DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant’s response, received 16 January 2026, has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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 the Claims
Claims 1, 4-8, 10, 11, 14-17, and 19 are pending.
Claims 11 and 14-17 are rejected.
Claims 11 and 19 are objected to.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10, and 19 are allowable.
Priority
This application is a CON of PCT/CN2019/121982, filed 29 November 2019.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretations in the Office action mailed 21 October 2025 are reiterated below.
Claims 1, 11, and 19 recite the limitation “controller,” e.g., a sampling refresh period controller, a sampling time slot controller, a LED driver controller, analog front-end controllers, and analog-to-digital converter controllers. When evaluated under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim limitations when read in light of and consistent with the specification, the limitation “controller” is interpreted to comprise an embodiment that is a hardware component and also an embodiment that is a software module (e.g., Specification, paras. [0102] & [0105]).
Claims 1, 6, 11, 16, and 19 recite the limitation “sampling channel.” This limitation is interpreted to mean the components of the apparatus for detecting biometric data that samples a target signal to obtain sample data associated with the biometric data (Specification, para. [0007]) and may include a driver, a PPG Analog Front End, an analog-to-digital converter, a first matrix switch, a second matrix switch, an ECG Analog Front End, a sampling and managing apparatus, and a buffer circuit, and the sampling channel may further include at least one of a light-emitting diode or a photodiode (Specification, paras. [0097] & [0098]).
The claim limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, in the Office action mailed 21 October 2025 are maintained with modification in view of the amendment received 16 January 2026.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
a sampling refresh period controller, in claims 1, 11, and 19;
a sampling time slot controller, in claims 1, 11, and 19;
a determining unit configured to, in claim 17; and
a data packing unit configured to, in claim 16.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The written description discloses a corresponding structure for:
a sampling refresh period controller, at ¶¶ [0103] – [0105] of the Specification (computer software and/or hardware); and at ¶¶ [0070] – [0078] & [0087] of the Specification (algorithm);
a sampling time slot controller, at ¶¶ [0103] – [0105] of the Specification (computer software and/or hardware); and at ¶¶ [0070] – [0078] & [0088] of the Specification (algorithm);
a determining unit, at ¶¶ [0103] – [0105] of the Specification (computer software and/or hardware); and at ¶¶ [0070] – [0078] of the Specification (algorithm); and
a data packing unit, at ¶¶ [0103] – [0105] of the Specification (computer software and/or hardware); and at ¶¶ [0082] – [0083] of the Specification (algorithm).
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
The objections to claims 11 and 1 in the Office action mailed 21 October 2025 are withdrawn in view of the amendment received 16 January 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendment received 16 January 2026 has been fully considered, however after further consideration, new grounds of rejection are raised under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, in view of the amendment.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11 and 14-17 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the sampling and managing apparatus being operatively coupled to and configured to control… a sampling channel of a plurality of sampling channels,” however the Specification does not contain the terms “operatively coupled to,” “operatively,” or “coupled.” Furthermore, there are no steps or guidance in the Specification to provide for whether the components are connected directly or through intervening parts, or whether the connection is mechanical, electrical, optical, or wireless. Further still, claim 11 does not actually recite a sampling and managing apparatus that includes a sampling channel of a plurality of sampling channels. Therefore, this limitation appears to be a new scope not contemplated nor supported by the present application.
Claims 14-17 are rejected for depending from claim 11 and for failing to remedy the failure of claim 11 to comply with the written description requirement.
The amendment received 16 January 2026 has been fully considered, however after further consideration, new grounds of rejection are raised under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, in view of the amendment.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11 and 14-17 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.
Claim 11 is indefinite for reciting the limitation “the sampling and managing apparatus being operatively coupled to and configured to control… a sampling channel of a plurality of sampling channels,” because the metes and bounds are not clear as to the meaning of “operatively coupled to” since the claim does not actually recite a sampling and managing apparatus that includes a sampling channel of a plurality of sampling channels, and further because “operatively coupled” could mean either direct or indirect (i.e., the components do not need to touch) connectivity in order to communicate, transfer energy, or work in tandem, and therefore the connection could comprise mechanical, electrical, optical, or even wireless connectivity.
Claims 14-17 are rejected for depending from claim 11 and for failing to remedy the indefiniteness of claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The amendment received 16 January 2026 has been fully considered, however after further consideration, the rejection of claim 11 and 14-17 under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the Office action mailed 21 October 2025 is maintained with modification in view of the amendment, as noted below.
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 11 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: (a) mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind, (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Subject matter eligibility evaluation in accordance with MPEP 2106.
Eligibility Step 1: Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claims 1, 4-8, and 10 are directed to a method (i.e., a process) for sampling biometric data; claims 11 and 14-17 are directed to a sampling and managing apparatus (i.e., a machine or manufacture) for biometric data; and claim 19 is directed to an apparatus (i.e., a machine or manufacture) for detecting biometric data.
Therefore, these claims are encompassed by the categories of statutory subject matter, and thus satisfy the subject matter eligibility requirements under step 1.
[Step 1: YES]
Eligibility Step 2A: First it is determined in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then it is determined in Prong Two whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Eligibility Step 2A Prong One: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, examination is performed that analyzes whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim.
Independent claim 11 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
a time slot configuration table (i.e., mental processes);
wherein the time slot configuration table comprises a correspondence between slot identifiers for the plurality of sampling time slots and configuration identifiers for the plurality of sampling configurations (i.e., mental processes);
a sampling configuration table (i.e., mental processes);
wherein the sampling configuration table comprises a correspondence between the configuration identifiers and the plurality of sampling configurations, each of the sampling configurations comprising a sampling channel enabling parameter and a sampling process control parameter (i.e., mental processes);
a sampling refresh period controller (software embodiment, e.g., algorithms) (i.e., mental processes);
wherein the sampling refresh period controller is configured to control the sampling refresh period, and to control the sampling time slot controller to read the time slot configuration table and the sampling configuration table in units of the sampling refresh period (i.e., mental processes);
a sampling time slot controller (software embodiment, e.g., algorithms) (i.e., mental processes);
is configured to, for each sampling time slot in the sampling refresh period, under the control of the sampling refresh period controller:
read the time slot configuration table based on a slot identifier for the sampling time slot to determine a configuration identifier for a sampling configuration corresponding to the slot identifier (i.e., mental processes), and
read the sampling configuration table based on the configuration identifier to determine the sampling channel enabling parameter and the sampling process control parameter corresponding to the sampling time slot (i.e., mental processes);
Dependent claims 14-17 recite the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas, as noted below.
Dependent claim 14 further recites:
the sampling parameter comprises at least one of a sampling frequency relevant parameter or a data transceiving relevant parameter (i.e., mental processes).
Dependent claim 15 further recites:
each of the sampling configurations further comprises a sampling configuration enabling parameter, and the sampling configuration enabling parameter is used for enabling or disabling the corresponding sampling configuration (i.e., mental processes).
Dependent claim 16 further recites:
a data packing unit (software embodiment) configured to configure a data packet header for the sample data collected by the corresponding sampling channel, the data packet header comprising the channel identifier of the corresponding sampling channel and the configuration identifier of the sampling configuration corresponding to the sampling channel (i.e., mental processes).
Dependent claim 17 further recites:
a determining unit (software embodiment) configured to determine, based on a preset sampling refresh period, whether the sampling time slot matches a corresponding sampling period (i.e., mental processes), and
determines the sampling configuration corresponding to the sampling time slot in the sampling refresh period based on the preset sampling rule when the sampling time slot matches the corresponding sampling period (i.e., mental processes).
The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim limitations when read in light of and consistent with the specification. As noted in the foregoing section, the claims are determined to contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind with the aid of a pen and paper (e.g., reading the time slot configuration table to determine a configuration identifier, as well as reading the sampling configuration table based on the determined configuration identifier to determine parameters are steps that can practically be performed in the mind), and therefore recite judicial exceptions from the mental process grouping of abstract ideas.
Therefore, claims 11 and 14-17 recite an abstract idea.
[Step 2A Prong One: YES]
Eligibility Step 2A Prong Two: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, further examination is performed that analyzes if the claim recites additional elements that when examined as a whole integrates the judicial exception(s) into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claimed additional elements are analyzed to determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I); MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the abstract idea, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(III)).
The judicial exceptions identified in Eligibility Step 2A Prong One are not integrated into a practical application because of the reasons noted below.
Dependent claims 14 and 15 do not recite any elements in addition to the judicial exception, and thus are part of the judicial exception.
The additional elements in independent claim 11 include:
a sampling and managing apparatus (with an intended use of controlling a sampling channel of a plurality of sampling channels, because the claim does not recite that the sampling channels are components of the apparatus); and
controllers (hardware embodiment) including an LED driver controller, analog front-end controllers, and analog-to-digital converter controllers.
The additional elements in dependent claims 16 and 17 include:
a sampling and managing apparatus (claims 16 and 17);
a data packing unit (hardware embodiment) (claim 16); and
a determining unit (hardware embodiment) (claim 17).
The additional element of a sampling and managing apparatus (claims 11, 16, and 17) merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., an apparatus for detecting biometric data), and therefore does not integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Furthermore, the additional element of “a sampling and managing apparatus being configured for controlling… a sampling channel of a plurality of sampling channels…” is merely an intended use of the sampling and managing apparatus, because the claim does not recite that the apparatus actually includes sampling channel components as part of the apparatus.
The additional element of computer processing hardware (claims 16 and 17) invoke a computer and/or computer hardware components merely as a tool for use in the claimed process, i.e., executing the abstract ideas, and therefore is not an improvement to computer functionality itself, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field, and thus, does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
The additional element of device controllers (hardware embodiment) including a LED driver controller, analog front-end controllers, and analog-to-digital converter controllers (claim 11), merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., an electronic apparatus for detecting biometric data), and therefore does not integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the additionally recited elements merely invoke a computer as a tool, and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and as such, when all limitations in claims 11 and 14-17 have been considered as a whole (i.e., the analysis takes into consideration all the claim limitations and how those limitations interact and impact each other when evaluating whether the exception is integrated into a practical application), the claims are deemed to not recite any additional elements that would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, and therefore claims 11 and 14-17 are directed to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
[Step 2A Prong Two: NO]
Eligibility Step 2B: Because the claims recite an abstract idea, and do not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are probed for a specific inventive concept. The judicial exception alone cannot provide that inventive concept or practical application (MPEP 2106.05). Identifying whether the additional elements beyond the abstract idea amount to such an inventive concept requires considering the additional elements individually and in combination to determine if they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05A i-vi).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) because of the reasons noted below.
Dependent claims 14 and 15 do not recite any elements in addition to the judicial exception(s).
The additional elements recited in independent claim 11 and dependent claims 16 and 17 are identified above, and carried over from Step 2A Prong Two along with their conclusions for analysis at Step 2B. Any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity at Step 2A Prong Two was re-evaluated at Step 2B, because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and all additional elements and combination of elements were evaluated to determine whether any additional elements or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP 2106.05(d).
The additional elements of a sampling and managing apparatus (claims 11, 16, and 17); computer processing hardware (claims 16 and 17); and device controllers (hardware embodiment) including a LED driver controller, analog front-end controllers, and analog-to-digital converter controllers (claim 11); are conventional (see MPEP at 2106.05(b) and 2106.05(d)(II) regarding conventionality of computer components and computer processes).
Further evidence of conventionality is shown by:
Tamura (Biomedical Engineering Letters, 2019 (Published online: 18 February 2019), Vol. 9, pp. 21-36, as cited in the Office action mailed 18 October 2024).
Tamura reviews the current progress of photoplethysmography and SPO2 for health monitoring (Title), and describes a photoplethysmograph (PPG) as a simple medical device for monitoring blood flow and transportation of substances in the blood, and consists of a light source and a photodetector for measuring transmitted and reflected light signals, and that PPGs are used clinically to monitor the pulse rare, oxygen saturation, blood pressure, and blood vessel stiffness (Abstract). Tamura shows a simple PPG circuit and oximeter circuit are designed and assembled because of the development of analog front-end (AFE), and that the AFE-based PPG consists of an analog signal conditioning circuit that uses operational amplifiers and filters, and a low-noise receiver channel with an integrated analog-to-digital converter (ADC), an LED transmit section, and diagnostics for sensor and LED fault detection (page 23, column 1, para. 3 through column 2, para. 1; and Figures 4a and 4b). Tamura further shows that the device has a configurable timing controller, and that the user controls the device timing characteristics, and that the device communicates with an external microcontroller (Ibid.). Tamura further shows that the raw PPG signals are amplified and filtered, and then peaks are detected with a microprocessor, and the pulse rate is then calculated from intervals of the peaks (page 23, column 2, para. 2). Tamura further shows that in general, a wearable finger-type PPG device consists of a three-axis accelerometer, an IR or green LED, a photo diode, a microprocessor, and a wireless communication module (page 25, column 2, para. 5).
Further evidence of conventionality is shown by:
Warren et al. (Sensors, 2016, Vol. 16, No. 342, pp. 1-18, as cited in the Office action mailed 18 October 2024).
Warren et al. shows that photoplethysmographic (PPG) waveforms are used to acquire pulse rate (PR) measurements from pulsatile arterial blood volume, and the PPG waveforms are highly susceptible to motion artifacts (MA), limiting the implementation of PR measurements in mobile physiological monitoring devices (Abstract). Warren et al. further shows that previous studies have shown that multichannel photoplethysmograms can successfully acquire diverse signal information during simple, repetitive motion, leading to differences in motion tolerance across channels, and that these differences can be accounted for by using a multichannel-switching algorithm (Ibid.).
Further evidence of conventionality is shown by:
Budidha et al. (IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 2018, Vol. 67, No. 8, pp. 1954-1965, as cited in the Office action mailed 18 October 2024).
Budidha et al. shows a modular, multichannel photoplethysmography system (Title; and Abstract) with a multiplexer to generate a timed switching signal used to turn on the LEDs alternatively in order to allow for the independent sampling of light at different wavelengths by the photodetector (page 1955, column 2, Section A: para. 1). Budidha et al. further shows the architecture and functionality of the front-end and the back-end of the multiplexing board with regard to switching each LED on and off (pages 1957-1959).
Further evidence of conventionality is shown by:
Chua et al. (IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, 2011, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 267-273, as cited in the Office action mailed 18 October 2024).
Chua et al. shows implementation of a mixed bio-signal lossless data compressor capable of handling multichannel electroencephalogram (EEG), electrocardiogram (ECG), and diffuse optical tomography (DOT) bio-signal data for reduced storage and communication bandwidth requirements in portable, wireless brain-heart monitoring systems used in hospital or home care setting (Abstract). Chua et al. further shows an output packaging unit (Figure 6) that maintains four separate output buffers for the different biomedical signals, which are filled up as samples are encoded into bitstreams, and whenever any of the buffers become full, the buffer value is driven onto the output bus, together with an appended data type ID indicating the type of biomedical data (page 272, column 1, para. 2).
Further evidence of conventionality is shown by:
Ozkan et al. (IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 2020 (First published 20 March 2019), Vol. 69, Issue 1, pp. 173-182, as cited in the Office action mailed 18 October 2024).
Ozkan et al. shows a portable wearable tele-ECG monitoring system (Title; and Abstract), utilizing a Front-End circuit connected to a CC2650MODA MCU (microcontroller) circuit (page 175, column 1, para(s). 1-2; and Figure 2); and ECG signal transmission to a smartphone comprises five samples of the ECG signal being collected to form a packet, and 50 packets with 250 samples are sent to the cell phone in 1 second (page 177, column 1, para. 6); and packing and transmitting the data using the MCU and Bluetooth low energy (BLE) communication protocol (page 178, column 1, para(s). 1-2).
Therefore, when taken alone, all additional elements in claims 11 and 14-17 do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). Even when evaluated as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception(s) into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, claims 11 and 14-17 are deemed to not contribute an inventive concept, i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05(II)).
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments/remarks received 16 January 2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
The Applicant states on page 10 (bottom) of the Remarks that the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and are integrated into a practical application, thereby rendering the claimed subject matter eligible. The Applicant further states on page 11 (para. 1) that regarding Step 2A Prong One, amended claim 1 recites the sampling and managing apparatus comprises a sampling refresh period controller, a sampling time slot controller, a LED driver controller, analog front-end controllers, and analog-to-digital converter controllers, and that as explicitly disclosed in paras. [0102] – [0105] in the Specification, these controllers are hardware controllers with physical entities such as an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a programmable logic controller, or an embed microcontroller. The Applicant further states that this implementation is further illustrated in FIG. 4B, which is a schematic structural diagram of the sampling and managing apparatus implemented by hardware, showing the hardware connection of each controller. The Applicant further states that the time slot configuration table and the sampling configuration table as required by claim 11 are embedded control logic executed by hardware controllers (e.g., the sampling refresh period controller and the sampling time slot controller) to dynamically manage sampling channels in the apparatus for detecting biometric data. The Applicant further provides a passage of amended claim 11, and states that the recitation is about the configuration of the sampling time slot controller, which is a physical entity, and requires timing coordination (e.g., sampling refresh periods) and physical components (e.g., the LED driver controller, the analog front-end controllers, and the analog-to-digital converter controllers) that cannot be performed solely in the human mind, which are integral to the operation of the sampling and managing apparatus, and therefore, amended claim 11 does not constitute a mental process.
These arguments are not persuasive, because first, a claim can recite mental processes even if they are claimed as being performed on (or with) a physical entity, e.g., a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Second, claim 11 does not recite an apparatus that actually includes the sampling channels, because the limitation reciting “the sampling and managing apparatus being operatively coupled to and configured to control… a sampling channel of a plurality of sampling channels,” is an intended use of the claimed sampling and managing apparatus. Therefore, the claim does not actually recite an apparatus that includes a sampling channel, and therefore, unlike independent claim 19, the analysis of claim 11 in the above rejection determined that claim 11 does not recite any additional elements (i.e., sampling channels) that would integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application when the claim is considered as a whole at Eligibility Step 2A Prong Two (i.e., the analysis takes into consideration all the claim limitations and how those limitations interact and impact each other when evaluating whether the exception is integrated into a practical application), because the claim does not recite any additional elements (e.g., a sampling channel) that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exceptions in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exceptions.
The Applicant states on page 11 (bottom) that the additional elements in amended claim 11 integrate any judicial exception into a practical application, and further states that amended claim 11 requires the sampling and managing apparatus being operatively coupled to and configured to control the sampling channels, and that it is the configuration and function of the sampling and managing apparatus as such, rather than its intended use, that is required, as claim 11 recites that the sampling and managing apparatus is configured to control the samplings channels via being operatively coupled to the sampling channels. The Applicant further states on page 12 (para. 1) that moreover, claim 11 further specifies the configuration of the claimed apparatus itself, and recites the sampling time slot controller of the sampling and managing apparatus is configured to generate trigger pulses for the LED driver controller, the analog front-end controllers and the analog-to-digital converter controllers corresponding to the sampling time slot based on the sampling channel enabling parameter and the sampling process control parameter corresponding to the sampling time slot; and further states that the LED driver controller is configured to sample the trigger pulses for the LED driver and generate a LED driver control sequence to control a LED driving unit to drive or stop driving a LED; and further states that the analog front-end controllers are configured to sample the trigger pulses for the analog front-end controllers and generate analog front-end control sequences to control the analog front-ends to start of stop running to collect a target signal from a respective photodiode, and the analog-to-digital converter controllers are configured to sample the trigger pulses for the analog-to-digital converter controller and generate analog-to-digital converter control sequences to control the analog-to-digital converters to start of stop running to convert the collected target signal from the respective photodiode to corresponding sample data. The Applicant further states on page 12 (para. 2) of the Remarks that the requirements of claim 11 do not generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment, but instead add meaningful limitations in that the employ the parameters such as the sampling channel enabling parameter and the sampling process control parameter to control the sampling channel to collect a target signal. The Applicant further states that claim 11 as a whole solves a problem of how to improve the flexibility in biometric data sampling control process while reducing the burden of a master controller, which is a separate controller independent of the claimed sampling and managing apparatus. The Applicant further states that when an application model of the sampling and managing apparatus needs to be changed, for example, in some specific application scenarios, switching to a different application mode is set, and different application modes have different sampling configurations such as different sampling frequencies. The Applicant further states that whether the sampling time slot matches the corresponding sampling period is determined based on the preset sampling refresh period, for example, when wearing detection is switched to heart rate detection, only a few parameters need to be adjusted in the sampling configuration table to adjust the sampling control process to correspond to the changed application mode, and thus improve the flexibility in biometric data sampling control process. The Applicant further states on page 13 (para. 1) of the Remarks that moreover, due to the presence of a time slot configuration table and a sampling configuration table, the control sequence and the relevant sampling process control parameter can be set in the time slot configuration table and the sampling configuration table in advance by the master controller, and that during the sampling process, the sampling refresh period controller and the sampling time slot controller read the time slot configuration table and a sampling configuration table, and perform the sampling based on the parameters preset in the time slot configuration table and the sampling configuration table, and that no interaction is needed between the sampling and managing apparatus and the master controller, which spares the master controller from controlling the sampling of biometric data. The Applicant further states (para. 2) that thus, amended claim 11 provides a technical improvement in the flexibility in biometric data sampling control process and reduction of the burden of the master controller, and can advantageously overcome the shortcomings associated with the conventional approaches.
These arguments are not persuasive, because first, the physical entities such as a sampling refresh period controller, a sampling time slot controller, a LED driver controller, analog front-end controllers, and analog-to-digital converter controllers are recited as being part of the sampling and managing apparatus, and are shown to be additional elements at Step 2A Prong Two, and further shown to merely confine the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment (i.e., an electronic apparatus for detecting biometric data). However, claim 11 does not recite an apparatus that actually includes the sampling channels, as noted in the foregoing response to arguments, and therefore, unlike independent claim 19, the eligibility analysis of claim 11 in the above rejection determined that claim 11 does not recite any additional elements (i.e., sampling channels) that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exceptions in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exceptions, and therefore claim 11 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application when the claim is considered as a whole at Eligibility Step 2A Prong Two (i.e., the analysis takes into consideration all the claim limitations and how those limitations interact and impact each other when evaluating whether the exception is integrated into a practical application).
The Applicant states on page 13 (para. 3) of the Remarks that regarding Step 2B, the above additional elements are not well-known or conventional, and are not disclosed or taught by any of the prior art references cited in the Office actions, and thus, these additional elements or their combination adds an inventive concept to the claim, and as a result, claim 11 recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
These arguments are not persuasive, because as noted and discussed in the above rejection, each of the recited additional elements are shown to be conventional additional elements at Step 2B, as evidenced by the cited references.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 4-8, 10, and 19 are allowable.
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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN W. BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8170. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. 1000 - 1800.
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, KARLHEINZ SKOWRONEK can be reached on (571) 272-9047. 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.
/S.W.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/Joseph Woitach/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights