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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 28, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed October 28, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 14-22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, and 38 are pending.
Claims 11, 13, 23, 31-37, 39, and 40 are previously cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments are insufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner notes that claim 30 is withdrawn from examination, as per the Response to Election/Restriction Filed dated August 9, 2024.
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, 5-10, 12, 14-22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 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 (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 (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 (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).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 28, 2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 9-11):
Applicant respectfully disagrees that amended independent claims 1, 25, 27, 30, and 38 recite an abstract idea in the form of a mental process at least because independent claims 1, 25, 27, 30, and 38 cannot practically be performed in the human mind for several reasons.
First, Applicant submits that the independent claims are directed to methods that cannot be practically performed in the human mind because the claimed methods involve a several-step manipulation of data… Second, Applicant submits that the independent claims are directed to methods that cannot practically be performed in the human mind because the methods involve the manipulation of time- dependent data and the use of hardware essential to the method.
Applicant’s claimed manipulation of data does not recite any limitation which are precluded from being performed in the human mind or by pen and paper practice. Even should the amount of data be considered, see Bancorps:
Indeed, humans routinely processed large amounts of data by hand before the advent of computers. As our reviewing court has explained, “the fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter. Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Applicant’s reference to TQP is irrelevant because the method of TQP in its simplest form could not be conceivably performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Taking claim 1 into consideration, Applicant’s invention requires time-dependent mechanical cardiac data of the user. Nothing in the claim specifies what form such data is in, nor how much data is required. Simply appending the term “time-dependent” to the term “mechanical cardiac data” does not make the analysis of such data complex enough to be precluded from mental/paper performance because the term “time-dependent” is interpretable as including a time stamp or particular ordering of data points. Additionally, the claim terms “first time period” and “second time period” are undefined; even if such time periods were elongated to include a large amount of data, refer to Bancorps cited previously. Independent claims 25, 27, and 38 are similarly broad in scope, and merely recite “time-dependent cardiac data” obtained from known sensors.
Lastly, Applicant’s citation of SirfTech is also irrelevant because it is not sufficiently analogous to Applicant’s invention. SirfTech differs in that the particular type of data generated required reference to the sensors providing the data generation itself (i.e., generation of pseudoranges from a particular GPS receiver to a plurality of satellites). Applicant’s invention merely obtains two types of known sensor data and performs processing thereon to provide an estimate of blood pressure. Claims 1, 25, and 27 recite a method and does not recite a particular machine, but rather the processing of data obtained from known sensors. Similarly, claim 38 is directed to a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium which is configured to be executed by a processor to carry out abstract idea steps; the processor is also not considered a particular machine, but a general purpose computer used to carry out steps of the method.
While Applicant makes emphasis that the claims do not recite a mental process which cannot be “practically performed” in the human mind, Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed towards a narrower construction than what is claimed and interpreted by Examiner.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (Remarks, pages 10-12):
First as discussed in Applicant's previous response, the claimed invention qualitatively improves upon conventional methods of determining blood pressure while maintaining a high level of accuracy. As set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(J), "the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity." (See also MPEP § 2106.05(a)). Applicant's claimed invention qualitatively improves upon conventional methods of determining blood pressure. For example, by using an accelerometer to measure time-dependent mechanical cardia data, Applicant's claimed invention provides non-medical professionals the ability to comfortably, compactly, portably, accurately, continuously or semi-continuously, non-invasively, and discretely estimate blood pressure without interrupting their daily activities with little training and without significant up-keep.
Again, the inventive concept necessary at step two of the Mayo/Alice analysis cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself. That is, under the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility; instead, the application must provide something inventive, beyond mere “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; see also Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2117; Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1379.
Abstract ideas cannot provide a practical application or significantly more (e.g., an improvement). Both Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B require an additional element, not an abstract idea, to provide a practical application or significantly more (e.g., an improvement). Applicant attempts to imply improvements without discussion of additional elements outside of the judicial exception.
Regarding Applicant’s argument:
As discussed in part in Applicant's previous remarks, the claimed invention integrates particular machines into the claimed methods and succeeds the machine-or-transformation test. Applicant's independent claims 1, 25, 27, and 30, each explicitly require the use of one or more particular machines, and in particular, a respective accelerometer, electrode and accelerometer, electrocardiogram (ECG) sensor and seismocardiogram (SCG) sensor, and cardiac sensor. Such machines are "specifically identified" and are clearly not "any and all machines" or "general purpose computers." (See MPEP § 2106.05(b)(J).) Furthermore, the use of an accelerometer, electrode, ECG sensor, SCG sensor, and cardiac sensor are not merely to improve the efficiency or speed of the method, but are integral to the method by providing the particular hardware for measuring time-dependent cardiac data, ultimately for use in estimating blood pressure. (See MPEP 2106.5(B)(JJ).)”
Again, claim 30 is withdrawn from examination as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Applicant’s claims are directed to method steps requiring data gather from known sensors. Claim 1 requires that the system requires solely an accelerometer. Independent claim 25 requires an electrode and an accelerometer. Independent claim 27 requires an ECG and SCG sensor. Independent claim 38 requires any sensor which is capable of obtaining “time-dependent cardiac data.” It appears that the “the use of an accelerometer, electrode, ECG sensor, SCG sensor, and cardiac sensor” as recited by Applicant is 1) not required in totality, and 2) not required in particular combination in each claim. Thus, the central thrust of Applicant’s invention appears to be the particular processing of data, and is directed to the abstract idea itself rather than any particular arrangement of sensors. Even so, in each independent claim, the sensors are not directed to a particular machine, and are each directed to extra-solution data-gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(b).II:
Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978))
Regarding Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 13-15):
Evaluating the claims as a whole and under the relevant factors, as discussed above, each of the claims clearly contains additional elements that when considered with the other limitations of that claim amount to an inventive concept. For example, as recited by claim 1, using an accelerometer to measure time-dependent mechanical cardiac data of a user, 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, and estimating the blood pressure of a user based on the mechanical cardiac parameter values provides and inventive concept that is both tied to a particular machine (e.g., and accelerometer) and provides technological improvements, as discussed above.
Each additional element has been addressed. See rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. None of the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Sensors cited in method steps are merely extra-solution data-gathering tools. No further additional elements outside of the judicial exception provide Applicant’s alleged improvement.
For each of the reasons above, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Conclusion
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/Examiner, Art Unit 3791