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
The amendment filed April 27, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-22, 24-25, 27, 29, and 38 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments are insufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
In the interview held April 10, 2026, the concept of synchronously obtaining first, second, and third cardiograph waveforms along different axes was considered to tentatively overcome the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 since such limitations potentially recited particular operation of a sensor which could be significantly more than how seismocardiography sensors operate. However, in light of further consideration and teachings from additional prior art, it appears that the concept of obtaining SCG waveforms from multi-axis accelerometers is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional. See updated rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 below. Each of the additional references of Pallas, Narasimhan, Lin, and Giovangrandi recite obtaining SCG signals from multi-axis accelerometers, described in such a way that such a feature is understood to be sufficiently well-known that the disclosures of each of the cited prior art references do not need to describe the particulars of the hardware or processing for carrying out such sensing in order to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3).
Thus, Applicant’s invention is directed towards 1) obtaining SCG signals considered well-known to be obtainable from conventional multi-axis accelerometers, and 2) carrying out a series of evaluations on the obtained data to provide an estimate of blood pressure. Point 1) is directed to extra-solution activity carried out by well-known, understood, and routine sensors. Point 2) is the abstract idea of evaluation of obtained data. Taken either alone or in combination, the features of the claims are thus insufficient to amount to significantly more. As per MPEP 2106.05(a):
“It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below.”
The claims thus do not recite additional elements to the abstract idea which provide the improvement. The operations of the independent claims may be carried out by obtaining data from a conventional multi-axis accelerometer, and performing evaluations on the received multi-axis signals to parse first, second, and third SCG waveforms corresponding to differing axes.
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 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-22, 24-25, 27, 29, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Each claim has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of the claims recite steps or instructions for using features from one or more transient oscillatory or pseudo-oscillatory bursts from a subject to predict a change in mental state of the subject to transmit an input command, which is grouped as a mental process. Accordingly, each of the claims recites an abstract idea.
Independent claim 1 recites:
measuring, using an accelerometer, time-dependent mechanical cardiac data of a user, wherein the time-dependent mechanical cardiac data comprises first, second, and third seismocardiograph (SCG) waveforms measured synchronously along different axes (data gathering, additional element);
generating, from the time-dependent mechanical cardiac data, mechanical cardiac parameter values for a first time period and a second time period for each of a plurality of mechanical cardiac parameters comprising an SCG wave amplitude, an area under a power spectral density curve, and a zero crossing rate (evaluation, observation, or judgement);
estimating the blood pressure of the user based on a sum of changes in the mechanical cardiac parameter values between the first and second time periods for the plurality of mechanical cardiac parameters (evaluation, observation, or judgement).
Independent claim 25 recites:
measuring time-dependent cardiac data of a user at first and second time periods using an electrode and an accelerometer, wherein the time-dependent cardiac data comprises first, second, and third seismocardiograph waveforms measured synchronously along different axes (data gathering, additional element);
receiving a reference blood pressure of the user, and cohort cardiac data associated with the user (data gathering),
generating first and second values for each of a plurality of mechanical cardiac parameters corresponding to the respective first and second time periods using the measured time-dependent cardiac data, the plurality of mechanical cardiac parameters comprising an SCG wave amplitude, an area under a power spectral density curve, and a zero crossing rate (evaluation, observation, or judgement); and
estimating the blood pressure of the user based on the reference blood pressure, the cohort cardiac data, and a sum of changes between the first and second values for the plurality of mechanical cardiac parameters (evaluation, observation, or judgement).
Independent claim 27 recites:
measuring time-dependent cardiac data using an electrocardiogram (ECG) sensor and a seismocardiogram (SCG) sensor each attached to a skin of a user's upper left chest, wherein the time-dependent cardiac data comprises mechanical cardiac data comprising first, second, and third seismocardiograph waveforms measured synchronously along different axes using the SCG sensor (data gathering, additional element);
receiving a reference blood pressure of the user at first and second time periods (data gathering);
generating electrical cardiac parameter values corresponding to an R wave timepoint and a T wave timepoint using the time-dependent cardiac data (evaluation, observation, or judgement);
generating first and second values for a plurality of mechanical cardiac parameter corresponding to the respective first and second time periods based at least in part on the R wave and T wave timepoints, wherein the plurality of mechanical cardiac parameters comprises an SCG wave amplitude, an area under a power spectral density curve, and a zero crossing rate (evaluation, observation, or judgement);
receiving cohort cardiac data associated with the user for the mechanical cardiac parameter (data gathering); and
estimating the blood pressure of the user based on the reference blood pressure, the cohort cardiac data, and a change between the first and second values for the mechanical cardiac parameter (evaluation, observation, or judgement).
Independent claim 38 recites:
A non-transitory processor-readable storage medium configured to be executed by a processor and comprising instructions to (additional element):
obtain cardiac data of a user for a first time period and a second time period, wherein the time-dependent cardiac data comprises first, second, and third seismocardiograph waveforms measured synchronously along different axes (data gathering);
obtain a reference blood pressure of the user and cohort cardiac data associated with the user (data gathering);
generate, using the cardiac data, first and second values for mechanical cardiac parameters corresponding to the respective first and second time periods for each of a plurality of mechanical cardiac parameters, the plurality of mechanical cardiac parameters comprising an SCG wave amplitude, an area under a power spectral density curve, and a zero crossing rate (evaluation, observation, or judgement); and
estimate a blood pressure of the user based on the reference blood pressure, the cohort cardiac data, and a sum of changes between the first and second values for the plurality of mechanical cardiac parameters (evaluation, observation, or judgement).
As indicated above, each of independent claims 1, 25, 27, and 38 each recite at least one step or instruction grouped as a mental process, and can be identified as an observation, judgement, or evaluation. Each additional element identified merely performs insignificant activity of data gathering/processing which is extra-solution to the mental process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
These limitations are similar to those found in In re Grams (888 F.2d 835, 12 USPQ2d 1824 (Fed. Cir. 1989)) and collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Therefore, the independent claims (and claims dependent therefrom) recite the judicial exception of an abstract idea of a mental process. Thus, the claims are directed to at least one judicial exception.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea or extra-solution components and amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Claim 1 generically recites the use of an accelerometer. Claim 25 generically recites the use of an electrode and an accelerometer. Claim 27 generically recites the use of an electrocardiogram (ECG) sensor and a seismocardiogram (SCG) sensor. Claim 38 generically recites generic computer components of a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium configured to be executed by a processor and comprising instructions.
Each of the above additional elements do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Acquiring data from a generically-recited sensors amounts to insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, which does not constitute an integration into a practical application.
The non-transitory processor-readable storage medium configured to be executed by a processor and comprising instructions is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of performing calculations on data received from extra-solution data-gathering components) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Such additional elements do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation 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.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention, as read in light of the specification, merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process or mathematical concept) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., processing circuitry or implicit algorithms of an artificial neural network). 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. Thus, for these reasons, the abstract idea identified is not integrated into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claims are each directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
None of the claims include additional elements that, when viewed as a whole, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Each additional element identified above are generically-recited sensors utilized for data-gathering, which is considered extra-solution activity. No special programming or algorithms are indicated for how an accelerometer, electrode, SCG, and ECG sensor operate. 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 medical technology arts. Thus, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the medical technology industry or medical technology arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements identified above because it describes such 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 Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
Examiner further notes that the concept of obtaining an SCG signal from multi-axis electrodes is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, as known from at least:
Pallas et al. (US 20190320942 A1) – Paragraph 0007: “An alternative method to obtain information about mechanical activity derived from systolic activity and that requires less subject preparation is from fiducial points of the seismocardiogram (SCG), commonly obtained from an accelerometer placed on the thorax… the position of the sensor strongly affects the shape and amplitude of the measure signal, and its orientation can cause a crossing between measurement axes, which increases measurement uncertainty.” Examiner notes that since plural term “axes” are used, and since measurement axes may cross over during measurement, it is understood that the “commonly obtained” SCG signal comprises measurement “synchronously along different axes” as required by the claim.
Narasimhan et al. (US 20170281024 A1) – Paragraph 0086: “FIG. 7 shows example x-axis acceleration, y-axis acceleration, z-axis acceleration, and vector-sum acceleration SCG plots measured using an accelerometer held in contact with a subject's chest;” Examiner notes that Narasimhan does not describe further processing required to obtain an SCG signal aside from measurement using a non-descript accelerometer, thus recognizing that the hardware of an accelerometer, its multi-axis output, and its capability to obtain SCG signals are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Lin et al. (US 20160235342 A1) – Paragraph 0063: “The typical type of accelerometer chip can be piezo-resistive, capacitive, piezoelectric and resonant while the preferred one is produced and sold by the American company ADXL or the European company STM. The accelerometer chip is used to measure the vibrations on the body surface and to acquire at least one mechanocardiography (MCG), which is also known as a seismocardiography (SCG).” Since Lin states that a multi-axis accelerometer may be used to obtain a signal “also known as a seismocardiography,” it is implied that the concept of obtaining SCG signals from multi-axis accelerometers is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Giovangrandi et al. (US 20110021928 A1) – Paragraph 0084: “An accelerometer is a device that measures, on contact, the acceleration of a surface via a sensing element. Typically, when the accelerometer is subjected to an acceleration, the movement of a proof mass is converted to electricity via piezoelectric, piezoresistive or capacitive transduction. Micromachined accelerometers are miniature accelerometers that can integrate multiple axis and typically contain conditioning circuitry for easy interfacing with standard electronics. They can be very small (less than 5.times.5.times.2 mm), lightweight and low-power. Chest-worn accelerometers have been shown to detect seismocardiogram (SCG) signals that contain indicators of the primary heart sounds S1 and S2.” Giovangrandi’s recitation that generally known multi-axis accelerometers “have been shown to detect” SCG data indicates that such a signal and hardware are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional.
The identified element of a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium configured to be executed by a processor and comprising instructions is described solely by function and is reasonably construed as a generic computing device.
The dependent claims merely recite additional limitations pertaining to the data gathered, additional extra-solution components, or generic computer activity (i.e., display of information) in performing the mental process.
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 computers and sensors, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in the claims amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery (e.g., known sensors) 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 does not provide significantly more. See 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.
For at least the above reasons, the claims are directed to applying an abstract idea on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. In other words, none of the claims provide 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.
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 do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, 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. 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. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, 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. Thus, the claims merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field.
Therefore, none of the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.
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 JUSTIN XU whose telephone number is (571)272-6617. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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 on (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.
/JUSTIN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights