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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-21 are currently pending. Claims 10-13 remain withdrawn. Claims 1 and 14 have been amended.
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 1-9 and 14-21 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 structural elements, including one or more sensors. Thus, the claim is directed to a machine, 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:
(ii) encode the actigraphy signal using an m-bit encoder;
(iii) determine a first order difference signal of the encoded actigraphy signal by subtracting every signal component from a value adjacent to the every signal component in the encoded actigraphy signal;
(iv) determine a second order difference signal from the first order difference signal, by performing the operation in step (iii) again;
(v) calculate a rapid change factor RCF using the second order difference signal, the rapid change factor RCF based on a spurious free dynamic range R of the second order difference signal, a step size SS (SS = R/2m – 1) of the encoder such that the rapid change factor RCF is calculated as RCF_factor = SS/(m x ts) such that ts is a sampling period of the second order difference signal and m is bit-depth of the encoder;
(vi) automatically define, in real-time, primary segment boundaries on the second order difference signal by: scanning through the second order difference signal and determining signal samples having a value greater than the rapid change factor RCF, wherein time values of said signal samples greater than the rapid change factor RCF define the primary segment boundaries
set forth a judicial exception;
(vii) extract frames of the encoded actigraphy signal which are between two consecutive primary segment boundaries, said extracted frames defining a compressed actigraphy signal of regions of interest depicting regions of physical activity for the user
(viii) retain the extracted frames representing the compressed actigraphy signal and discard outlying regions of the second order difference signal; and
(ix) format the extracted frames into a compressed actigraphy data format
Steps (ii)-(v) and (ix) describe a mathematical concept (including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). Step (vi) describes a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as this step could merely be a user reviewing data and selecting data points greater than RCF. Step (vii) describe both a mathematical concept and a concept performed in the human mind as this step could be either a user selecting frames that are between the boundaries or using an algorithm to select the frames. Thus, the claims are drawn to a Mathematical Process and a Mental Process, which are Abstract Ideas.
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 (x) cause the one or more communication interfaces to output, at a reduced bit-rate compared to the actigraphy signal, the formatted extracted frames and to not output the outlying regions of the second order difference signal, to an external computing device to cause the eternal computing device to store or analyze the formatted extracted frames and to not store or analyze the outlying regions of the second order difference signal, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The outputting the extracted frames does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the method does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the outputted extracted frames, 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 step of (i) receiving continuous real-time input from the accelerometer providing the actigraphy signal. Receiving input data from an accelerometer is well-understood, routine and conventional activity for those in the field of medical diagnostics. Further, the receiving 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 same rationale applies to claim 14.
Regarding claim 1, the device recited in the claim is a generic device comprising generic components configured to perform the abstract idea. The recited one or more sensors is a generic sensor configured to perform pre-solutional data gathering activity, the memory is configured to perform pre-solution data gathering activity, the one or more communication interfaces is configured to perform extra-solution activity, and the processor is configured to perform the Abstract Idea. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims. Claims 3 and 15 merely recite a generic structure to perform the Abstract Idea, claims 3-6, 8, 16-19, and 21 add to the Abstract Idea (mental process/mathematical process), claims 7 and 20 add the pre-solution activity of data gathering (receiving step) and adds a mental processing step (determining step), and claim 9 merely recites the extra-solution activity of correctly identifying the activity type and updating the database. The steps recited in the independent claims maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of the claims not reciting a mental process have been considered but are moot because the Examiner no longer relies on the claims being directed to a mental process. Regarding the step or receiving a continuous real-time input, it is noted that this is considered pre-solutional activity of data gathering. Regarding step (x) being amended o define that the formatted extracted frames is output at a reduced bit-rate, it is noted that this step still merely outputting the formatted extracted frames. Even if the frames are outputted at a reduced bit-rate, this does not provide any improvement or effect any change. Regarding Applicant’s argument that step (ii) is not a mathematical concept, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Page 16 of the Remarks filed 15 December 2025 states that this is a signal-processing operation, which is a mathematical concept. Regarding Applicant’s arguments to step (v), even if the mathematical equation is “specific,” as mentioned on page 16 of the Remarks, the equation is still a mathematical concept.
Applicant argues that the claims are anchored in a practical application as the specification states that the system provides improved battery usage and memory consumption and addresses a computer related problem of bandwidth efficiency. Even if the specification states this, there is no indication in the claims as to how the steps would provide improved batter usage and memory consumption. It is noted that step (x) has been amended to state that the formatted extracted frames are outputted at a reduced bit-rate. However, there is nothing in the previous steps that would lead to this reduced bit-rate as the steps are merely mathematical steps. As mentioned above, even if the frames are outputted at a reduced bit-rate, this does not provide any improvement or effect any change.
Applicant argues that the claims are not well-understood, routine, or conventional and provides a clear improvement of reducing bit-rate. However, continuous real-time data is merely pre-solutional activity of data gathering and outputting the formatted extracted frames at a reduced bit-rate is merely a generic output. Furthermore, there is nothing in the claims that would cause the reduction in bit-rate as the steps merely recite mathematical processes. It is unclear as to how the steps would lead to outputting the frames at the reduced bit-rate. Furthermore, Fig. 1 of the field Drawings show well-understood structures such as processors, display, communication units, accelerometers, instruction module, handheld smart devices, computing devices, network, and storage server. As such, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been maintained.
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