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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 15-17, and 19-29 are rejected. Claims 2, 6, 14, and 18 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 7/10/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are more than a mere improvement to an abstract idea, and provide a concrete technical solution to a problem. Applicant states that the claims preserve information by automatically determining an appropriate scaling factor in real-time and based on prior intervals to scale the physiological signals. However, determining a factor and implementing the scaling factor are directed to the abstract idea. An improvement to an abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that a human could not use pen and paper to scale and plot/draw/visualize the scaled signal in real-time. However, the Examiner disagrees. MPEP 2106.05(f) recites the following:
Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Applicant argues that the claims do not merely claim “the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer. Applicant adds computing a scaling factor for every measured physiological signal, applying such scaling factor, and re-drawing a faithful representation of the physiological signal in real time underpins the claims as technological improvements in wearable devices readability and clarity. However, the Examiner disagrees. Computing a scaling factor, applying such scaling factor, and re-drawing a representation of the physiological signal amount to the abstract idea. An improvement to an abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 15-17, and 19-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claimed invention in claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 15-17, and 19-29 are directed to statutory subject matter as the claims recite a method/device/non-transitory computer readable storage medium for displaying a scaled physiological signal on a display.
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 25, the recited steps are directed to mathematical concepts and a mental process of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsections (I) and (III)). Regarding claims 1, 13, and 25, the limitations of “determining an amplitude range characteristic of the first physiological signal, wherein determining the amplitude range characteristic of the first physiological signal comprises: determining a dynamic range of the first physiological signal at the first time interval, wherein the dynamic range is based on multiple sub-intervals of time of the first time interval, wherein the amplitude range characteristics of the first physiological signal is below a first threshold range characteristic; determining a first scaling factor for scaling a height of the second physiological signal relative to a predetermined amount of a display height of a display that is viewable by a user of an electronic device, wherein the first scaling factor varies as a nonlinear function of the dynamic range; scaling the second physiological signal based on the determined first scaling factor” are mathematical calculations of calculating a dynamic range and a first scaling factor in order to scale a physiological signal on a display.
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 25, the limitations of “determining an amplitude range characteristic of the first physiological signal, wherein determining the amplitude range characteristic of the first physiological signal comprises: determining a dynamic range of the first physiological signal at the first time interval, wherein the dynamic range is based on multiple sub-intervals of time of the first time interval, wherein the amplitude range characteristics of the first physiological signal is below a first threshold range characteristic; determining a first scaling factor for scaling a height of the second physiological signal relative to a predetermined amount of a display height of a display that is viewable by a user of an electronic device, wherein the first scaling factor varies as a nonlinear function of the dynamic range; scaling the second physiological signal based on the determined first scaling factor; and when the amplitude range characteristic of the first physiological signal fails to meet one or more criteria” are a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional receiving a print out of a first physiological signal and using observation to determine an amplitude range of the signal, evaluating a dynamic range of the pint out signal based on multiple intervals of time, and based on the amplitude range being below a first threshold range, evaluating a scaling factor for a second physiological signal, and scaling the second physiological signal based on the first scaling factor (i.e. multiply by 2, 3 ,4 etc.) and re-plotting/drawing/visualizing the scaled signal.
Step 2A, Prong Two
For claims 1, 13, and 25, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 13, and 25 recite “a physiological sensor and a display.” Additionally, claims 13 and 25 recite “one or more processing circuits.” The physiological sensor is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than pre-solution activity of data gathering. The display and one or more processing circuits are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than parts of a generic computer. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into
a practical application, the additional element of the physiological sensor amounts to nothing more than mere pre-solution activity of data gathering, which does not amount to an inventive concept. Moreover,
the additional element of the physiological sensor is a well-known, routine, and conventional structure as shown in EP 1552786 (¶94; ¶121), US 20090216144 (¶27), and US 20070056582 (¶170). Further, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In this case, elements of general computer are being used to implement the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 3-5, 7-12, 15-17, 19-24, and 26-29 , the limitations of claims 1, 13, and 25 further define the limitations already indicated as being directed to the abstract idea.
Claims 3-5, 7, 9, 11, 15-17, 19, 21, 23, and 27 are further directed to the abstract idea.
Claims 8, 20, 26, and 28-29 are further directed to the abstract idea and post-solution activity of data gathering.
Claims 10 and 22 are further directed to pre-solution activity of data gathering, the abstract idea, and post- solution activity of data gathering.
Claims 12 and 24 are further directed to pre-solution activity of data gathering.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LAURA N HODGE whose telephone number is (571)272-7101. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAMES KISH can be reached on (571) 272-5554. 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.
/L.N.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/LYNSEY C Eiseman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights