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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed December 05, 2025 has been entered. Claims 39-56 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 39-56 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.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claim 39 is directed to “a method” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e. a process.
Claim 41 is directed to “a system” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e. a machine or manufacture.
Claim 43 is directed to “a non-transient memory/program/system” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e. a machine or manufacture.
Each of Claims 39-56 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One:
Claims 39, 41 and 43 recite (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “mathematical concepts” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).I.), substantially as follows: “forming a signal portion from the recorded signal, wherein the signal portion is indicative of the audible vibrations and the sub-audible vibrations of the chest wall of the person and covers a cardiac cycle of the person; determining a maximum value in the signal portion; determining a minimum value in the signal portion; based on the (a) the difference between the maximum value and the minimum value, and(b) the information indicating the BMI, providing output information that is indicative of the VO2Max of the person; wherein the maximum value is a maximum value of a first temporal feature, the minimum value is a minimum value of the same first temporal feature, and wherein the first temporal feature corresponds to an aortic valve closure in the cardiac cycle.”
In claims 39, 41 and 43, the above recited steps are mathematical concepts, which is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The Specification teaches that determining a maximum value and a minimum value of a temporal feature and finding the difference to result in information that is indicative of the VO2Max involves mathematical equations, finding peaks and taking a difference is basic arithmetic. Spec. page 18-20. This computation encompasses the use of mathematical equations, which has been recognized as an abstract idea (i.e., a mathematical concept). Patent Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. In sum, we determine that Prong 1 recites a judicial exception, and proceed to Step 2A, Prong 2.
Therefore, each of the above steps are grouped as mathematical concepts, hence an abstract idea.
Claims 39, 41 and 43 recite (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.), substantially as follows: “forming a signal portion from the recorded signal, wherein the signal portion is indicative of the audible vibrations and the sub-audible vibrations of the chest wall of the person and covers a cardiac cycle of the person; determining a maximum value in the signal portion; determining a minimum value in the signal portion; based on the (a) the difference between the maximum value and the minimum value, and(b) the information indicating the BMI, providing output information that is indicative of the VO2Max of the person; wherein the maximum value is a maximum value of a first temporal feature, the minimum value is a minimum value of the same first temporal feature, and wherein the first temporal feature corresponds to an aortic valve closure in the cardiac cycle.”
In claims 39, 41 and 43, the above recited steps can be practically performed in the human mind, with the aid of a pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the steps. If a person were to visually examine, i.e., perform an observation, the waveform data, either in a printout or an electronic format, he/she would be able to perform the calculations to obtain the maximum value and minimum value of a temporal feature and finding the difference to result in information that is indicative of the VO2Max, finding peaks and taking a difference is basic arithmetic via pen and paper. There is nothing recited in the claim to suggest an undue level of complexity in how the waveforms, the peaks and the bio-information to be identified. Therefore, a person would be able to perform the identification of peaks mentally or with a generic computer.
Prong Two: Claims 39, 41 and 43 do not include additional elements that integrate the mental process into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites (1) “recording a signal from an accelerometer placed on the chest of the person, wherein the signal is indicative of audible vibrations and sub-audible vibrations of the chest wall of the person, wherein at least the sub-audible vibrations are caused by myocardial movement; obtaining information indicating the BMI of the person;”
(2) “providing output information that is indicative of the VO2Max of the person;” “displaying, on a display, the output information indicative of the VO2Max to a user”.
(3) “a processor operatively connected to the accelerometer so as to receive the signal, wherein the processor is configured to execute program code, which, when executed, causes the processor to perform the steps of; A non-transient memory on which is stored a computer program for use in a system”.
The steps in (1) represent merely data gathering or pre-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality with conventionally used tools (see below Step IIB for further details).
The step in (2) represents merely notification outputting by a processor as a post-solution activity and is recited at a high level of generality.
The steps in (3) merely recite generic computer components used to implement the abstract idea on, as tools.
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather and feed information to the abstract idea and to output a notification based on the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on conventionally used tools. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident, and the estimated bio-information is not outputted in any way such that a practical benefit is realized. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claims 39, 41 and 43 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims recite additional steps of
These steps represents mere data gathering, data outputting or pre/post/extra-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality.
The signal is obtained from an accelerometer. These additional limitations merely represent insignificant, conventional pre-solution activities well-understood in the industry of acceleration based bio-information estimation, as the sensors recited are well understood, routine and conventional, as evidenced by Houlton et al. (US 2015/0038856 A1) (“Houlton”). Houlton discloses the accelerometers, see [0011], “Seismocardiography (SCG) is a method of graphically recording minute mechanical movements on an individual's body as a consequence of forces associated with cardiac function, e.g., myocardial contractions and related subsequent opening and closure of valves in the heart. These minute movements are amplified and translated by a pick-up device (e.g., an accelerometer) placed on patient's torso, into signals with electrical potentials in both the infrasonic (less than 20 Hz) and audible (more than 20 Hz or phonocardiography) range.” Seismocardiography and chest mounted accelerometers are well understood, routine and conventional.
Accordingly, these additional steps and tools for measuring an acceleration signal, and outputting a notification amount to no more than insignificant conventional extra-solution activity. Mere insignificant conventional extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept.
The recited processors and computer-readable storage medium are generic computer elements (i.d. page 16 describing generic the processors as smart phone processors or otherwise generic processors).
Therefore, none of the Claims 39, 41 and 43 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 39, 41 and 43 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Dependent Claims
The following dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons:
Claims 40, 42 and 44 recitations further limits the abstract idea above, using filters merely further defines the mental process or mathematical equations discussed above. Claims 47, 51 and 55 further limits the abstract idea above, using comparisons merely further defines the mental process or mathematical equations discussed above. The recitations of claims 48, 52 and 56 merely define that a type of feedback is displayed depending on the signal and comparison. This is a generic recitation of an generic output or display.
Claims 45-56 recitations further limits the abstract idea above, further defining the display and output merely represents mere data gathering, data outputting or pre/post/extra-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. The recitations merely define that a type of feedback is displayed depending on the signal. This is a generic recitations of an output.
Taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. They also do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. Their collective functions merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 05, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the arguments regarding the 101 rejections, the arguments are not persuasive. With respect to claims 39, 41 and 43, the further amendments including a display are merely generic recitations of data output. These steps represents mere data gathering, data outputting or pre/post/extra-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. Thus, the arguments are not persuasive. The accelerometer data is gathered from an accelerometer. These additional limitations merely represent insignificant, conventional pre-solution activities well-understood in the industry of acceleration based bio-information estimation, as the sensors recited are well understood, routine and conventional, as evidenced by Houlton et al. (US 2015/0038856 A1) (“Houlton”). Houlton discloses the accelerometers, see [0011], “Seismocardiography (SCG) is a method of graphically recording minute mechanical movements on an individual's body as a consequence of forces associated with cardiac function, e.g., myocardial contractions and related subsequent opening and closure of valves in the heart. These minute movements are amplified and translated by a pick-up device (e.g., an accelerometer) placed on patient's torso, into signals with electrical potentials in both the infrasonic (less than 20 Hz) and audible (more than 20 Hz or phonocardiography) range.” Seismocardiography and chest mounted accelerometers are well understood, routine and conventional. The data is generically gathered and outputted. Thus, the arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 45, 49 and 53, the recitations merely recite a generic display. These steps represents mere data gathering, data outputting or pre/post/extra-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. Thus, the arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 46, 50 and 54, the recitations merely recite a generic display. These steps represents mere data gathering, data outputting or pre/post/extra-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. Thus, the arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 47, 51 and 55, the recitations merely recite a generic display. These steps represents mere data gathering, data outputting or pre/post/extra-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. Thus, the arguments are not persuasive. Additionally, further limits the abstract idea above, using comparisons merely further defines the mental process or mathematical equations discussed above.
Regarding claims 48, 52 and 56, the recitations merely recite a generic display. These steps represents mere data gathering, data outputting or pre/post/extra-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. Thus, the arguments are not persuasive. Additionally, further limits the abstract idea above, using comparisons merely further defines the mental process or mathematical equations discussed above. The recitations merely define that a type of feedback is displayed depending on the signal. This is a generic recitations of an output. Thus, the arguments are not persuasive.
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 JOSEPH A TOMBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6851. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:00-16:00, F 7:00-11:00(Eastern).
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, Robert Chen can be reached on 571-272-3672. 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.
/J.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /TSE W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791