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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
This a response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 24 June 2026, wherein:
Claims 8 and 15 are amended.
Claims 10-12 and 17-19 are original.
Claims 9, 13, 16, and 20 are previously presented.
Claims 1-7, 14, and 21 are canceled.
Claims 8-13 and 15-20 are pending.
Specification
The objection to the specification identified in the Office Action mailed 31 December 2020 is maintained and incorporated by reference. It is reproduced below for Applicant’s convenience.
The attempt to incorporate subject matter into this application by reference to Uswatte et al. in para. 23 is ineffective because the root words “incorporate” and/or “reference” have been omitted. Additionally, the current status of the claims indicate that the Uswatte et al. reference is considered as providing nonessential material. However, if the claims are to be amended to include this subject matter, then this reference will be considered to be providing essential material. Applicant is reminded that the incorporation of essential material in the specification by reference to an unpublished U.S. application, foreign application or patent, or to a publication is improper, and that Applicant will be required to amend the disclosure to include the material incorporated by reference, if the material is relied upon to overcome any objection, rejection, or other requirement imposed by the Office. 37 CFR 1.57(g).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 112(b) not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 8-13 and 15-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 8 and 15 each recite the limitation "the hand trajectory" in line 20 of claim 8 and line 16 of claim 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 9-13 and 16-20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claim, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 8 and 15 each recite the limitation "the hand" in line 34 of claim 8 and line 29 of claim 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 9-13 and 16-20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claim, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claims 8 and 15, it is unclear what constitutes “at least one predictor of hand trajectory and acceleration”. In particular, (1) it is unclear whether this recitation of “hand trajectory” is the same hand trajectory as that recited earlier in each claim or a different hand trajectory and (2) it is unclear whether “acceleration” is “hand acceleration” or a different acceleration, such as wrist acceleration recited earlier in each claim. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. Regarding (1), for the purposes of compact prosecution, “hand trajectory” is construed as the same hand trajectory as that recited earlier in each claim. Regarding (2), “acceleration” is construed as “wrist acceleration”. Dependent claims 9-13 and 16-20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claim, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 8, independent claim 8 has been amended to recite “a wearable sensor network of physical movement sensors attached to the person, wherein the physical movement sensors of the wearable sensor network are operable to attach to a back of the person and a right upper arm of the person, a right lower arm of the person, and a head of the person; the wearable sensor network of physical movement sensors including an accelerometer attached to a wrist of the person and adapted to transmit data representing physical movements of at least a portion of the person;… recording data representing physical movements of the person from the wearable sensor network and the accelerometer using a sensor of the physical movement sensors operable to attach to the back of the person as a reference sensor”. It is unclear how the accelerometer is included in the wearable sensor network of physical movement sensors. In particular, 1) it is unclear whether the accelerometer is the physical movement sensor of the wearable sensor network operable to attach to a right lower arm of the person or is a different physical movement sensor of the wearable sensor network and 2) the accelerometer is recited as separate from the wearable sensor network in the “recording data representing physical movements” limitation. Thus, it is unclear whether the accelerometer is separate from the physical movement sensors in the wearable sensor network or is a more explicit recitation of one of those physical movement sensors. The disclosure does not aid understanding because the sensor 102 illustrated in Fig. 1 shows a sensor fixed more proximal than the wrist itself (it is fixed to the forearm). Fig. 1 of Provisional Applicant 62/510,498 identifies this more explicitly – “Four inertial measurement units (sensors) were attached to the subject. They were placed just above the wrist…”. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. Dependent claims 9-13 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 15, independent claim 15 has been amended to recite “recording data representing physical movements of the person from an accelerometer attached to a wrist of the person, the accelerometer being part of a wearable sensor network of physical movement sensors operable to attach to a back of the person and a right upper arm of the person, a lower arm of the person, and a head of the person using a sensor of the physical movement sensors operable to attach to the back of the person as a reference sensor”. It is unclear whether the accelerometer is the physical movement sensor of the wearable sensor network operable to attach to a right lower arm of the person or is a separate physical movement sensor of the wearable sensor network. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. For the purposes of compact prosecution, they are construed as the same. Dependent claims 16-20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claims 8 and 15, each claim has been amended to recite “obtaining motor performance data comprising at least one Euclidean norm of the hand trajectory calculated with at least two of 3D positions vectors px, py, and pz and at least one wrist acceleration, wherein the at least one wrist acceleration is based on the recorded data from the accelerometer attached to the wrist of the person; determining physical movements of the person performing the physical task for performances of the task wherein the person is under cognitive loading and for performances of the task wherein the person is not under cognitive loading from the received data for each of the performances of the task based on the motor performance data; determining an effect of cognitive loading in real-time by comparing the physical movements of the person performing the physical task not under cognitive loading and the physical movements of the person performing the physical task under cognitive loading using a Naïve Bayes Model, wherein the physical movements of the person are determined based on at least median frequencies of the hand and the at least one wrist accelerations of the motor performance data. It is unclear what constitutes “at least one Euclidian norm of the hand trajectory calculated with at least two of 3D position vectors px, py and at least one wrist acceleration”. In particular, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand that these limitations include position vectors of a hand and wrist accelerations that are not described in the specification. In particular, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the terms “position vector of a hand” and “wrist acceleration” to reflect that the human hand has 27 degrees of freedom: 4 in each finger - 3 for extension and flexion and 1 for abduction and adduction, with 5 for the thumb, and 6 for the rotation and translation of the wrist1. However, the disclosure only provides a highly simplified model that treats the lower arm, hand, and wrist as a single, rigid body. For instance, Fig. 1 illustrates the wrist accelerometer as fixed more proximal than the wrist joint itself. Additionally, while the disclosure uses the term “wrist accelerometer”, para. 22 of the specification explicitly identifies that the sensors that could be associated with hand and wrist movements are instead attached to the upper arm and lower arm. Thus, the disclosure merely provides for a highly simplified model wherein the lower arm, hand, and wrist are treated as a single, rigid body whose movements are determined by the degrees of freedom in the elbow and shoulder as well as rotation from supination and pronation in the forearm, but fails to provide for any actual positions of the hand nor wrist accelerations understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be encompassed by the claims. Applicant asserts that support for this new claim language is found in pg. 3, 6, 7, and 9 of Provisional Application 62/510,498 (see current Remarks at pg. 7 and 8 as well as pg. 3, 7, and 9 in the Remarks filed 10 March 2026). However, the closest language is found in pg. 7 which recites that the “Euclidian norm of the hand trajectory was computed by
p
=
p
x
2
+
p
y
2
+
p
z
2
with p as the 3D position vector [pxpypz].” However, the disclosures of both the instant application and the Provisional application are silent regarding where the values for any of the “p” variables come from. No particular sensor is identified. Furthermore, as identified above, no sensor is secured in a manner to provide any information on the position of the hand or the wrist. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. Dependent claims 9-13 and 16-20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claim, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claims 8 and 15, the claims have been amended to include the limitation “estimating a probability that the effect of cognitive loading belongs in a class using a 2D-grid predictor space from at least one predictor of hand trajectory and acceleration”. However, it is unclear how this limitation further limits the claim as it is disconnected from the rest of the claim. In other words, this “estimating” function does not affect any other limitation in the claim. In other words, this limitation is not claimed in a manner that is clear that it adds towards detection of cognitive decline. For instance, “a class” is not defined nor is any class used in the detection of cognitive decline as claimed. The disclosure does not aid understanding as it merely recites similar language as the claim without any further description similarly disconnected from the rest of the disclosure. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. Dependent claims 9-13 and 16-20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claim, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 112(a) not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 8-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, independent claim 8 has been amended to recite “a wearable sensor network of physical movement sensors attached to the person, wherein the physical movement sensors of the wearable sensor network are operable to attach to a back of the person and a right upper arm of the person, a right lower arm of the person, and a head of the person”, “the wearable sensor network of physical movement sensor including an accelerometer attached to a wrist of the person and adapted to transmit data representing physical movements of at least a portion of the person”, “recording data representing physical movements of the person from the wearable sensor network and the accelerometer using a sensor of the physical movement sensors operable to attach to the back of the person as a reference sensor”, “obtaining motor performance data comprising at least one Euclidian norm of the hand and at least one wrist acceleration, wherein the at least one wrist acceleration is based on the recorded data from the accelerometer attached to the wrist of the person”, “determining physical movements of the person performing the physical task for performances of the task wherein the person is under cognitive loading and for performances of the task wherein the person is not under cognitive loading from the received data for each of the performances of the task based on the motor performance data”, “determining an effect cognitive loading in real-time by comparing the physical movements of the person performing the physical task not under cognitive loading and the physical movements of the person performing the physical task under cognitive loading using a Naïve Bayes Model, wherein the physical movements of the person are determined based on at least median frequencies of the hand and the at least one wrist acceleration of the motor performance data”, “estimating a probability that the effect of cognitive loading belongs in a class using a 2D-grid predictor space from at least one predictor of hand trajectory and acceleration”, and “detecting cognitive decline of the person using the effect of cognitive loading based on comparing an effect of cognitive loading within a healthy population with the determined effect of cognitive loading of the person, using the computer system, wherein the computer program instructions further include instructions to perform the detecting cognitive decline of the person”. The disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for these limitations. As identified above under 35 USC 112(b), one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand that these limitations include at least one position vector of the hand and at least one wrist acceleration that are not described in the disclosure. In particular, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the human hand has 27 degrees of freedom: 4 in each finger - 3 for extension and flexion and 1 for abduction and adduction, with 5 for the thumb, and 6 for the rotation and translation of the wrist. However, the disclosure only provides a highly simplified model that, at best, treats the lower arm, hand, and wrist as a single, rigid body but never identifies this as the intended representation. In particular, Fig. 1 illustrates the accelerometer as fixed more proximal than the wrist joint itself. Additionally, while the disclosure uses the term “wrist accelerometer”, para. 22 of the specification explicitly identifies that the sensors that could be associated with hand and wrist movements are not attached to the hand or wrist, but instead to the upper arm and lower arm. Thus, “the wearable sensor network of physical movement sensors including an accelerometer attached to a wrist of the person” is also new matter. Applicant asserts that support for this new claim language is found in pg. 3, 7, and 9 of Provisional Application 62/510,498. However, the closest language is found in pg. 7 which recites that “[t]he Euclidian norm of the hand trajectory was computed by
p
=
p
x
2
+
p
y
2
+
p
z
2
with p as the 3D position vector [pxpypz].” This is distinctly different from the claimed “at least one Euclidian norm”. Additionally, the disclosures of both the instant application and the Provisional application are silent regarding where the values for any of the “p” variables come from. No particular sensor is identified as the source for any “p” variable. Furthermore, as identified above, no sensor is secured in a manner to provide any information on the position of the hand or any acceleration of the wrist. Thus, the disclosure fails to provide for any position (let alone any position vector) of the hand nor wrist accelerations understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be encompassed by the claims, and thus also fails to properly disclose the performance of any determination, estimation, or detection made based on a hand position/trajectory and/or wrist acceleration. Dependent claims 9-13 and 16-20 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 101 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 8-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 1
The instant claims are directed to products which fall under at least one of the four statutory categories (STEP 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1
Independent claim 8 recites:
A system for detecting cognitive decline using determined effects of cognitive loading on a person comprising:
a wearable sensor network of physical movement sensors attached to the person, wherein the physical movement sensors of the wearable sensor network are operable to attach to a back of the person and a right upper arm of the person, a right lower arm of the person, and a head of the person;
the wearable sensor network of physical movement sensors including an accelerometer attached to a wrist of the person and adapted to transmit data representing physical movements of at least a portion of the person; and
a computing system comprising a processor, memory accessible by the processor, and computer program instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor, the computing system adapted to perform:
recording data representing physical movements of the person from the wearable sensor network and the accelerometer using a sensor of the physical movement sensors operable to attach to the back as a reference sensor, the data recorded while the person is repeatedly performing a physical task wherein the person is under cognitive loading during at least some of the performances of the task;
obtaining motor performance data comprising at least one Euclidian norm of the hand trajectory calculated with at least two of 3D position vectors px, py, and pz and at least one wrist acceleration, wherein the at least one wrist acceleration is based on the recorded data from the accelerometer attached to the wrist of the person;
determining physical movements of the person performing the physical task for performances of the task wherein the person is under cognitive loading and for performances of the task wherein the person is not under cognitive loading from the received data for each of the performances of the task, based on the motor performance data;
determining an effect of cognitive loading in real-time by comparing the physical movements of the person performing the physical task not under cognitive loading and the physical movements of the person performing the physical task under cognitive loading using a Naïve Bayes Model, wherein the physical movements of the person are determined based on at least median frequencies and the at least one wrist acceleration of the motor performance data;
estimating a probability that the effect of cognitive loading belongs in a class using a 2D-grid predictor space from at least one predictor of hand trajectory and acceleration; and
detecting cognitive decline of the person using the effect of cognitive loading based on comparing an effect of cognitive loading within a healthy population with the determined effect of cognitive loading of the person.
Independent claim 15 recites:
A computer program product for detecting cognitive decline using determined effects of cognitive loading on a person, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computer, to cause the computer to perform a method comprising:
recording data representing physical movements of the person from an accelerometer attached to a wrist of the person, the accelerometer being part of a wearable sensor network of physical movement sensors operable to attach to a back of the person and a right upper arm of the person, a right lower arm of the person, and a head of the person using a sensor of the physical movement sensors operable to attach to the back of the person as a reference sensor, the data recorded while the person is repeatedly performing a physical task wherein the person is under cognitive loading during some of the performances of the task and is not under cognitive loading during some performances of the task;
obtaining motor performance data comprising at least one Euclidian norm of the hand trajectory calculated with at least two of 3D position vectors px, py, and pz and at least one wrist acceleration, wherein the at least one wrist acceleration is based on the recorded data from the accelerometer attached to the wrist of the person;
determining physical movements of the person performing the physical tasks for performances of the task wherein the person is under cognitive loading and for performances of the task wherein the person is not under cognitive loading from the received data for each of the performances of the task, based on the motor performance data;
determining an effect of cognitive loading by comparing the physical movements of the person performing the physical task not under cognitive loading and the physical movements of the person performing the physical task under cognitive loading using a Naïve Bayes Model, wherein the physical movements of the person are determined based on at least median frequencies and the at least one wrist acceleration of the motor performance data;
estimating a probability that the effect of cognitive loading belongs in a class using a 2D-grid predictor space from at least one predictor of hand trajectory and acceleration; and
detecting cognitive decline of the person using the determined effect of cognitive loading based on comparing an effect of cognitive loading within a healthy population with the determined effect of cognitive loading of the person.
All of the foregoing underlined elements above amount to the abstract idea grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity because it is managing personal behavior or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) by merely collecting information, analyzing it, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis.
This collection, analysis, and outputting of results also amounts to the abstract idea grouping of mental processes because the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind with the aid of a pen and paper but for recitation of generic computer components.
Furthermore, the determining, estimating, comparing, applying, generating, and distinguishing steps are also reasonably construed as the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts as at least identified in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) Mathematical Calculations because they recite steps of determining a variable or number using mathematical methods or performing a mathematical operation. For instance, determining physical movements of the person in the independent claims is further identified in the specification (see, for example, at least para. 6, 17, 27-30, 32-41, 45, and 47) and dependent claims 11, 12, 18, and 19 to entail the mathematical operations of determining a power spectrum of the sensor data (determining a variable or number); comparing a frequency at which the power spectrum has a maximum amplitude with an expected range of frequencies (applying a mathematical operation); determining that a physical movement has occurred when the frequency at which the power spectrum has a maximum amplitude is within the expected range of frequencies (applying a mathematical operation); applying a continuous wavelet transform to the sensor data of a physical movement for which it was determined that the physical movement occurred (applying a mathematical operation); generating a scalogram of wavelet coefficients of the continuous wavelet transform (determining a variable or number); determining that a physical movement began based on the scalogram (applying a mathematical operation); and determining the response time based on the time a stimulus was given and the determined time that the physical movement began (determining a variable or number). Additionally, determining an effect of cognitive loading in the independent claims is further identified in the specification (see, for example, at least para. 6, 32-41, 45, and 47) and dependent claims 13, 14, and 20 to entail the mathematical operations of determining differences in response times between the physical tasks performed without cognitive loading and the physical tasks performed with cognitive loading (determining a variable or number), wherein determining differences in response times comprises using a Naive Bayes probability estimator to distinguish between the physical tasks performed without cognitive loading and the physical tasks performed with cognitive loading (applying a mathematical operation). Similarly, estimating a probability that the effect of cognitive loading belongs in a class is further identified in the specification (see para. 40) to be a probability calculation (determining a variable or number).
The dependent claims amount to merely further defining the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d). The elements of the claims above that are not underlined constitute additional elements.
The following additional elements, both individually and as a whole, merely generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use: a system (claim 8); a computing system (claim 8); a processor (claim 8); memory (claims 8 and 15); an accelerometer attached to a wrist of the person (claims 8 and 15), a wearable sensor network of physical movement sensors operable to attach to a back of the person and a right upper arm of the person, a right lower arm of the person, and a head of the person using a sensor of the physical movement sensors operable to attach to the back of the person as a reference sensor (claim 8 and 15); a computer program product (claim 15); a non-transitory computer readable storage (claim 15); a computer (claim 15); and software (computer program instructions in claims 1 and 8 and program instructions in claim 15). Although the claims recite the components, identified above, these elements are recited at a high level of generality and are not necessarily tied to performing any of the steps of the claimed method. For example, the method includes insufficiently disclosed pre-solution data gathering using “an accelerometer attached to a wrist of the person and a wearable sensor network of physical movement sensors operable to attach to a back of the person and a right upper arm of the person, a right lower arm of the person, and a head of the person using a sensor of the physical movement sensors operable to attach to the back of the person as a reference sensor” and a conventionally recited computer system to perform some of the steps of the method. Further evidence is found in at least Fig. 1 which provides a stock image of sensor arrangement and Fig. 7 which illustrates the components as non-descript black boxes. Further evidence is provided by the specification. See, for example, at least para. 51-64. For instance, para. 57 identifies that the “present invention may be a system, a method, and/or a computer program product at any possible technical detail level of integration.” Thus, the judicial exception is not implemented with, or used in, a particular machine or manufacture. Additionally, the claims do not recite any limitations that improve the functionality of the computer system because the claimed functions are merely performing the steps of processing data but are not tied to improving any functionality of the computer system. The components, identified above, are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. This is evidenced by the absence of specificity of the components and their organization in the disclosure. Again, see, for example, at least Fig. 1 and 7 and para. 51-64 of the specification as identified above. In particular, the sensors being recited and organized in a generic fashion to perform their generic functions of data gathering merely adds insignificant pre-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea). None of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Again, see, for example, at least Fig. 1 and 7 and para. 51-64 of the specification as identified above. Additionally, the claims do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition nor do they apply or use a judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, based on all of the considered factors, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to the judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 2: NO).
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.05. As identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the claimed system and the process it performs does not require the use of a particular machine, nor does it result in the transformation of an article. The claims do not involve an improvement in a computer or other technology. This is at least evidenced by the manner in which this is disclosed 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 USC 112(a) as identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above. Thus, the judicial exception is not implemented with, or used in, a particular machine or manufacture. Furthermore, this evidences that the components are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed, which the courts have held does not amount to significantly more. In particular, the sensors being recited and organized in a generic fashion to perform their generic functions of data gathering is adding insignificant pre-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea). None of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Again, see, for example, at least Fig. 1 and 7 and para. 51-64 of the specification as identified above. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide any 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 of itself (STEP 2B: NO). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to support for amendments to the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that para. 5, 7, 39, and 40 of specification and pg. 6-7 in Provisional Application 6/510,498.
Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant is directed to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(a)&(b) which explicitly identify that these paragraphs and pages are insufficient.
Applicant’s arguments against the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In pg. 8, Applicant asserts that claims 8 and 15 have been amended to specify that the accelerometer is part of the wearable sensor network.
Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant is directed to the rejections above which have been updated to address the amendments to the claims. In particular, while the related amendments do move towards more clearly including the accelerometer in the wearable sensor network, language remains inducing ambiguity.
In pg. 8-9, Applicant asserts that the claims have been amended to clarify how data of the position of the hand is obtained.
Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant is directed to the rejections above which have been updated to address the amendments to the claims, including new matter. In particular, the claim amendment recites “at least one Euclidian norm” which is distinctly different from “the Euclidian norm” as disclosed in the Provisional Application. Additionally, reciting the 3D position vector “p” in the claim does not affect the lack of written description for it. Further, as identified in the rejections, none of the sensors are attached to the hand or wrist and thus cannot be reasonably considered to provide data indicating the location of the hand.
In pg. 9, Applicant asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the wrist accelerometer was part of the wearable sensor network. Here, Applicant recites from para. 1 of the specification.
Examiner notes this assertion, but also that the citations provided do not support the argument made. It is also noted that Applicant has asserted the opposite – that the wrist accelerometer is not part of the wearable sensor network – in previous rounds of prosecution. See, for example, at least the Remarks filed 30 September 2022 and 10 March 2026. Furthermore, Applicant is confusing the disclosure of related applications of at least one of the named inventors which, in contrast to the instant application, explicitly disclose a wrist accelerometer. See, for example, at least Fig. 17 and related description in the specification of US Application 16/584,654 in contrast to Fig. 1 and the related description in the specification of the instant application.
Applicant’s arguments against the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In pg. 10, Applicant asserts that the disclosure provides sufficient written description for the amended claims for at least the same reasons recited with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b).
Examiner is not persuaded. As identified, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments against the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In pg. 10, Applicant asserts that claim 8 has been amended to be directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant is directed to the rejection above which has been updated to address the amendments to the claims.
In pg. 11-12, under Prong One of Step 2A, Applicant asserts that the amended claims do not recite a judicial exception. Here, Applicant asserts the limitations “obtaining motor performance data…”, “determining an effect of cognitive loading…”, “estimating a probability…”, and “detecting cognitive decline…” are not steps that may be practically performed in the human mind, and that a generic computer lacks the hardware or capability to accept the data from physical movement sensors, including an accelerometer and compare it to physical movements under and not under cognitive load in real-time.
Examiner is not persuaded. These are conclusory statements made without substantive support, and are not persuasive. As the court stated its decision in Electric Power Group v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), “the claims are clearly focused on the combination of those abstract-idea processes. The advance they purport to make is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea.” See Electric Power Group v. Alstom at pg. 7-8.
Applicant also asserts that the claimed invention comprises several non-abstract claim features and limitations other than mathematical concepts, to the extent that while it may invoke mathematical concepts, it does not recite an abstract idea outright.
Examiner is not persuaded. These are conclusory statements made without substantive support, and are not persuasive.
Applicant then asserts that claim 8 as a whole, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to a computer-implemented method for obtaining data from physical movement sensors, including an accelerometer, and using the obtained data to compare physical movements under and not under cognitive load in real-time.
Examiner notes that this argument amounts to an admission that the claims are directed to a judicial exception as it amounts to merely collecting and comparing information which the courts have repeatedly identified as both a certain method of organizing human activity and mental processes. Applicant is reminded that the abstract idea groupings are not mutually exclusive and that claims may recite multiple judicial exceptions. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
In pg. 13-18, under Prong Two of Step 2A, Applicant asserts the claims recite improvements to a technology or technical field under CardioNet, LLC. Within this argument, Applicant asserts that the Office Action mailed 25 March 2026 applies the incorrect framework to CardioNet, LLC.
Examiner is not persuaded. The identification that the commercial off-the-shelf sensor network used in the instant claims are merely used as they normally would (i.e., conventional application of conventional technology) to provide extra-solution data gathering activities is explicitly a consideration under Prong Two of Step 2A. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) which recites “[t]he courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:.. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g)”. In particular, the recited hardware (i.e., the sensors) are explicitly identified in the rejection as merely adding insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity, and thus neither integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor add significantly more. It is important to note that Applicant explicitly admits that the claimed invention is directed to the analysis of the data, which is itself at best merely an improvement within the abstract idea. See pg. 2-3 in SAP America Inc. v. lnvestpic, LLC (890 F.3d 1016, 126 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed. Cir. 2018) which proffered “[w]e may assume that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant, but that is not enough for eligibility. Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. Their subject is nothing but a series of mathematical calculations based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those calculations.” Additionally, the Court in Electric Power Group, which SAP America also utilizes in its decision, held that “[i]nformation as such is an intangible. Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. And we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. Here, the claims are clearly focused on the combination of those abstract-idea processes. The advance they purport to make is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea.” See Electric Power Group at pg. 7-8, citations removed for clarity. It is noted that the determining step using Naïve Bayes Model is wholly encompassed in at least the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. To be clear, Naïve Bayes Model is not an additional element that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. It is further noted that Naïve Bayes Model is not new, nor is used in some new or unconventional manner in the analysis of sensor data such that it provides an improvement to the technology, and thus provides no similarity to CardioNet which involved an improved cardiac monitoring device that identified “’variability in the beat-to-beat timing… as relevant to the at least one of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter in light of the variability in the beat-to-beat timing caused by ventricular beats identified by the ventricular beat detector,’ the claimed invention achieves multiple technological improvements. First and foremost, the device more accurately detects the occurrence of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter—as distinct from V-TACH and other arrhythmias—and allows for more reliable and immediate treatment of these two medical conditions. ’207 patent col. 3 ll. 6–16, 21–26, 35–39.” See CardioNet at pg. 13.
In pg. 18, Applicant asserts that claim 15 is patent eligible for the same reasons as claim 8, and that the dependent claims are allowable due to their dependencies.
Examiner is not persuaded. Claim 15 and the dependent claims fall for at least the same reasons as claim 8.
The rejections stand.
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 DANIEL LANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:30 MT.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/DANIEL LANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 Sturman, D. J. (1992). Whole-hand input (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Prosecution Insights