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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/30/2026 has been entered.
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, 3-7, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to “a system” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: Yes.
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “determine from a given sample of the photoplethysmogram signal” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion) which are “performed on a computer” (per MPEP 2106(III)(C) “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
The claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental process.” Independent claim 1, analyzed as the representative of the claimed subject matter, is reproduced below. The limitations determined to be abstract ideas are in italics. The additional elements recited at a high level of generality are shown in bold. The limitation(s) determined to be extra-solution activity are underlined.
Claim 1: A system includes a smartphone, and a monitor adapted to be worn in direct contact with skin of a wearer, comprising:
the monitor including a photoplethysmogram sensor operative to generate a photoplethysmogram signal; and
the smartphone operating in accordance with application specific software and having a display that presents an image corresponding to an indication of an anxiety of the user obtained from at least one processor which processes data from the photoplethysmogram sensor, the at least one processor being is operative to determine from a given sample of the photoplethysmogram signal:
(i) a pulse duration (T) in blood volume under the skin of the wearer measured by the photoplethysmogram signal, the pulse duration (T) being classified as an intermediate pulse when the pulse duration is between 0.57 second and 1.0 second,
(ii) a phase difference ( ) occurring between a forward pressure wave peak and a reflective pressure wave peak in the blood volume under the skin of the wearer measured by the photoplethysmogram sensor, and
(iii) a goodness-of-fit correlation (β) between a waveform shape of the photoplethysmogram signal and a continuous probability function, wherein
when the pulse duration (T) is between 0.57 second and 1.0 second, a first ratio between the phase difference and the pulse duration (T) is greater than 0.42 and less than 0.60, and the goodness-of-fit correlation (β) is less than 5.3, the anxiety of the user is output, and
when the pulse duration (T) is between 0.57 second and 1.0 second, the first ratio between the phase difference and the pulse duration (T) is greater than 0.25 and less than 0.42, and the goodness-of-fit correlation (β) is greater than 4.3 and less than 5.3, the anxiety of the user is output.
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea
Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: Yes.
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “a smartphone,” “a monitor,” a photoplethysmogram sensor,” “a display,” and “at least one processor” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “determine from a given sample of the photoplethysmogram signal” is not providing a practical application.
Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: No.
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a smartphone,” “a monitor,” a photoplethysmogram sensor,” “a display,” and “at least one processor” are claimed these are all generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them 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), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a smartphone,” “a monitor,” a photoplethysmogram sensor,” “a display,” and “at least one processor” are described in the following paragraphs:
[0006] “According to a further aspect of the present invention, there is provided a system comprising a monitor as hereindescribed, and a mobile communication device, such as smartphone or tablet, in communication, for example wireless communication, with the monitor. The mobile communication device preferably operates in accordance with application specific software (APP) and has a display that presents an image corresponding to indicate the determined anxiety level or impatience level or level of fear or level of frustration level or level of grief of the wearer.”
[0007] “It is understood that a processor may be included in the monitor so as to enable on-board processing of data to be performed and an onboard display or feedback means may be included in some embodiments.”
[0042] “By using a photoplethysmogram (PPG) sensor, the pulse waveform of a user can be visualised in software through the measurement of blood volume changes in tissue”
With regards to the photoplethysmogram sensor, also known as a PPG, it is considered a well-known medical-application for gathering bio-signals (see at least: Meng-Hsi (US 20170032221 A1) paragraph [0003]).
These element(s) are reasonably interpreted as a generic computer which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitation of “a smartphone,” “a monitor,” a photoplethysmogram sensor,” “a display,” and “at least one processor” are reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more.
Step 2B, o of the subject-matter eligibility analysis: No.
In addition, dependent claims 3-7, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 3-7, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1, 3-7, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states on page 2 of the remarks that specific improvements to the operation of the system recite “something more” than an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements recited in the claims have been analyzed above and the newly added claim limitations do not explain the improvement nor have particular configurations for the system or monitor to recite an improvement. The additional limitations are recited as data gathering steps as explained above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SELWA A ALSOMAIRY whose telephone number is (703)756-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM to 5PM EST.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at (571) 270-7625. 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.
/SELWA A ALSOMAIRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights