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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/27/2025 has been entered.
Claims Pending
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 12 and addition of claims 16-18 in the response filed 05/27/2025 and previous cancellation of claims 2 and 6 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-11, and 13-18 are the current claims hereby under examination.
Specification – Objection Withdrawn
Applicant’s amendments, filed 11/06/2024, have been fully considered, and the previous objections withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, “promoting” (line 4), should read -prompting- (Examiner's Note: “promoting” could potentially work, however, it appears that -prompting- was the intended word in light of the rest of the claims.)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one of the one or more diagnostic tasks comprising the subject to tap on a visual representation of an object on the one or more user interfaces as fast as possible in a predetermined amount of time, the visual representation of the object disappearing from the one or more user interfaces upon being tapped and then reappearing on the one or more user interfaces after disappearing”, which is considered to be new matter, as the applicant did not previously indicate a diagnostic task that specifically involves “the visual representation of the object disappearing from the one or more user interfaces upon being tapped and then reappearing on the one or more user interfaces after disappearing”. The applicant does state “A test for pressure measuring of finger strength by pressure measurement was implemented on a mobile phone (iPhone). The patients (subjects) shall tap the monster with the index finger such that the monsters go back into their dens. The phone should be placed on a table. The monsters should be tapped as fast as possible. The patient must select the preferred hand to use. The patient needs to play a game for 30 seconds aiming to obtain the maximum pressure of a single tap. Measurements are also taken to determine the median time to tap a monster after its appearance, as well as the total number of monsters tapped within the time period of 30 seconds….” (Page 17 of applicant’s spec.). However, while this does indicate that the subjects tap the monster with a finger back into the den and that monsters appear, this does not make an indication that the test itself involves “object disappearing from the one or more user interfaces upon being tapped and then reappearing on the one or more user interfaces after disappearing”. More specifically, it does not directly link the disappearance of the object to a subsequent reappearance of the same object. As such, the claim limitation is considered to be new matter and is rejected.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “one or more diagnostic tasks comprising the subject tapping on a visual representation of an object on the one or more user interfaces as fast as possible in a predetermined amount of time, the visual representation of the object disappearing from the one or more user interfaces upon being tapped and then reappearing on the one or more user interfaces after disappearing”, which is considered to be new matter, as the applicant did not previously indicate a diagnostic task that specifically involves “the visual representation of the object disappearing from the one or more user interfaces upon being tapped and then reappearing on the one or more user interfaces after disappearing”. The applicant does state “A test for pressure measuring of finger strength by pressure measurement was implemented on a mobile phone (iPhone). The patients (subjects) shall tap the monster with the index finger such that the monsters go back into their dens. The phone should be placed on a table. The monsters should be tapped as fast as possible. The patient must select the preferred hand to use. The patient needs to play a game for 30 seconds aiming to obtain the maximum pressure of a single tap. Measurements are also taken to determine the median time to tap a monster after its appearance, as well as the total number of monsters tapped within the time period of 30 seconds….” (Page 17 of applicant’s spec.). However, while this does indicate that the subjects tap the monster with a finger back into the den and that monsters appear, this does not make an indication that the test itself involves “object disappearing from the one or more user interfaces upon being tapped and then reappearing on the one or more user interfaces after disappearing”. More specifically, it does not directly link the disappearance of the object to a subsequent reappearance of the same object. As such, the claim limitation is considered to be new matter and is rejected.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “at least one of the diagnostic tasks requiring the subject to tap on a visual representation of an object on the one or more user interface as fast as possible during a predetermined amount of time, the visual representation of the object disappearing from the one or more user interfaces upon being tapped and then reappearing on the one or more user interfaces after disappearing”, which is considered to be new matter, as the applicant did not previously indicate a diagnostic task that specifically involves “the visual representation of the object disappearing from the one or more user interfaces upon being tapped and then reappearing on the one or more user interfaces after disappearing”. The applicant does state “A test for pressure measuring of finger strength by pressure measurement was implemented on a mobile phone (iPhone). The patients (subjects) shall tap the monster with the index finger such that the monsters go back into their dens. The phone should be placed on a table. The monsters should be tapped as fast as possible. The patient must select the preferred hand to use. The patient needs to play a game for 30 seconds aiming to obtain the maximum pressure of a single tap. Measurements are also taken to determine the median time to tap a monster after its appearance, as well as the total number of monsters tapped within the time period of 30 seconds….” (Page 17 of applicant’s spec.). However, while this does indicate that the subjects tap the monster with a finger back into the den and that monsters appear, this does not make an indication that the test itself involves “object disappearing from the one or more user interfaces upon being tapped and then reappearing on the one or more user interfaces after disappearing”. More specifically, it does not directly link the disappearance of the object to a subsequent reappearance of the same object. As such, the claim limitation is considered to be new matter and is rejected.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a diagnostic task by tapping on a visual representation of an object as fast as possible in a predefined amount of time, the visual representation of the object disappearing on the one or more user interfaces upon being tapped by the subject and reappearing on the one or more user interfaces after disappearing”, which is considered to be new matter, as the applicant did not previously indicate a diagnostic task that specifically involves “the visual representation of the object disappearing on the one or more user interfaces upon being tapped by the subject and reappearing on the one or more user interfaces after disappearing”. The applicant does state “A test for pressure measuring of finger strength by pressure measurement was implemented on a mobile phone (iPhone). The patients (subjects) shall tap the monster with the index finger such that the monsters go back into their dens. The phone should be placed on a table. The monsters should be tapped as fast as possible. The patient must select the preferred hand to use. The patient needs to play a game for 30 seconds aiming to obtain the maximum pressure of a single tap. Measurements are also taken to determine the median time to tap a monster after its appearance, as well as the total number of monsters tapped within the time period of 30 seconds….” (Page 17 of applicant’s spec.). However, while this does indicate that the subjects tap the monster with a finger back into the den and that monsters appear, this does not make an indication that the test itself involves “object disappearing on the one or more user interfaces upon being tapped by the subject and reappearing on the one or more user interfaces after disappearing”. More specifically, it does not directly link the disappearance of the object to a subsequent reappearance of the same object. As such, the claim limitation is considered to be new matter and is rejected.
Claims 1, 5, and 9 recite the limitation “a total number of appearances of the visual representation of the object on the one or more user interfaces during the predetermined amount of time”, which is considered to be new matter, as the applicant did not previously make an indication as to a measurement of the total amount of appearances of the object. The applicant’s specification does state “Measurements are also taken to determine the median time to tap a monster after its appearance, as well as the total number of monsters tapped within the time period of 30 seconds. The standard deviation of maximal pressure, the median of maximal pressure, the maximum pressure of a single tap, the median time to hit a monster after its appearance as well as the total numbers of monster hits obtained within 30 seconds are determined” (Page 17 of applicant’s spec.). However, while this does indicate a total number of monster hits, those total number of hits are not the same as the number of appearances of the “object”. As such, the claim limitation is considered to be new matter and the claims are rejected. (Examiner's Note: For example, claim 11 recites “a total number of occurrences of the visual representation of the object tapped on the user interface within the predefined amount of time”, where this does not raise the issue as this involves a measurement of the total number times the object is tapped, which does have support).
Claims 3-4, 7-8, 10, and 13-18 are dependent on the above independent claims, and as such are also rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “extract a plurality of features associated with the motor function of the subject with SMA, the plurality of features comprise a measurement of maximum pressure applied by a finger of the subject during a single tap of the finger on the display of the diagnostic device rendering the one or more user interfaces, a median time to tap the visual representation of the object”, which fails to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim as it is unclear where the plurality of features are being extracted from. What is the data source that the plurality of features are extracted from? As such, the claim is indefinite as the applicant has failed to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as extracting from the sensor data (Page 6 of applicant’s spec).
Claim 5 recites the limitation “in response to the subject performing the one or more diagnostics tasks, receiving a plurality of second sensor data via the second sensor”, which fails to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim as it is unclear what data is being received. Claim 5 also recites, “in response to the subject performing the one or more diagnostics tasks via interactions with the one or more user interfaces, receiving a plurality of sensor data from a first sensor disposed within the diagnostic device and a second sensor being disposed within a second device configured to be worn by the subject”, which indicates receiving a plurality of data from the first and second sensor. Is the “second data” produced by the second sensor different from the “sensor data” that includes the data from the first and second sensor , or is this the same data? Both steps are in response to the subject performing the one or more diagnostic tasks, which presents further ambiguity. As such, the claim is indefinite as the applicant has failed to effectively define the metes and bounds of the claim. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as the same data.
Claims 3-4, 7-8, 10, and 16-17 are dependent on the above independent claims, and as such are also rejected. For examination purposes, these claims will be interpreted in the same manner as the claims they are dependent on.
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, and 7-10, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards a judicial exception without significantly more. These claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test.
Claims 1, 5, and 9 are directed towards a device, method, and system respectively, which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test.
Prong 1: Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of a mental process as follows: “prompt the subject to perform diagnostic tasks…” “… as fast as possible in a predetermined amount of time”, “in response to the subject performing the one or more diagnostic tasks…” “… receive sensor data…”, “extract a plurality of features associated with the motor function of the subject with SMA, the plurality of features comprise a measurement of maximum pressure applied by a finger of the subject during a single tap of the finger…” “… a median time to tap…” “…a total number of appearances…” “…during the predetermined amount of time”, and “determine an assessment of motor function of said subject based at least in part on an analysis of the extracted plurality of features”.
The prompting the subject to perform diagnostic tasks as fast as possible in a predetermined amount of time, in response to the subject performing the one or more diagnostic tasks, receiving sensor data, extracting a plurality of features associated with the motor function of the subject with SMA, the plurality of features comprise a measurement of maximum pressure applied by a finger of the subject during a single tap of the finger, a median time to tap, and a total number of appearances during the predetermined amount of time, determining an assessment of motor function of said subject based at least in part on an analysis of the extracted plurality of features can be practically performed by the human mind, with the aid of a pen and paper, but for performance on a generic processor, in a computer environment, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the steps.
Claim 5 recites the abstract idea of a mental process as follows: “prompting the subject to perform one or more diagnostic tasks…” “… as fast as possible in a predetermined amount of time”, “in response to the subject performing the one or more diagnostics tasks...” “…receiving a plurality of sensor data...”, “in response to the subject performing the one or more diagnostics tasks, receiving a plurality of second sensor data”, “extracting, from the received sensor data, a plurality of features associated with motor function of the subject with SMA, wherein one of the plurality of features comprise a measurement of maximum pressure applied by a finger of the subject during a single tap of the finger…”“… a median time to tap…” “…a total number of appearances…” “…during the predetermined amount of time”, and “determining an assessment of motor function of the subject with SMA based at least in part on an analysis of the plurality of features”.
The prompting the subject to perform one or more diagnostic tasks as fast as possible in a predetermined amount of time, in response to the subject performing the one or more diagnostics tasks, receiving a plurality of sensor data, in response to the subject performing the one or more diagnostics tasks, receiving a plurality of second sensor data, extracting, from the received sensor data, a plurality of features associated with motor function of the subject with SMA, wherein one of the plurality of features comprise a measurement of maximum pressure applied by a finger of the subject during a single tap of the finger, a median time to tap, and a total number of appearances during the predetermined amount of time, and determining an assessment of motor function of the subject with SMA based at least in part on an analysis of the plurality of features can be practically performed by the human mind, with the aid of a pen and paper, but for performance on a generic processor, in a computer environment, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the steps.
Claim 9 recites the abstract idea of a mental process as follows: “prompting the subject to perform one or more diagnostic tasks…” “… as fast as possible during a predetermined amount of time”, “receiving, in response to the subject performing the one or more diagnostic tasks…” “… a plurality of sensor data…”, “extracting, from the received sensor data, a plurality of features associated with motor function of the subject with SMA, wherein the plurality of features comprises a measurement of maximum pressure applied by a finger of the subject during a single tap of the finger…” “… a median time to tap…” “…a total number of appearances…” “…during the predetermined amount of time”, and “determining an assessment of motor function of said subject based at least in part on an analysis of the extracted plurality of features”.
The prompting the subject to perform one or more diagnostic tasks as fast as possible during a predetermined amount of time, receiving, in response to the subject performing the one or more diagnostic tasks, a plurality of sensor data, extracting, from the received sensor data, a plurality of features associated with motor function of the subject with SMA, wherein the plurality of features comprises a measurement of maximum pressure applied by a finger of the subject during a single tap of the finger, a median time to tap, and a total number of appearances during the predetermined amount of time, and determining an assessment of motor function of said subject based at least in part on an analysis of the extracted plurality of features can be practically performed by the human mind, with the aid of a pen and paper, but for performance on a generic processor, in a computer environment, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the steps.
A person of ordinary skill in the art could verbally prompt a subject to perform a task. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably receive a piece of paper with sensor data on it. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably extract features associated with the motor function of a subject and make a determination of motor function of a subject based on having sensor data on that subject. There is currently nothing to suggest an undue level of complexity in the prompting, receiving, extracting, and determining steps. Therefore, a person would be able to practically be able to perform the determining steps mentally or with the aid of pen and paper.
Prong Two: Claims 1, 5, and 9 do not recite additional elements that integrate the mental process into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are “directed to” the mental process. The additional elements merely:
Recite the words “apply it” or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g., processor, sensor, and a smartphone device), and
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (the pre-solution activity of: using generic data-gathering components (e.g. sensors in a smartphone, sensors in a wearable device, a wearable device in communication with a smartphone device, a smartphone with a display).
For claims 1, 5, and 9. The additional elements merely serve to gather data to be used by the abstract idea. The smartphone, processor, sensors, and wearable device are merely used as a pre-solution step of necessary data gathering to be used by the abstract idea. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. The processing that is performed remains in the abstract realm, i.e. the gathered data is not used for a treatment or meaningful purpose. Additionally, there is no overall improvement to existing technology present. The mental process merely functions on generic computer elements that do not change the functionality of the device itself. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test for Claims 1, 5, and 9.
Per the Berkheimer requirement, the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. For example,
A sensor as disclosed by Proud (US Pub. No. 20140247137) hereinafter Proud “an accelerometer, well known to those skilled in the art, detects acceleration and thus user activity. The accelerometer provides a voltage output that is proportional to the detected acceleration.” (Par. 117) and Ostrovsky (US Pub No. 20150220699) hereinafter Ostrovsky “device 101 has a number of hardware components well known to those skilled in the art. Input device 102 can be any element that receives input from user 100, including, for example, a keyboard, mouse, stylus, touch-sensitive screen (touchscreen), touchpad, trackball, accelerometer, five-way switch, microphone, or the like. Input can be provided via any suitable mode, including for example, one or more of: pointing, tapping, typing, dragging, and/or speech.” (Par. 28),
A processor and smartphone as disclosed by Del Rosario et al (“Tracking the Evolution of Smartphone Sensing for Monitoring Human Movement”, 2015) (Cited 156 times)(“Carroll and Heiser [43] determined that in a “suspended” state (no applications running/screen switched off) much of the Android smartphone’s battery power (OpenMoko Neo Freerunner) is consumed by the GSM module, whilst in an “idle” state (screen on but no applications running) the graphics processor consumes the most power (a more detailed breakdown can be found in Figure 6)”)(Page 18917),
A wearable sensor as disclosed by Del Rosario “wearable ambulatory monitor (WAM) or wearable sensor is an electronic device that can be attached to the body or embedded in a clothing garment and is able to record information about the user’s body movements by analysing the signals produced by the device’s transducers. The earliest WAMs consisted of a single uniaxial accelerometer [1] or three orthogonally positioned uniaxial accelerometers [2].” (Page 18902),
A smartphone with a display and sensor connected to a wearable device with a sensor as disclosed by Chen et al (“Duet: Exploring Joint Interactions on a Smart Phone and a Smart Watch”, 2014) (Cited 160 times) hereinafter Chen, “We used a Samsung Galaxy S4 smart phone and a Sony SmartWatch. The phone has a 1080x1920 capacitive multi-touch screen, quad-core 1.6 GHz processor, and a 3-axisaccelerometer. The watch has a 128x128 pixels capacitive-touch color display, and is connected to and run by the phone via Bluetooth. The API of the watch provides limited touch input of seven pre-defined gestures: press, long press, release, and four swiping directions. Its accelerometer has a maximum rate of 10Hz” (Page 161, Col. 2),
are all well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Claims 3-4, 7-8, 10, 16-18 do not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an inventive concept) as all of the elements are directed to the further describing of the abstract idea, pre-solution activities, and computer implementation.
The dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons: they merely further describe the abstract idea:
One or more diagnostic tasks are associated with at least one of a distal motor function (Claim 4),
The predetermined amount of time is 30 seconds (Claim 7),
wherein the subject is human (Claim 8),
determining at least one usage behavior parameter from a dataset comprising usage data (Claim 10),
comparing the determined at least one usage behavior parameter to a reference (Claim 10),
prompting the subject to place the diagnostic device on a table (Claims 16, 17, and 18) (Examiner's Note: A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably prompt a subject verbally),
prompting the subject to select a hand that the subject will use to perform one or more diagnostic tasks (Claims 16, 17, and 18).
Further describe the pre-solution activity (or structure used for such activity):
A smartphone device (Claims 3 and 10),
A smartphone device with a display (Claims 16, 17, and 18).
Per the Berkheimer requirement, the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. For example,
Sensors as indicated by Proud and Ostrovsky above,
A smartphone device as indicated by Del Rosario and Chen above,
A smartphone device with a display as indicated by Chen above,
are all well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. The additional elements do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. The collective functions of the additional elements merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, data gathering, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a mobile device, wearable device, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 - Withdrawn
Applicant’s amendments, filed 11/06/2024, have been fully considered, and the previous 102 rejection withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 - Withdrawn
The claims are generally directed towards a diagnostic device for a subject with spinal muscular atrophy. The diagnostic device has a sensor and is connected to a second wearable device that also has a second sensor. The diagnostic device prompts a subject to perform a diagnostic task on a user interface of the diagnostic device, receives a plurality of the sensor data from each of the first and second sensors, and use that sensor data to make a determination regarding the motor function of the subject.
Applicant’s amendment’s filed 05/27/2025, have been fully considered, and the previous rejection withdrawn.
The closest prior art of record includes Baker (WO 2018050763 A1) hereinafter Baker, Lindberg (US Pub. No. 20190380625) hereinafter Lindberg, Wallace et al. ("Detecting Cognitive Ability Changes in Patients With Moderate Dementia Using a Modified “Whack-a-Mole” Game,", 2018) hereinafter Wallace, Lai (US Pub. No. 20190206566) hereinafter Lai, Parvaneh (US Pub. No. 20180126219) hereinafter Parvaneh, Ratni et al. (2018, “Discovery of Risdiplam, a Selective Survival of Motor Neuron‑2 (SMN2) Gene Splicing Modifier for the Treatment of Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA)”) hereinafter Ratni, and Lathan (US Pub. No. 20130209977) hereinafter Lathan.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/27/2025, regarding the 101 rejection have been fully considered, but are deemed as not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the limitations are not mental processes. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations as indicated in the 101 rejection above recite mental processes that can be practically performed by the human mind, with the aid of a pen and paper, but for performance on a generic processor, in a computer environment, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the steps. As indicated above, a person of ordinary skill in the art could verbally prompt a subject to perform a task. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably receive a piece of paper with sensor data on it. A person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably extract features associated with the motor function of a subject and make a determination of motor function of a subject based on having sensor data on that subject. There is currently nothing to suggest an undue level of complexity in the prompting, receiving, extracting, and determining steps. Therefore, a person would be able to practically be able to perform the determining steps mentally or with the aid of pen and paper.
The applicant’s argument, that the additional elements integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application, has been fully considered and deemed as not persuasive. As indicated above, the additional elements merely serve to gather data to be used by the abstract idea. The smartphone, processor, sensors, and wearable device are merely used as a pre-solution step of necessary data gathering to be used by the abstract idea. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. The processing that is performed remains in the abstract realm, i.e. the gathered data is not used for a treatment or meaningful purpose. Additionally, there is no overall improvement to existing technology present. The mental process merely functions on generic computer elements that do not change the functionality of the device itself. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As indicated above, taken alone or in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. The additional elements do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. The collective functions of the additional elements merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, data gathering, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a mobile device, wearable device, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The applicant’s argument, that the additional elements are not conventional, has been fully considered and deemed as not persuasive. As indicated above, per the Berkheimer requirement, the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
As such, the applicant’s arguments are deemed as not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARI SINGH KANE PADDA whose telephone number is (571)272-7228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/ARI S PADDA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JASON M SIMS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791