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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 9th, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3-15, 17-18, and 20 remain pending in the application. Claims 2, 16, and 19 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed December 9th, 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At pages 9-10, Applicant argues that the limitation “in response to the neural network determining the motion state of the head-worn device is in a device on state and a static motion state, extract features from the motion signals representative of periodic movements of the head-worn device using a transform, the periodic movements including oscillations of the head-worn device related to heart pulses and the features including frequency domain information and time domain information” is not capable of being practically performed in the human mind. Examiner agrees that the step of “extracting features … using a transform …” cannot be practically performed in the human mind, however the step of “extracting features … using a transform …” is still directed to abstract ideas as the step of “extracting features … using a transform …” recites a mathematical relationship/operation (transform). “It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim be established prior to examining a claim for eligibility.” MPEP 2106 II. Applicant’s specification clearly explains that the claimed step of “extracting features … using a transform …” is a mathematical relationship. See, for example, [0017, 0037, 0042, 0053, 0073]. “A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words ….” An extraction of frequency domain information and time domain information based on a transform applied to motion signals is “a relationship between variables or numbers” that is “expressed in words.” Id. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
At page 10, Applicant argues the claim recites an improvement to the technology medical field of monitoring, tracking, and assessing human physiological data to allow monitoring in a patients’ natural environment to detect clinical deterioration at an earlier state and allow prompt corrective action. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The improvement cannot be found in the abstract idea itself. “[I]t is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself ... is not an improvement in technology.” MPEP 2106.05(a) Il. The claims recite steps for processing data. The claims do not integrate the processing into a practical application. Rather, the alleged improvement lies solely within the processing steps performed by the processor. “Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method/steps is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method/steps on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology." Id. Furthermore, the claims do not recite any limitations directed to detecting clinical deterioration or prompt corrective action, rather the claims merely output one or more health metrics.
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, 3-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows:
STEP 1
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a series of structural elements, including a device. Thus, the claim is directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The steps of: process[ing], determin[ing], extract[ing], generat[ing], process[ing] constitute an abstract idea that is part of the Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes group identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019. The claimed steps of process[ing], determin[ing], generat[ing], and process[ing] can be practically performed in the human mind using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas.
"A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, II. A. i. "[T]here are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping." Id. at II. A. ii. "[A] claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation." Id. at II. A. iii. See for example, SAP Am., Inc. V. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The claimed steps of calculating recite a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations).
The step of "in response to the neural network determining the motion state of the head-worn device is in a device on state and a static motion state, extracting features from the motion signals representative of periodic movements of the head-worn device using a transform, the periodic movements including oscillations of the head-worn device related to heart pulses and the features including frequency domain information and time domain information" in independent Claims 1, 15, and 18 is a mathematical relationship between motion signals representative of periodic movements (oscillations of the head-worn device related to heart pulses) and frequency and time domain information.
Referring to para. [0017, 0037, 0042, 0053, 0073] of the specification, extracting the features (frequency and time domain information) can be computed from a mathematical operation, most notably a Short-time Fourier transform (STFT) applied to the motion signals.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 1 recites a head-mounted device comprising a frame; a motion sensor coupled to the frame; a processor disposed in the frame and in communication with the motion sensor; receive motion signals captured by the motion sensor; and output one or more health metrics, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The receiving and outputting steps do not provide an improvement to the technological field, the steps do not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the motion signals, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea
STEP 2B
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional steps of:
head-mounted device comprising a frame;
motion sensor coupled to the frame;
a processor disposed in the frame and in communication with the motion sensor;
receive motion signals capture by the motion sensor;
output one or more health metrics.
The receiving step is well-understood, routine and conventional activities for those in the field of medical diagnostics. Further, the receiving and outputting steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant pre-solution activity and insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g., mere data gathering and mere data outputting step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering/outputting and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the head-mounted device, frame, motion sensor, processor, receiving, and outputting steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by
Applicant’s specification (e.g., para. [0057-0063]) which discloses that the processor(s) comprise generic computer components that are configured to perform the generic computer functions (e.g., process[ing], determin[ing], extract[ing], generat[ing], process[ing]) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Applicant’s Background in the specification; and
The prior art of record: Seydoux US 20160148431 A1 – conventional FPV device, the virtual reality pair of glasses is equipped with a gyroscope and an accelerometer.
The non-patent literature of record in the application;
Hernandez , et al., "Bioglass: Physiological Parameter Estimation Using A Head-Mounted Wearable Device", MIT Media Lab (https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/bioglass-physiological-parameter-estimation-using-a-head-mounted-wearable-device/), 11/1/2014, 4 Pages – see fig. 1 for head-mounted device with an embedded accelerometer (frame comprising an eye rim and accelerometer embedded in the eye rim).
Hellec J, Chorin F, Castagnetti A, Colson SS. Sit-To-Stand Movement Evaluated Using an Inertial Measurement Unit Embedded in Smart Glasses-A Validation Study. Sensors (Basel). 2020 Sep 4;20(18):5019. doi: 10.3390/s20185019. – see fig. 1 for a pair of glasses with an embedded accelerometer (frame comprising first and second eye rims, bridge, first and second temples, motion sensor embedded in the frame).
Life Augmented “iNEMO inertial module: always-on 3D accelerometer and 3D gyroscope”, LSM6DSOX datasheet, 2018 (Year: 2018)
Analog Devices “Six Degrees of Freedom Inertial Sensor”, ADIS16362 datasheet, 2019.
Analog Devices “3-Axis, ±2 g/±4 g/±8 g/±16 g Digital Accelerometer”, ADXL345 datasheet, 2022.
Lan et al., "Lightweight smart glass system with audio aid for visually impaired people," TENCON 2015 - 2015 IEEE Region 10 Conference, Macao, 2015, pp. 1-4, doi: 10.1109/TENCON.2015.7372720;
Deshpande, M., & Chaudhari, D. N. (2013). Google Glass. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 4.
http://snehagiriinstitutions.com/bulletins/1523683010_Google_Glass.pdf; and
Hill, A. (2020, September). Auctify Specs Smart Glasses Use Machine Learning to Try to Keep You Productive. Tom’s Hardware. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/auctify-specs-smart-glasses-use-machine-learning-to-try-to-keep-you-productive.
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, the device recited in the claim is a generic device comprising generic components configured to perform the abstract idea. The recited head-worn device, frame, and motion sensor are generic components configured to perform pre-solutional data gathering activity, and the processor is configured to perform the Abstract Idea. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims. Claims 3-8, 16-17, and 20 are directed to more abstract ideas. Claims 9-10 are directed to a frame that is well-understood, routine, conventional, and previously known to the pertinent industry. Claims 11-14 are directed to inertial measurement units/accelerometers/gyroscopes that are well-understood, routine, conventional, and previously known to the pertinent industry.
The steps recited in the independent claims maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Nguyen directed to a processor, IMU, and heart rate sensor embedded into a pair of glasses 7000 (fig.7, para. [0024]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW ELI HOFFPAUIR whose telephone number is (571)272-4522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/A.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/AURELIE H TU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791