cycle of
the plurality of cycles;
excluding a cycle from the plurality of cycles if the
at least one parameter of the cycle is found to be abnormal;
calculating a median peak systolic frequency shift,
a median end diastolic frequency shift, and a median
length of cardiac cycle for remaining cycles of the
plurality of cycles; and
3
Appeal2018-006178
Application 14/364,360
selecting a set of cycles from the remaining cycles
and calculating a quality metric for the set of cycles,
wherein the quality metric is based, at least in part, on a
sum of three bases, wherein each of the three bases is
raised to a power of a corresponding exponent, wherein a
first exponent is an absolute value of a deviation in the
peak systolic frequency shift, a second exponent is an
absolute value of a deviation in the end diastolic frequency
shift, and a third exponent an absolute value of a deviation
in the length of cardiac cycle, wherein the three bases are
each above unity.
ANALYSIS
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas" are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bankint'l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217-18 ( citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is "directed to." See Alice, 573
U.S. at 219 ("On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk."); see also Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) ("Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners' application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.").
4
Appeal2018-006178
Application 14/364,360
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219--20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594--95 (1978)); and
mental processes ( Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as "molding rubber products" (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981) ); "tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267---68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that "[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula." Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 191 ("We
view respondents' claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula."). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim "seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract ... is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, ... and this principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment." Id. ( citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 ("It is now
commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula
to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.").
5
Appeal2018-006178
Application 14/364,360
If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we tum to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where "we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an 'inventive
concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 221. "A claim that recites an
abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is
more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea]."' Id.
( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). "[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer
implementation[] fail[ s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible
invention." Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("2019 Guidance"). Under that guidance, we first
look to whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including
certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain
methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a}-(c),
( e }-(h) ). Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to
whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial
exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field
(see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine,
conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception. See 2019 Guidance.
6
Appeal2018-006178
Application 14/364,360
Regarding the present application, the Examiner determines that all
claims recite a judicial exception: an abstract idea, and more particularly, a
mathematical algorithm. 3, 4 Non-Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner does not
establish that the additional elements in the claims (i.e., additional to those
claim limitations that recite the mathematical algorithm) integrate the
exception into a practical application of the algorithm, however, with respect
to the independent claims, the Examiner determines that the recitation of an
ultrasound probe, demodulator, and processor do not amount to significantly
more than the abstract idea itself. Id. at 3. In particular, the Examiner
determines that the ultrasound probe, demodulator, and processor are
"generic hardware well known in the art" and that the ultrasound probe and
demodulator "serve simply to gather data to be provided as input variables to
the mathematical algorithm." Id. (citing, e.g., Lu5 ,r 18, Fig. 1); see also
Ans. 4, 6 (finding that "Appellant's claims rely on generic ultrasound
imaging hardware ( a probe ( claims 1, 18), a demodulator ( claim 1 ), and a
processor (claims 1, 18, 24)) that operates exactly as it had conventionally
by capturing Doppler signals and executing software programs"). The
Examiner further determines that the dependent claims "are directed solely
to further refinements of the mathematical algorithm itself' (i.e., claims 2--4,
6, 13, 17, 19, 20, 23, 26, and 27) and/or "do not include additional elements
3 It is undisputed that the claims recite devices (i.e., machines) and/or
methods within statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
4 See 2019 Guidance 52 ( explaining that "the abstract idea exception
includes the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a
claim limitation(s) (that is, when recited on their own or per se): (a)
Mathematical concepts-mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas
or equations, mathematical calculations").
5 US 2010/0234731 Al; published Sept. 16, 2010.
7
Appeal2018-006178
Application 14/364,360
that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
because they claim only generic computer hardware display structures that
are well known in the art" (i.e., claims 5, 7, 13, 14, 23, and 25 (citations
omitted)). Non-Final Act. 3--4.
Appellant argues that independent claims 1, 18, and 24 are not
directed to a judicial exception, but rather, "are directed to a solution
necessarily rooted in computerized ultrasound technology to overcome
problems arising in the specific realm of ultrasound signal processing,"
involving "[the] examination of pulsatile blood flow, starting with the initial
acquisition of ultrasound echoes from a particular region, and culminating
with the selection of a specific set of cycles form a Doppler signal" (Appeal
Br. 6; see also id. at 6-10). 6 Appellant submits that "the claimed features
overcome the inability of existing ultrasound technologies to perform
velocimetry screenings without high computational throughput duplex
scanners or expensive cardiotocograph (CTG) machines" (id. at 9-10 (citing
Spec. 2:6-9)) and "accuracy ... dependent on the cycles chosen by a
sinologist or doctor, with good cycles being selected manually" (id. at 10
( citing Spec. 1: 15-16) ). Appellant further submits that such improvements
are achieved "using an improved, but low-computational, stand-alone
ultrasound probe." Id. (citing Spec. 5: 10-11).
6 The Examiner responds that the ultrasound probe, demodulator, and/or
processor are "only statements of intended use," and with particular
reference to method claim 24, are not positively recited as limitations. Ans.
3--4. The Examiner also determines that the limitations relied on by
Appellant to demonstrate recitation of "a practical solution" are not recited
in the claims. Id. at 4.
8
Appeal2018-006178
Application 14/364,360
Appellant also argues that the claims "capture specific improvements
in computer technology, which is further indicative of the claims' subject
matter eligibility." Appeal Br. 8; see also id. at 8-10.
Appellant further argues that the claims "specif[y] the manner in
which ... data is created and actively collected," wherein "[t]he actual
source of the echoes ... is the [ claimed] ultrasound probe" which is
"specialized equipment ... needed to obtain a particular type of signal, i.e., a
Doppler signal." Appeal Br. 12-13 (in contrast to data gathered in Flook,
which according to Appellant, gathered data from "a real world source").
Finally, Appellant argues that the "claims ... amount to significantly
more [than an abstract idea] by '[a]dding a specific limitation other than
what is well understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding
unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful
application."' Appeal Br. 13 ( citation omitted). Appellant submits that
the recited processor does not merely provide generic ultrasound
imaging modalities configured to perform well-known, generic
functionalities. Instead, they recite a particular machine that is
the product of implementing specific, non-generic functions, i.e.,
"exclud[ing] a cycle from the plurality of cycles ... calculat[ing]
a median peak systolic frequency shift a median end diastolic
frequency shift, and a median length of cardiac cycle for
remaining cycles .... ; and selecting a set of cycles from the
remaining cycles and calculat[ing] a quality metric for the set of
1 " eye es ...
Id. at 15 (brackets in original).
9
Appeal2018-006178
Application 14/364,360
Independent claims 1 and 18, and claims depending therefrom
Step 2A, Prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance: Whether the claim recites a
judicial exception
First, we analyze certain limitations of claims 1 and 18, individually
and as set forth supra, to determine whether claims 1 and 18 recite a judicial
exception.
We agree with the Examiner, nor does Appellant dispute, that the
limitations of claims 1 and 18 which the processor is configured to perform
(i.e., the calculations, determinations, and selections related to cycles and/or
cycle parameters) recite a mathematical algorithm. See Appeal Br. 15
(arguing only that the claimed processor steps are "non-generic functions").
Our reviewing court has identified such mathematical concepts as
representing abstract ideas. See SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898
F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a "series of
mathematical calculations based on selected information" are directed to
abstract ideas). Thus, claims 1 and 18 recite a judicial exception: an
abstract idea in the subject matter grouping, pursuant to the 2019 Guidance,
of mathematical concepts.
Step 2A, Prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance: Do additional elements integrate
the exception into a practical application of the exception?
Next, in accordance with the 2019 Guidance, we evaluate whether the
claim as a whole integrates the mathematical concept into a practical
application of the mathematical concept by identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
10
Appeal2018-006178
Application 14/364,360
2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54--55. According to the 2019 Guidance,
"an additional element [that] implements a judicial exception with ... a
particular machine" is "[an] exemplary consideration[ ] indicative that an
additional element ... may have integrated the exception into a practical
application." Id. at 55.
We determine that claims 1 and 18 ( as set forth supra) additionally
recite "an ultrasound probe configured to collect echo data from a volume of
interest comprising at least one blood vessel" ( claim 1) or "to obtain a
Doppler signal from echoes received from such a volume" ( claim 18).
These limitations are not merely statements of intended use as determined by
the Examiner (see fn 6), nor do these limitations represent an abstraction.
Rather, as argued by Appellant, claims 1 and 18 recite a mechanical device
(i.e., an ultrasound probe configured to collect certain data or a signal). See
Reply Br. 2-3 ( arguing that the recitation of an ultrasound probe is not a
statement of intended use); see also e.g., Spec. 2:12-15, 26-28 (disclosing
that, in comparison to manual selection of "a good cycle ... represent[ing]
the actual hemodynamic profile in a vessel," the invention is "directed to ...
automatic pulse cycle selection, with particular application to the probe").
Notwithstanding, and recognizing that, as in Diehr, claims do not
become nonstatutory simply because the claims recite a mathematical
concept, as explained infra, the limitations of claims 1 and 18, which are in
addition to the mathematical algorithm, fail to integrate the mathematical
algorithm into a practical application.
We determine that the recitation of an ultrasound probe configured
either to collect data (which is demodulated to extract a signal) ( claim 1) or
11
Appeal2018-006178
Application 14/364,360
to obtain a signal ( claim 18) is adding insignificant extra-solution activity 7 to
the judicial exception, which is not indicative of integration into a practical
application. In particular, we determine that these limitations are data
gathering steps, wherein the gathered data is merely received by the claimed
processor as an input for the mathematical algorithm. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
("[a]n example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a
claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card
transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and
manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect
whether the transactions were fraudulent.").
We further determine that the claimed demodulator and processor are
generic computing components configured to implement an abstract idea on
a computer or merely to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
See MPEP 2106.05(±) ("As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to
transform a judicial exception into a patent-eligible application, the
additional element or combination of elements must do 'more than simply
stat[e] the Liudicial exception] while adding the words 'apply it"' (quoting
Alice Corp., 573 at 134 (2014)). For example, the Specification describes
the demodulator and processor as generic computing components. See, e.g.,
Spec. 7:33-34 ("[t]he extraction is made using a quadrature demodulator"),
9:28-31 ("probe 308 is, wirelessly or by wire, connectable or connected to a
processor 310"), 13:31-32 ("[a] single processor or other unit may fulfill the
functions of several items recited in the claims").
7 "The term 'extra-solution activity' can be understood as activities
incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or
tangential addition to the claim." MPEP 2106.05(g).
12
Appeal2018-006178
Application 14/364,360
In sum, considering the recitations of an ultrasound probe,
demodulator, and/or processor, which are in addition to the recited
mathematical algorithm, we determine that the claim as a whole fails to
integrate the mathematical algorithm into a practical application of the
mathematical algorithm.
Step 2B of the 2019 Guidance: I/the claim is directed to a judicial
exception, evaluate whether the claim provides an inventive concept
The 2019 Guidance further explains that "[i]t is possible that a claim
that does not 'integrate' a recited judicial exception is nonetheless patent
eligible," for example, because "the claim may recite additional elements
that render the claim patent eligible even though a judicial exception is
recited in a separate claim element." 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. In
other words, "the additional elements recited in the claims provided
'significantly more' than the recited judicial exception (e.g., because the
additional elements were unconventional in combination)." Id.
As set forth supra, Appellant argues that the claims recite a particular
machine that is the product of implementing non-generic functions, and
more specifically, that the claims require specialized equipment to obtain a
particular type of signal, i.e., a Doppler signal. See also Appeal Br. 10
( wherein Appellant submits that the invention involves "an improved, but
low-computational, stand-alone ultrasound probe" ( citing Spec. 5: 10-11
( disclosing that "probe 100 is implementable as an automatic, handheld,
stand-alone, self-contained, ultrasound examination device"))). Appellant
also argues that the claims capture specific improvements in computer
technology.
13
Appeal2018-006178
Application 14/364,360
The Specification discloses that the invention addresses the need for
"an automated method of acquiring and evaluating Doppler signals for
clinical diagnosis ( without requiring the user to interpret an ultrasound scan
image)" (Spec. 2:2--4), wherein the invention is a "novel, automated pulse
cycle selection device" (id. at 4:23-24). Although the Specification
incorporates by reference certain patent applications, which "disclose a
hand-held, stand-alone, Doppler-based, ultrasound probe whose examining
face is less finely divided into separate transducer elements," wherein "the
probe operates automatically without the need for interpreting a visual
display of anatomy," we have insufficient evidence from Appellant that a
Doppler-based ultrasound probe, as claimed, is an inventive concept.
Rather, the Specification supports, by a preponderance of the evidence, the
conclusion that Doppler-based ultrasound probes are well-known:
Commercial duplex ultrasound systems are used
extensively to localize blood vessels and obtain flow
characteristics from the blood vessels. . .. A duplex ultrasound
system combines the modality of real-time, two dimensional,
pulse-echo imaging of anatomical structures with that of a
Doppler ultrasound system from which the Doppler frequency
shift or the velocity information is obtainable from a blood
vessel.
The use of ultrasound in vascular applications to perform
Doppler velocimetry requires availability of skilled personnel.
Spec. 1:5-26 (emphasis added). In other words, Appellant's arguments that
the ultrasound probe configured as claimed is a specialized device, which
embodies an inventive concept, lacks support. In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638,
642 (CCPA 1978) ("Mere lawyer's arguments and conclusory statements in
the specification, unsupported by objective evidence, are insufficient to
14
Appeal2018-006178
Application 14/364,360
establish unexpected results.") Thus, the recitation of an ultrasound probe
configured as claimed fails to provide significantly more than the recited
mathematical algorithm.
In addition, we are not persuaded that receipt by a processor of the
Doppler signal provides significantly more than the recited mathematical
algorithm or that receipt at a processor of data is an improvement to
computer technology. We are also not persuaded by Appellant's argument
that because the claimed source of the data is distinguishable from the
source of data in Flook, the claimed step of receiving, at a processor, the
data provides significantly more than the recited mathematical concept. Our
reviewing court informs us that "[i]nformation as such is an intangible," and
that "collecting information, including when limited to particular content
(which does not change its character as information), [i]s within the realm of
abstract ideas." Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350,
1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). To the extent Appellant relies on the limitations
reciting the mathematical algorithm, i.e., as non-generic functions of the
processor, such claim recitations are not in additional elements.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1 and 18. Appellant chose not to present separate arguments for the
patentability of claims 2-7, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, and 23 depending therefrom,
and therefore, for essentially the same reasons as set forth supra, we also
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-7, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, and 23.
Appeal Br. 15-16.
15
Appeal2018-006178
Application 14/364,360
Independent claim 24 and claims depending therefrom
Appellant argues independent claims 24--27 as a group. Appeal Br.
15-16. We select claim 24 as representative, and claims 25-27 stand or fall
with claim 24. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Step 2A, Prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance: Whether the claim recites a
judicial exception
Similar to independent claims 1 and 18 discussed supra, independent
claim 24 recites individual method steps that recite a judicial exception. In
particular, we determine that the steps of calculating at least one parameter,
excluding at least one parameter, calculating certain medians, and selecting a
set of cycles, individually recite a mathematical concept (i.e., an abstract
idea).
Step 2A, Prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance: Do additional elements integrate
the exception into a practical application of the exception?
We determine that claim 24, as a whole, fails to integrate the
mathematical concept into a practical application of the mathematical
process. The additional element recited in claim 24 (as set forth supra) (i.e.,
in addition to the limitations reciting a mathematical concept) is the step of
"receiving, at a processor, a Doppler signal obtained responsive to echoes
detected by an ultrasound probe form a volume of interest comprising at
least one blood vessel, wherein the Doppler signal includes a plurality of
cycles." In other words, the additional element is the step of a processor
receiving certain data.
16
Appeal2018-006178
Application 14/364,360
We determine that the step of receiving data (i.e., a certain Doppler
signal) is extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of the mathematical
concept, which fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of
the mathematical concept. Further, to the extent claim 24 requires a
processor to receive such data, we determine that such a recitation merely
includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. 8
Step 2B of the 2019 Guidance: I/the claim is directed to a judicial
exception, evaluate whether the claim provides an inventive concept
The only limitation in claim 24, which is in addition to the judicial
exception (i.e., the mathematical concept is recited in a separate claim
element) is the step of "receiving, at a processor, a Doppler signal obtained
responsive to echoes detected by an ultrasound probe from a volume of
interest comprising at least one blood vessel, wherein the Doppler signal
includes a plurality of cycles," as set forth supra. As discussed supra, we
determine that receipt at a processor of data is not an improvement to
computer technology. Assuming arguendo that the processor, as recited in
claim 24, is also configured to perform steps of the claimed mathematical
concept, we determine that use of a processor to perform computing
functions is also not an improvement to computing technology. As
determined by the Examiner, claim 24 does not otherwise inform us
regarding an improvement to ultrasound probe technology, other than to
specify an ultrasound probe as a source for the data (i.e., Doppler signal).
8 Notably, claim 24 only requires the processor to receive the data, however,
claim 24 does not require the processor to be configured to perform the
recited mathematical concept. Such a further limitation, however, would not
change our determination that the processor is merely being used as a tool to
perform the abstract idea.
17
Appeal2018-006178
Application 14/364,360
See, e.g., Ans. 4---6. The mathematical concept itself, i.e., the abstract idea,
cannot provide significantly more than the mathematical concept itself. In
other words, additional elements must be unconventional in combination, as
explained supra.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 24 and claims 25-27 fall therewith.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7, 13, 14, 17-20, and 23-27
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
18