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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on February 3, 2026 has been entered. By this amendment, claims 1 and 16 are amended, claim 18 is cancelled, claims 19 and 20 are added, and claims 1-17, 19, and 20 are now pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 19 includes the status identifier “New”, but includes claim amendment markings, including underlines. Claim 19 is a new claim and should be presented in a clean non-marked up version. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 20 repeats claim language that is previously found in claim 19 and, therefore, fails to further limit the subject mattery of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim(s) recite(s) a method (process) and apparatus for processing physiological information.
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claims 1, 16, and 19, the limitations of “acquire/acquiring physiological information data indicating physiological information of a subject”, “acquire/acquiring a value of a parameter relevant to an autonomic nerve function of the subject in each of first time intervals based on the physiological information data”, “acquire/acquiring a plurality of abnormality index values indicating an extent of abnormality in the autonomic nerve function of the subject based on the values of the parameter acquired in the first time intervals”, “display/displaying a radar graph indicating the plurality of abnormality index values”, and “acquire an abnormality index value indicating an extent of abnormality in the autonomic nerve function of the subject based on the values of the parameter acquired in the first time intervals” are processes that, as drafted, cover performance of the limitations that can be performed by a human in their mind or using pen and paper under broadest reasonable interpretation standard. For example, acquiring data encompasses nothing more than a user obtaining a written record of the data. Similarly, displaying information requires nothing more than a user writing down information indicating the abnormality index value. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A, Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements of “a processor”, “a memory that stores a computer-readable command”, and “a central monitor”. The processor, memory, and central monitor are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., any processor) and they amount to no more than mere pre-solution activity information processing. This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does 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 elements of a processor, memory, and central monitor amounts to no more than mere pre-solution activity of information processing, which does not amount to an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tadokoro (U.S. 2005/0209522, previously cited). Tadokoro discloses a system comprising: a central monitor 500; and a physiological information processing apparatus 100 connected to the central monitor through a network interface, the physiological information processing apparatus comprising: a processor 202, and a memory 600 that stores a computer-readable command, wherein when the computer-readable command is executed by the processor, the physiological information processing apparatus is configured to: acquire physiological information data indicating physiological information of a subject; acquire a value of a parameter relevant to an autonomic nerve function of the subject in each of first time intervals based on the physiological information data; acquire an abnormality index value indicating an extent of abnormality in the autonomic nerve function of the subject based on the values of the parameter acquired in the first time intervals, and cause the central monitor to display information indicating the abnormality index value (see paragraph [0008]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tadokoro (U.S. 2005/0209522, previously cited) in view of Hasegawa et al. (U.S. 2015/0212506). Regarding claim 1, Tadokoro discloses a physiological information processing apparatus 100 comprising: a processor 202, and a memory 600 that stores a computer-readable command, wherein when the computer-readable command is executed by the processor, the physiological information processing apparatus is configured to: acquire physiological information data indicating physiological information of a subject; acquire a value of a parameter relevant to an autonomic nerve function of the subject in each of first time intervals based on the physiological information data; acquire a plurality of abnormality index values indicating an extent of abnormality in the autonomic nerve function of the subject based on the values of the parameter acquired in the first time intervals, and display information indicating the plurality of abnormality index values (see paragraph [0008]). However, Tadokoro fails to disclose that the displayed information indicating the plurality of abnormality index values is a radar graph. Hasegawa teaches an apparatus 20 that acquires physiological information data (vital data VD) and processes the data to acquire a plurality of index values (at index data calculator 25a, see paragraph [0044]) and display a radar graph indicating the plurality of index values (Figures 8A and 8B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tadokoro to include displaying the information indicating the plurality of abnormality index value on a radar graph, as taught by Hasegawa, in order to provide a visual indicator as to the normal versus abnormal state of such values, and as it has been held the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Tadokoro discloses that the parameter includes a first parameter relevant to a sympathetic nerve function of the subject, and a second parameter relevant to a parasympathetic nerve function of the subject (see paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 3, Tadokoro discloses that the abnormality index value includes a reference value of the parameter (see paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 4, Tadokoro discloses that the abnormality index value includes a first reference value of the first parameter, and a second reference value of the second parameter (see paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 5, Tadokoro discloses that the abnormality index value further includes a reference value ratio expressing a ratio between the first reference value and the second reference value (see paragraph [0010], LF/HF ratio).
Regarding claim 6, Tadokoro discloses that the abnormality index value includes a number of times of abnormal enhancement of the parameter; and the number of times of abnormal enhancement expresses a number of peak values of the parameter exceeding a threshold of the parameter (see paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 7, Tadokoro discloses that the abnormality index value includes a variation width of the parameter that is a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value of the parameter (see paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 11, Tadokoro discloses that the physiological information processing apparatus is configured to simultaneously display information indicating the abnormality index value and a trend graph indicating a change of the parameter over time (see paragraphs [0058]-[0061]).
Regarding claim 12, Tadokoro discloses that the physiological information processing apparatus is configured to simultaneously display information indicating the abnormality index value, a first trend graph indicating a change of the first parameter over time, and a second trend graph indicating a change of the second parameter over time (see paragraphs [0058]-[0061]).
Regarding claim 13, Tadokoro discloses that the physiological information processing apparatus is configured to display message information determined based on the abnormality index value (see paragraphs [0058]-[0061]).
Regarding claim 14, Tadokoro discloses that the physiological information processing apparatus is configured to display numerical information of the abnormality index value (see paragraphs [0058]-[0061]).
Regarding claim 15, Tadokoro discloses that the abnormality index value includes a plurality of abnormality index values, and wherein the physiological information processing apparatus is configured to display a graph indicating the abnormality index values (see paragraphs [0058]-[0061]).
Regarding claim 16, Tadokoro discloses a physiological information processing method comprising: a step of acquiring physiological information data indicating physiological information of a subject; a step of acquiring a value of a parameter relevant to an autonomic nerve function of the subject in each of first time intervals based on the physiological information data; a step of acquiring a plurality of abnormality index values indicating abnormality in the autonomic nerve function of the subject based on the values of the parameter acquired in the first time intervals, and a step of displaying information indicating the plurality of abnormality index values (see paragraph [0008]). However, Tadokoro fails to disclose that the displayed information indicating the plurality of abnormality index values is a radar graph. Hasegawa teaches an apparatus 20 that acquires physiological information data (vital data VD) and processes the data to acquire a plurality of index values (at index data calculator 25a, see paragraph [0044]) and display a radar graph indicating the plurality of index values (Figures 8A and 8B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Tadokoro to include displaying the information indicating the plurality of abnormality index value on a radar graph, as taught by Hasegawa, in order to provide a visual indicator as to the normal versus abnormal state of such values, and as it has been held the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17, Tadokoro discloses a computer-readable storage medium in which a physiological information processing program for making a computer execute a physiological information processing method according to Claim 16 is stored (see paragraph [0008]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101, the Applicant argues that “although the rejection of claim 18 as ineligible was maintained by the Board, this was because the features therein were not separately argued” and “the Board’s decision (and the comments therein do not pertain particularly to those features”. The Examiner respectfully submits that the Board maintained that all claims were ineligible and did not provide any indication that the subject matter of previously-pending claim 18 would be eligible. Applicant argues that because the features of claim 18 were not rejected on any prior art, it must be concluded that the use of radar graphs for a plurality of abnormality indices is an unconventional use of the display. The Applicant argues that although the Board found that the conveyance of the extent of the patient’s disease itself is not technical, the unconventional use of a technical element such as a display is undoubtedly technical. However, the Applicant fails to explain how the display is unconventional. It appears that the Applicant is arguing that the data which is provided on the display is unconventional, but this is not an unconventional display, nor is it an unconventional use of the display, but rather according to Applicant’s arguments, unconventional data. This is not found persuasive. Additionally, as discussed in the rejection above, a radar graph is not an unconventional use of the display. Furthermore, the recitation of a radar graph is not integrating the abstract ideas into a practical application, as the claims merely recite a generic “physiological information processing apparatus” and a radar graph, can be accomplished by a user with pen and paper. The applicant’s alleged “practical application” is merely the abstract idea itself. The Applicant further argues that new claim 19 is eligible because the use of a central monitor is unconventional. This is not found persuasive because central monitors are well known and conventional. For at least the reasons given above, the rejections stand.
Regarding new claim 19, the Applicant argues that Tadokoro fails to disclose the claimed central monitor because “Tadokoro only identifies a single display unit 500 directly connected to its component collecting apparatus 100 and is silent regarding that display unit being central/remote or connected via a network interface”. The Examiner respectfully submits that the broadest reasonable interpretation for a “central monitor” is anticipated by the display device of Tadokoro because a “central monitor” does not require a particular structure or “remoteness” as alleged by the Applicant. For at least the reasons given above, the rejection stands.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMMIE K MARLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1986. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 am until 4 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, Carl Layno can be reached on 571-272-4949. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAMMIE K MARLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796