DETAILED ACTION
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 action is in response to amendments filed on 03/20/2026. Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 16-17, 19, 29 have been amended. Claims 2 and 18 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3-17,19-21, 23, 27-29 are pending and examined below.
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.
Regarding claims 1, 3-16, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to receiving and manipulating data without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “A device for non-invasively measuring hemodynamic variables, the device comprising: a sensor configured to sense a pulse of a person and to generate signals indicative of the pulse of the person; a support structure physically coupled to the sensor to physically support the sensor during operation of the sensor; and a processor in communication with the sensor configured to: collect the signals indicative of the pulse of the person from the sensor, determine, from the signals, a waveform representative of the pulse, perform signal processing on the waveform to identify features of the waveform, including deconstructing the waveform to determine an incident pulse waveform and a reflected pulse waveform, determine (i) a time delay between the incident pulse waveform and the reflected pulse waveform, (ii) an amplitude of the incident pulse waveform, and (iii) an amplitude of the reflected pulse waveform, determine, from the amplitude of the incident pulse waveform and the amplitude of the reflected pulse waveform, a reflection coefficient, and determine, from the time delay between the incident pulse waveform and the reflected pulse waveform and the reflection coefficient, a hemodynamic variable of a person.”
This falls into a mental process grouping of abstract ideas. These limitations are either capable of being performed mentally by looking at measurements and making mental assessments thereafter or considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
The step of collecting the signals indicative of the pulse of the person from the sensor is insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering).
The step determining, from the signals, a waveform representative of the pulse is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind or by a pencil and paper by a skilled clinician.
The step of performing signal processing on the waveform to identify features of the waveform including deconstructing the waveform to determine an incident pulse waveform and a reflected waveform is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind or by a pencil and paper by a skilled clinician.
The step of determining (i) a time delay between the incident pulse waveform and the reflected pulse waveform, (ii) an amplitude of the incident pulse waveform, and (iii) an amplitude of the reflected pulse waveform is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind or by a pencil and paper by a skilled clinician.
The step of determining, from the amplitude of the incident pulse waveform and the amplitude of the reflected pulse waveform, a reflection coefficient is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind or by a pencil and paper by a skilled clinician.
The step of determining, from the time delay between the incident pulse waveform and the reflected pulse waveform and the reflection coefficient, a hemodynamic variable of a person is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind or by a pencil and paper by a skilled clinician.
The step of performing processing on the features to determine a hemodynamic variable of the person is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind or by a pencil and paper by a skilled clinician.
Additionally the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of a processor for performing the steps is, at its broadest reasonable interpretation, a generic computer structure for performing the generic computer function of data processing, which does not qualify as an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Likewise, the inclusion of generic sensor with support structure (a band) for measuring data is merely insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, which also does not qualify as an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Finally, the claims analyzed as a whole do not provides any element, or combination of elements, sufficient to amount to significantly more than the mental process as only a processor and generic sensor for data collection are claimed. As noted previously, the addition of a generic computer structure for performing the generic computer function of data processing and the inclusion of a generic sensor for gathering data (merely insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering), does not qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additionally, the claimed sensors are well-understood, routine and conventional activity and thus do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The following examples show that the generic sensor with a band is well understood, routine, and conventional activity: US 20170095171 A1 (as shown in Figure 3).
Regarding dependent claims 2-16, the claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea or provide insignificant extra solution activity.
Regarding claim 17, and claims dependent thereof, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to receiving and manipulating data without significantly more.
Claim 17 recites “A method for noninvasive measurement of hemodynamic variables, the method comprising: physically configuring a sensor to measure the pulse of a person; generating, by the sensor, a pulse waveform indicative of the pulse of the person; obtaining, by a processor, the pulse waveform from the sensor; deconstructing the waveform to determine an incident pulse waveform and a reflected pulse waveform; determining, by the processor, a reflection coefficient and a delay between an incident wave and reflected wave from the obtained pulse waveform; determining, by the processor, (I) a time delay between the incident pulse waveform and reflected pulse waveform, (ii) an amplitude of the incident pulse waveform, and (iii) an amplitude of the reflected pulse waveform; determining, by the processor, a reflection coefficient from the amplitude of the incident pulse waveform and the amplitude of the reflected pulse waveform; and determining, by the processor, the hemodynamic variables of the person from the reflection coefficient.”
This falls into a mental process grouping of abstract ideas. These limitations are either capable of being performed mentally by looking at measurements and making mental assessments thereafter or considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
The steps of physically configuring a sensor to measure the pulse of a person and generating, by the sensor, a pulse waveform indicative of the pulse of the person are insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering).
The step of obtaining, by a processor, the pulse waveform from the sensor is insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering).
The step of deconstructing the waveform to determine an incident pulse waveform and a reflected waveform is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind or by a pencil and paper by a skilled clinician.
The step of determining a reflection coefficient and a delay between an incident wave and reflected wave from the obtained pulse waveform is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind or by a pencil and paper by a skilled clinician.
The step of determining (I) a time delay between the incident pulse waveform and reflected pulse waveform, (ii) an amplitude of the incident pulse waveform, and (iii) an amplitude of the reflected pulse waveform is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind or by a pencil and paper by a skilled clinician.
The step of determining (I) a time delay between the incident pulse waveform and reflected pulse waveform, (ii) an amplitude of the incident pulse waveform, and (iii) an amplitude of the reflected pulse waveform is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind or by a pencil and paper by a skilled clinician.
The step of determining a reflection coefficient from the amplitude of the incident pulse waveform and the amplitude of the reflected pulse waveform is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind or by a pencil and paper by a skilled clinician.
The step of determining the hemodynamic variables of the person from the reflection coefficient is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind.
Additionally the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of a processor for performing the steps is, at its broadest reasonable interpretation, a generic computer structure for performing the generic computer function of data processing, which does not qualify as an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Likewise, the inclusion of a generic sensor for measuring data is merely insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, which also does not qualify as an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Finally, the claims analyzed as a whole do not provides any element, or combination of elements, sufficient to amount to significantly more than the mental process as only a processor and generic sensor for data collection are claimed. As noted previously, the addition of a generic computer structure for performing the generic computer function of data processing and the inclusion of a generic sensor for gathering data (merely insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering), does not qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additionally, the claimed sensors are well-understood, routine and conventional activity and thus do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The following examples show that the generic sensor is well understood, routine, and conventional activity: US 20170095171 A1 (as shown in Figure 3); US 20090312653 A1
Regarding dependent claims 18-28, the claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea or provide insignificant extra solution activity.
Regarding claim 29, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to receiving and manipulating data without significantly more.
Claim 29 recites “A device for non-invasively measuring hemodynamic variables, the device comprising:
a sensor configured to sense a pulse of a person and to generate signals indicative of the pulse of the person;
a support structure physically coupled to the sensor to physically support the sensor during operation of the sensor; and
a processor in communication with the sensor configured to:
collect the signals indicative of the pulse of the person from the sensor,
determine, from the signals, a waveform representative of the pulse,
deconstruct the waveform to determine an incident pulse waveform and a reflected pulse waveform,
determine an amplitude of the reflected pulse waveform;
determine a time delay of the reflected pulse waveform;
determine, from the amplitude of the incident pulse waveform and the amplitude of the reflected pulse waveform, a reflection coefficient, and
determine one or more additional hemodynamic variable of the person from the amplitude and time delay of the reflected pulse waveform, wherein the hemodynamic variables includes at least one of blood pressure, cardiac output, and vascular resistance.”
This falls into a mental process grouping of abstract ideas. These limitations are either capable of being performed mentally by looking at measurements and making mental assessments thereafter or considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
The step of collecting the signals indicative of the pulse of the person from the sensor is insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering).
The step determining, from the signals, a waveform representative of the pulse is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind or by a pencil and paper by a skilled clinician.
The step of deconstructing the waveform to determine an incident pulse waveform and a reflected pulse waveform is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind or by a pencil and paper by a skilled clinician.
The step of determining an amplitude of the reflected pulse waveform is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind or by a pencil and paper by a skilled clinician.
The step of determining a time delay of the reflected pulse waveform is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind or by a pencil and paper by a skilled clinician.
The step of determining from the amplitude of the incident pulse waveform and the amplitude of the reflected pulse waveform, a reflection coefficient is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind or by a pencil and paper by a skilled clinician.
The step of determining a hemodynamic variable of the person from the amplitude and time delay of the reflected pulse waveform, wherein the hemodynamic variables includes at least one of blood pressure, cardiac output, and vascular resistance is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind or by a pencil and paper by a skilled clinician.
Additionally the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of a processor for performing the steps is, at its broadest reasonable interpretation, a generic computer structure for performing the generic computer function of data processing, which does not qualify as an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Likewise, the inclusion of generic sensor with support structure (a band) for measuring data is merely insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, which also does not qualify as an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Finally, the claims analyzed as a whole do not provides any element, or combination of elements, sufficient to amount to significantly more than the mental process as only a processor and generic sensor for data collection are claimed. As noted previously, the addition of a generic computer structure for performing the generic computer function of data processing and the inclusion of a generic sensor for gathering data (merely insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering), does not qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additionally, the claimed sensors are well-understood, routine and conventional activity and thus do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The following examples show that the generic sensor with a band is well understood, routine, and conventional activity: US 20170095171 A1 (as shown in Figure 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/20/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/20/2026 in regards to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 17, and 29, Applicant traverses the 35 USC 101 rejections.
Specifically, Applicant argues that the invention has been integrated into a practical application (step 2A prong 2) and is significantly more than mental process.
As discussed in the 35 USC 101 rejection above the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of a processor for performing the steps is, at its broadest reasonable interpretation, a generic computer structure for performing the generic computer function of data processing, which does not qualify as an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Likewise, the inclusion of a generic sensor for measuring data is merely insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, which also does not qualify as an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further. as discussed in the 35 USC 101 rejection above, the claims analyzed as a whole do not provides any element, or combination of elements, sufficient to amount to significantly more than the mental process as only a processor and generic sensor for data collection are claimed. As noted previously, the addition of a generic computer structure for performing the generic computer function of data processing and the inclusion of a generic sensor for gathering data (merely insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering), does not qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additionally, the claimed sensors are well-understood, routine and conventional activity and thus do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The following examples show that the generic sensor with a band is well understood, routine, and conventional activity: US 20170095171 A1 (as shown in Figure 3).
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 ABID A MUSTANSIR whose telephone number is (408)918-7647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 am to 6 pm Pacific Time.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/ABID A MUSTANSIR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791