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 .
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.
Notice of Amendment
In response to the amendment(s) filed on 11/3/25, amended claim(s) 1 is/are acknowledged. The following new and/or reiterated ground(s) of rejection is/are set forth:
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 1 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, Claim 1 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “obtain a plurality of body temperatures measured at a plurality of time instants during a time window from the temperature sensor,” “determine, using a prediction model, a plurality of core body temperatures based on the plurality of body temperatures,” “determine, for each core body temperature, whether the respective core body temperature satisfies a predetermined threshold,” “determine that a threshold percentile of core body temperatures satisfy the predetermined threshold during the time window,” “determine that a high-temperature event has occurred based on the threshold percentile of core body temperatures,” “generate an alert signal indicating that the high-temperature event has occurred,” and “generate and output, based on the alert signal, a notification signal indicating the high-temperature event.” This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. That is, there appears to be no tangible improvement in a technology, effect of a particular treatment or prophylaxis, a particular machine or manufacture that is integrated, or transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing as a result of this claimed subject matter. As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are “a temperature sensor disposed in a wearable housing and positioned within the housing to be worn against a subject’s skin when the wearable device is worn by the subject,” “a thermal insulation material positioned to insulate the temperature sensor,” and “a controller disposed in the wearable housing.” However, these elements are not “significantly more” because they is well-known, routine, and/or conventional as evidenced by para [0024] of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0058298 to Koch et al. (which references DE 10 2005 004 933 B3, which corresponds to US 2006/0173375 to Koch) and according to Alice v. CLS. Therefore, these elements do not add significantly more and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 1 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claim(s) 2-5 and 7-11 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1 by merely reciting additional abstract ideas and/or further limitations of abstract ideas already recited. Dependent claim 6 fails to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1 because the additional element(s) recited in claim 6 are not “significantly more” because they is well-known, routine, and/or conventional as evidenced by para [0024] of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0058298 to Koch et al. and according to Alice v. CLS. Thus, claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/3/25 have been fully considered.
With respect to the 112 rejection(s), Applicant’s amendments and arguments are persuasive and thus the previous rejection(s) is/are withdrawn.
With respect to the 101 rejection(s), the examiner cannot find any improvements in computer technology that is disclosed in the specification or in the claim(s) themselves. That is, the examiner cannot find any evidence that the determinations, alert, and/or output improves a computer such as, for example, increasing memory capability, reducing processing power, and/or improving battery life of a portable computer. Although not intending to be an exhaustive list, the examiner cannot find any other improvement offered to computer technology offered by the claimed subject matter. Applicant argues that there is an improvement in computer technology, but what the actual improvement is not explicitly stated in the response. Therefore, these arguments come off as conclusory and the examiner respectfully requests evidence of any alleged improvement as well as an explicit statement of what the improvement actually is to computers.
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 DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PT.
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.
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791