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 .
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, 5-7, 10-12, 14-17, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1.
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 11, the claims recite system and method. Thus, the claims are directed to a machine/apparatus and a method/process which each are one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1.
Each of Claims 1, 5, and 11 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or mathematical concept under the 2019 PEG.
The claim(s) recite(s):
“individually identify the subjects… during the exertion event”
“retrieve,…one or more previously determined… with a confidence level above a threshold”
“each of the identified subjects…generate in real time… that corresponds to the subject’s actual heart rate with a confidence level above a threshold value… the dynamic physiological response models.”
These limitations describe a mental process as the skilled artisan is capable of performing the recited limitations and making mental assessment thereafter. The Examiner notes that nothing from the claims suggests the limitations cannot be physically performed by a human, or using a simple pen/paper. Additionally, these limitations may also be considered mathematical concepts, depending on the algorithms used, may be simple mathematical computations.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, integrates the identified judicial exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the additional limitations are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant pre-solution and post-solution activity e.g., mere generic sensors and exercise equipment, receiving data, outputting data.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations recite well-known structural limitations (generically recited sensors, exercise components, and generically recited computer parts, etc.) and as such, do not amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception. Examiner takes official notice that the additional limitations are conventional components in prior analyte monitoring systems. The claim limitations gather the data through conventional means and then perform a mental process or mathematical concept and do not do anything significant with the data thus providing a practical application of the data analysis.
The following references are provided as evidence that exercise monitoring of physiological parameters with the use of exercise equipment such as a treadmill or exercise bike was well known, routine, and conventional in the art: Guerrero (2015/0105881), Itoh (2017/0274250), Bleich (2018/0296157), Leon (5,365,934), and Anderson (4,463,764)
Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3.
Furthermore, the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(lI) note the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of such additional generic computer components as those claimed. See option III. A. 2. in the Berkheimer memorandum.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the units associated with the steps do not add meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. A processor or equivalent hardware is merely used as a tool for executing the abstract idea(s). The process claimed does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of the computer.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (i.e. the generic computer functions
and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
The dependent claims fail to add anything that would bring the application into practical application or beyond step 2B, and mostly further limit the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10-12, 14-17, and 21-23 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Response to Arguments
It is noted this application is being reopened because claims 21-23 were missed in the last office action.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/10/2026 regarding the 35USC101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that generation and application of the claims dynamic physiologic response models is a highly complex process and is beyond the capabilities of a mental process. The Examiner notes that retrieving the data by well known sensing components is part of the extra-solution activity of the claim and not particularly the mental process. Once the data is obtained, a skilled artisan would be capable of, for example, to individually identify the subjects from one or both of the corresponding exertion signals indicating the exertion level or the corresponding physiological signals indicating corresponding heart rate data during the exertion event. The Examiner notes that separation of the data gathering process and extra solution activity versus the identifying/determining steps in what is considered a mental process/abstract idea. Furthermore, the applicant argues that the data gathered is a highly accurate heart rate value when direct measurements are not available which is a significant technological improvement. However, this improvement appears to be only within the judicial exception which cannot overcome a 101 rejection. See MPEP 2106.04(d).I. which states adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate into practical application. Simply displaying the result is considered insignificant. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Applicant further argues that the complexity is increased when considering the “a plurality of exertion monitors.. within the venue” limitation in conjuncture with the “for each of the…synthetically generated heart rate… response models”. The Examiner notes the Applicant argues that this occurs when heart rate monitoring is not available. The Examiner questions whether an “exertion monitor” could not be construed as a heart rate monitor? Otherwise, the negative construction of the claim (i.e. without heart rate monitoring) does not appear to be within the metes and bounds of the current claim set.
Regarding the arguments with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner disagrees that this isn’t insignificant extra solution activity as the claim recites essentially an estimated heart rate with some confidence level. It is noted that most heart rate sensors would be estimating a heart rate with some error percentage, depending on whatever algorithm they use to calculate.
Regarding the arguments with respect to Step 2B, the Examiner notes that the additional elements need to be structural/components. It is unclear which of the numerous additional elements the applicant is referring to. If referring to the functional limitations that describe the algorithm performed or the extra solution activity, those wouldn’t be considered additional elements but rather part of the abstract idea or extra solution activity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX M VALVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-4233. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
ALEX M. VALVIS
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights