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, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 14 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10-12, and 21 are currently pending. Claims 10-12 remain withdrawn. Claims 1 has been amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“AHR values” in line 29 of claim 1 should read as “the AHR values”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 4, 6-8, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
STEP 1
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a series of steps or acts, including using one or more accelerometers of a smartphone to generate a plurality of time domain accelerometer output data sets. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The steps of:
(b) applying a band-pass filter to each time domain accelerometer output data set to generate filtered time domain accelerometer output data by suppressing frequencies outside of a predetermined range;
(c) applying a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) to convert each filtered time domain accelerometer output data set into a frequency domain accelerometer output data set;
(d) determining a corresponding estimated heart rate (EHR) value by selecting a frequency component of the frequency domain accelerometer output data set having a highest amplitude, thereby determining a sequence of EHR values;
(e) determining a power spectrum of each of frequency domain accelerometer output data set;
(f) normalizing each power spectrum into a normalized power spectral density;
(g) mapping the normalized power spectral density to a probability density function;
(h) determining a power spectral entropy (PSE) from the probability density function;
(i) normalizing the PSE into a normalized PSE; and
(k) adjusting, using the sequence of EA values determined in (j), the sequence of EHR values determined in (d), thereby generating a corresponding sequence of adjusted heart rate (AHR) values, wherein a weight of effect of the EHR values on the AHR values is proportionate to the EA values associated with the EHR values
set forth a judicial exception. The steps (b), (d), (e), (g), (h), and (k) describe a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The steps (b), (c), (f), and (i) describe a mathematical concept. Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process and a Mathematical Process, which are Abstract Ideas. Regarding step (b), it is noted that this step is interpreted as both a mental process and mathematical process. Applying a band-pass filter may be interpreted as mentally selecting data points or as mathematically selecting data points.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 1 recites (j) generating a sequence of estimated accuracy (EA) values by using the normalized PSE and stored spectral entropy to weight mapping information; and (l) generating an audio prompt based at least in part on the sequence of the AHR values and displaying on the smartphone a representation of at least one of the AHR values, wherein steps (a) – (l) are performed by the smartphone and timing and playback rate of the audio prompt are based at least in part on the sequence of the AHR values, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The generating of a sequence of EA values, generating an audio prompt, and displaying the representation on the smartphone do not provide an improvement to the technological field, the method does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the generated sequence of EA values, generated audio prompt, and displayed representation, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
STEP 2B
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional steps of (a) using one or more accelerometers of a smartphone to generate a plurality of time domain accelerometer output data sets, wherein each time domain accelerometer output data set contains a plurality of accelerometer output data values acquired during a predetermined period of time. Generating a plurality of time domain accelerometer output data sets is well-understood, routine and conventional activity for those in the field of medical diagnostics as Estevez ‘932 (US Pub No. 2011/0014932 – previously cited) teaches that iPhones with accelerometers are conventional smartphones. The accelerometer is also a generic sensor configured to perform pre-solutional data gathering activity. Further, the generating step is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the obtaining and comparing steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
The dependent claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they generally recite method steps pertaining to data analyzing that add to the Abstract Idea. Claims 2 and 6 recite data analyzing that add to the Abstract Idea as the steps mentioned in these claims could be performed mentally. Claim 4 is merely further defining the periods of time. Claim 7 recites displaying data, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 8 recites the use of x-, y-, and z-axis accelerometers, which are generic sensors used to perform the pre-solutional activity of data gathering. Claim 21 recites normalizing each accelerometer output data set, which could be performed mentally or by hand. This step may also be considered as a mathematical process. The steps recited in the independent claim maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that steps (a)-(l) reduce and may even eliminate reliance on external hardware or external connections, reducing systems usage of network and/or communication resources, overall footprint, and processing resources, and enable the determination of the EHR and EBR values entirely on the smartphone. However, steps (a)-(l) each recite abstract ideas of mathematical concepts and/or mental processes. Furthermore, it is unclear as to how these steps would aid in eliminating external hardware and reduce system usage as there is no recitation as to each of these steps would lead to these improvements. Furthermore, the claim merely recites the use of accelerometers on a smartphone to collect data and the smartphone for displaying. Steps (b)-(k) do not recite what components perform these steps. Thus, these steps are seen as Abstract Ideas and could be interpreted as an external computer to perform these steps.
Applicant argues that using only the smartphone accelerometer output data and no external sensors improves the accuracy of the AHR values. However, as previously mentioned, e claim merely recites the use of accelerometers on a smartphone to collect data and the smartphone for displaying. Steps (b)-(k) do not recite what components perform these steps. Thus, these steps are seen as Abstract Ideas and could be interpreted as an external computer to perform these steps. Regarding the USPTO Memorandum dated December 5, 2025, the Examiner suggests to amend the independent claim to clearly distinguish that only the accelerometers of the smartphone and any additional components of the smartphone are used to perform each of the steps (a)-(l).
Applicant argues that the “generating an audio prompt” is not a generic output of data. Applicant amends the claim to include “timing and playback rate of the audio prompt are based at least in part on the sequence of the AHR values.” However, this is still a mere output of data as there’s not clear recitation of the audio prompt being adjusted by the AHR values. Examiner suggests to amend step (l) to include that the audio prompt is being adjusted/transformed by the AHR values rather than the initial output of the audio prompt being determined by the AHR values. For example, a pre-determined audio prompt may be stored in a memory and based on the analyzing steps (b)-(k), the audio prompt is then adjusted and outputted.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AURELIE H TU whose telephone number is (571)272-8465. The examiner can normally be reached [M-F] 7:30-3:30.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/AURELIE H TU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights