DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 6, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on July 6, 2026. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 21 have been amended, claim(s) 1-20 have been cancelled, and no claim(s) have been added. Thus, claims 21-39 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant principally argues that newly added limitations overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection and not directed to an abstract idea. Specifically, the applicant argues that the present claims are analogous to claim 2 of Example 37 in the “2019 PEG Examples 37 through 42.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited claim 2 of Example 37 requires “a processor accessing computer memory indicative of application usage.” The entire process requires a processor and the determination is based on the use of the icon on the computer system. The examiner would like to note that at it’s basic, the brain is a processor that has a “plurality of databases” and can process a variety of data. Therefore, this appears to be using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process as outlined in MPEP 2106004(a)(III)(C). Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.
Furthermore, the applicant argues that the claim integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and describe a specific improvement in computer-implemented physiological signal processing and predictive simulation/playback for a wellness analyzer system. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Essentially, it appears that the instant invention fails to disclose a specific improvement, as it just details how the data is processed and then presented but there are not additional elements which provide a technological improvement. “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea]”(quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). It is important to note the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. As written, it appears the applicant’s data analysis and prediction, i.e. the mental process and mathematical relationships/formulas/calculations alone, provides the improvement. Please refer to MPEP 2106.05a. Therefore, the examiner is not convinced and the rejection is maintained and newly added limitations addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention details a process (Step 1) directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 21-39 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of Claims 21-39 recites at least one step or instruction for assess a health rick of the patient, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, each of Claims 21-39 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 21 recites
A wellness analyzer system comprising:
a plurality of noninvasive sensors configured to generate real-time physiological data from a patient, the plurality of noninvasive sensors comprising a plethysmographic sensor; (additional element)
a plurality of databases configured to provide non-real-time information relevant to a medical-related assessment, the plurality of databases comprising patient-specific databases and non-patient-specific databases; (additional element)
and a wellness monitor including one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive the real-time physiological data and the non-real-time information and process the non-real-time information to generate supplemental information, (additional element)
the wellness monitor further configured to:
in a diagnostic mode, in a plurality of parameter logic blocks, process the real-time physiological data to obtain a plurality of physiological parameters, each of the plurality of parameter logic blocks configured to receive input from a different sensor of the plurality of sensors, (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) and/or observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
in a plurality of system logic blocks, extract features of the plurality of physiological parameters outputted by the plurality of parameter logic blocks to determine a plurality of system indicators for physiological systems monitored, wherein the plurality of system logic blocks are configured to automatically route selected physiological parameters of the plurality of physiological parameters to selected feature extractor functions and extract the features using the selected feature extractor functions, the features including one or more of a level, a trend, a pattern, a statistic a waveform morphology, or a frequency characteristic, (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) and/or observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
each of the plurality of system logic blocks configured to receive output from at least a dedicated parameter logic block of the plurality of parameter logic blocks, each of the plurality of system logic blocks further configured to build a characterization of the patient with respect to a different physiological system monitored of a plurality of physiological systems based at least in part on the extracted features, the plurality of physiological systems comprising a circulatory system and a respiratory system, and (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) and/or observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
in at least a diagnostic logic block, generate a wellness output based at least in part on the plurality of system indicators from the plurality of system logic blocks and the supplemental information, the wellness output comprising an overall diagnosis of the patient's medical condition, and store the features in a memory of the wellness monitor, the diagnostic logic block comprising an expert system, a diagnostic knowledge base, and a predictive knowledge base; (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) and/or observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
and in a predictive mode,
configure at least the diagnostic logic block to utilize the predictive knowledge base in lieu of the diagnostic knowledge base, (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) and/or observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
alter system block pathways so that system status outputs are responsive only to stimulated physiological parameters and the stored features recorded by the feature extractor in the diagnostic mode (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
construct a virtual patient model from at least the non- real-time information and a sum of per-system patient characterizations built and stored by the plurality of system logic blocks, each per-system patient characterization corresponding to a different physiological system monitored (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) and/or observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
test the virtual patient model to assess a health risk of the patient in response to predetermined physical, medical or environmental conditions, wherein the wellness monitor is configured to test the virtual patient model based on one or more of the simulated physiological parameters and the features stored in the memory and the per-system characterizations, wherein, during testing of the virtual patient model, the wellness monitor is configured to combine the one or more of the simulated physiological parameters and one or more responsive physiological parameters as inputs to a feature extractor, . (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) such that system status outputs are responsive to the simulated physiological parameters and the stored features and per-system patient characterizations. (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) and/or observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
wherein the one or more responsive physiological parameters are internally generated in a playback mode from the features stored in the memory and correspond to how the patient historically responds to the one or more simulated physiological parameters . (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claim 21 (and their respective dependent Claims 22-39) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claim 21, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). More specifically, the additional elements of: a plurality of sensors, a plurality of databases, and a wellness monitor are generically recited computer elements in independent Claim 21 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) 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 according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 21 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and mathematical concepts) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., processor as claimed). 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 according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 21 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claim 21 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of Claims 21-39 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a plurality of sensors, a plurality of databases, and a wellness monitor. The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, [0019] describes the plurality of sensors as sensors that provide patient data from a patient’s circulatory, respiratory, neurological, gastrointestinal, urinary, immune, musculoskeletal, endocrine and reproductive systems which covers a broad spectrum with such generality that they are generic and commercially available. Paragraph [0006] and [0019] details the use of databases of medical research and scientific knowledge with such generality that they are generic and commercially available. Paragraph [0032] details that the wellness analyzer/monitor can be a general purpose computer or a special-purpose signal processor which further details that it can be implemented with a generic and commercially available processor.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term computer is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. 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 technology, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for computers. 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 computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these 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 MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 21-39 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery 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 (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with 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.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the methods of Claims 21-39 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing 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 according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
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 in independent Claim 21 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). 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 according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements 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 according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, 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 according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 21-39 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 21-39 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSANDRA F HOUGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7902. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 am - 4 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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)270-5625. 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.
Jessandra Hough August 21, 2026
/J.F.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights