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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on January 29, 2026. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 1-4, 6-12, and 16-18 have been amended, claim(s) 14 and 19-20 have been cancelled, and claim(s) 21-36 have been added. Thus, claims 1-13, 15-18, and 21-36 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 9-10, filed January 29, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed January 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, in regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims. In particular, the applicant relies on the Federal Circuit decision in CardioNet, LLC v InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358 (Fed Circ. 2020) to support that the pending claims are non-abstract and patent-eligible. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Primarily because the claimed invention and that in Cardionet (as cited in the remarks) differ in functionality. Specifically, Cardionet is actually analyzing sensor data and applying mathematical processes and concepts to the signal data in order to determine a conclusion. However, the instant specification gathers sensor data from the user and merely compares it to a mathematical model to determine a conclusion. In essence, the circuit (or processor) utilizes a closed-loop cardiovascular model to do a simulation that as written doesn’t utilize any of the cardiovascular forces sensed from the subject and is essentially a “database” for which a comparison is made for a healthy or unhealthy BCG signal.
The applicant further argues that it must be analyzed whether the claims “focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology.” The instant invention fails to disclose a specific improvement, as it just details how the data is processed but there are not additional elements which provide a technological improvement. “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea]” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. As written, it appears that the applicant’s calculations and data analysis that is used within the closed-loop cardiovascular model, i.e. the mental process alone, that provide the improvement. Please refer to MPEP 2106.05. The examiner is not convinced and therefore the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been maintained.
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 1-13, 15-18, and 21-36 detail a process and machine (Step 1) 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.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 1-13, 15-18, and 21-36 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of Claims 1-13, 15-18, and 21-36 recites at least one step or instruction for processing data, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, each of Claims 1-13, 15-18, and 21-36 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites:
A system for sensing cardiovascular mechanism for non-invasive determination of a cardiovascular status, the system comprising:
a sensor configured to (1) non-invasively sense cardiovascular forces of a subject and (2) generate a sensor signal representative of the sensed cardiovascular forces, (additional element)
a circuit configured to (1) extract subject data representative of a ballistocardiogram (BCG) signal for the subject from the sensor signal (additional element)
(2) simulate BCG signal data based on a closed-loop cardiovascular model, wherein the simulated BCG signal data represents a healthy or unhealthy BCG signal (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and/or a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
(3) compare the extracted subject data with the simulated BCG signal data; (a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) and
(4) determine a cardiovascular status indicative of a healthy or unhealthy status for the subject based on the comparison; (a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
wherein the closed-loop cardiovascular model is configured to simulate the BCG signal data based on a plurality of modeled circuit components that represent cardiovascular mechanisms in a closed-loop cardiovascular system, wherein the modeled circuit components include variable capacitance as part of modeling a systemic circulation for the closed-loop cardiovascular system so that the simulated BCG signal data takes into account arterial viscoelasticity for the systemic circulation. (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and/or a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Specifically, Claim 16 recites:
A method for sensing cardiovascular mechanism for non-invasive determination of a cardiovascular status, the method comprising:
non-invasively sensing cardiovascular forces of a subject (additional element)
generating a sensor signal representative of the sensed cardiovascular forces (additional element)
extracting subject data representative of a ballistocardiogram (BCG) signal for the subject from the sensor signal, (additional element)
(2) simulating BCG signal data based on a closed-loop cardiovascular model the closed-loop cardiovascular model, wherein the closed-loop cardiovascular model is simulates the BCG signal data based on a plurality of modeled circuit components that represent cardiovascular mechanisms in a closed-loop cardiovascular system, wherein the modeled circuit components include variable capacitance as part of modeling a systemic circulation for the closed-loop cardiovascular system so that the simulated BCG signal data takes into account arterial viscoelasticity for the systemic circulation, and wherein the simulated BCG signal data represents a healthy or unhealthy BCG signal (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and/or a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
(3) comparing the extracted subject data with the simulated BCG signal data; (a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) and
(4) determining a cardiovascular status indicative of a healthy or unhealthy status for the subject based on the comparison (a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Further, dependent Claims 2-13, 15, 17-18 and 21-36 are merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed functions/steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1 and 16 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-13, 15, 17-18 and 21-36) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1 and 16), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). More specifically, the additional elements of: a sensor and circuit are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1 and 16 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 16 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g. as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 16 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claims 1 and 16 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of Claims 1-13, 15-18 and 21-36 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: sensor and circuit. The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, paragraphs [0010]-[0011]; [0058] multiple sensors that are utilized to capture physiological data of a user with a high level of generality and as a commercially available product (e.g. pulse sensor, BCG and accelerometer). Paragraphs [0136] details a circuit or circuitry that may include a processor that implements the steps of the method and machines as detailed in [0057] user with a high level of generality and as a commercially available product.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term preprocessing module is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available technology, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the processor. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-13, 15-18 and 21-36 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the process and machine of Claims 1 and 16 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1 and 16 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 1-13, 15-18 and 21-36 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claims 1-13, 15-18 and 21-36 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSANDRA F HOUGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7902. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 am - 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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)270-5625. 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.
Jessandra Hough May 29, 2026
/J.F.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3796 /William J Levicky/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights