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 1-10 have been reviewed and are addressed below. Claims 11-30 has been cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4-17-26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed on 4-17-26 has been entered and is addressed below.
Applicant argues that the amendment overcomes the current rejection since it provides an improvement to the process of a technological nature by managing and limiting the computational requirements of analyzing information entropy in physiological signals. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The length of monitoring period does not improve the computer technology, rather this is still part of the abstract idea of gathering data about an individual or the environment. The limitation of gathering results… are still part of the data gathering element that is still part of the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental process.
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 1-10 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.
Claims 1-10 are drawn to a method, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claim 1, 1 recite “providing one or more time-varying signals from continuous monitoring individual or the individual’s environment over a time frame of two to six hours the one or more time varying signals including one or more physiological signals”, “processing the signals to develop signatures for those signals using a linear and a non-linear dynamic analysis of one or more of the signals, phase and time lags of the signals, temporal window lengths of the signals and degree of coupling between different physiological signals to measure information entropy of the time varying physiological signals”, “gathering results measuring information entropy of the time varying physiological signals for each of a series of bins, each bin representing a time period of between 30 seconds and 5 mins in length”, “calculating an integrated likelihood of experiencing the physiological condition based upon the computed signatures”, “providing the integrated likelihood and/or signatures to the individual and/or a training or healthcare provider for the individual”, “updating the displayed integrated likelihood and/or signatures on a time schedule”.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally the limitations can also be interpreted as mental process. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite the additional element. There are no are nominal or tangential addition to the abstract idea and as such amounts to extra-solution activity. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept when the limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
That the abstract idea may be performed by specifically “monitor”, “display”, “electrocardiogram (ECG), electroencephalogram (EEG), electrooculogram (EOG), electromyogram (EMG), thoracic and/or abdominal excursions recorded by inductive plethysmography bands; recordings of nasopharyngeal airflow, pulse oximetry, intracardiac pressure, intracardiac electrogram (EGM), temperature, gauge and/or camera-sensed body position, sleep/activity monitor, acid/base monitoring, respiration, acceleration or ambulation monitor, ambient light exposure monitor, ambient sound exposure monitor, ambient temperature monitor, invasive and/or noninvasive blood pressure readings, glucose level monitor, hemoglobin oxygen saturation monitor, arterial blood oxygen and carbon dioxide partial pressure monitor, tissue hemoglobin oxygen saturation monitor, nasopharyngeal airflow, and metabolic activity monitor based on one or more of expired C02, inspired 02, respiration rate, respiration volume, and laboratory blood measurements including not limited to plasma count and lipid density concentration measurements”, are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claims recite the additional element of “updating the displayed integrated likelihood and/or signatures on a time schedule” which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion
- paragraph 52 recites where “a portable device comprised of a microprocessor will collect, encrypt and analyze the data and/or securely transmit it to a central cloud server”.
The claims recite the additional element of “updating the displayed integrated likelihood and/or signatures on a time schedule” which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2-10 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD R REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-5212. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Shahid R. Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
REGINALD R. REYES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/REGINALD R REYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights