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 .
Status of Claims
In the amendment filed on 27 February 2026, the following changes have been made: amendments to claims 1, 8, and 15. Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are canceled.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 t
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, 8, and 15 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 8, and 15 contain the recitation “collecting environmental data correlated to a geolocation of the wearable radial artery patches.” Applicant’s recitation of collecting environmental data correlated to a geolocation of the wearable radial artery patches appears to constitute new matter. There is no disclosure or suggestion of environmental data being correlated to a geolocation of the wearable radial artery patches. Applicant’s specification [0029] simply states that “data from weather and climate related websites/services 222 correlate with location of patient(s) 202, and particularly patient device(s) 204,” versus geolocation of the wearable radial artery patches; also, no indication radial artery patch is some type of “smart” patch. Further, [0023] indicates that the only type of sensors included in patient devices are environmental sensors and not patches. MPEP 2163 notes, “The proscription against the introduction of new matter in a patent application (35 U.S.C. 132 and 251) serves to prevent an applicant from adding information that goes beyond the subject matter originally filed. See In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1214, 211 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981); see also MPEP §§ 2163.06 through 2163.07 for a more detailed discussion of the written description requirement and its relationship to new matter.” Accordingly, a rejection for addition of new matter is necessary.
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, 8, and 15 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.
Step 1
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claim 1), machine (claim 8), and article of manufacture (claim 15).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites steps of
at least one computing device including a processor, system memory, a network interface, and one or more databases, the method comprising:
collecting, via the network interface, real-time patient physiological data from one or more wearable radial artery patches positioned on a patient, each wearable radial artery patch including a plurality of bioinformatic sensors configured to measure at least pulse rate variability, temperature, moisture, and oxygenation, the physiological data being timestamped and transmitted via a wireless communication interface;
collecting environmental data correlated to a geolocation of the wearable radial artery patches, including weather data retrieved from one or more external network services, wherein the environmental data includes time-stamped climate parameters;
storing the physiological data and environmental data in a time-series data structure within the one or more databases;
processing by an Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML) engine including one or more artificial neural networks having an input layer, at least one hidden layer, and an output layer, the time series data structure in combination with encoded East Asian Medicine (EAM) system principles to generate a multi-dimensional health state output;
executing by a health engine and symptoms checking engine of the EAM services, rule-based and neural-network-refined evaluations on the multi-dimensional health state output across multiple defined time intervals;
dynamically generating and updating a graphical dynamic health body map representing a plurality of organ systems and meridian channels based on the evaluated multi-dimensional health state output; and
transmitting, via the network interface, diagnostics and treatment recommendations to a patient device, wherein the diagnostics are automatically updated in response to changes in the time-series data structure.
Claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations as claim 1 but for the recitation of generic computer components.
These steps for performing East Asian Medicine analytics, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the italicized portions from practically being performed in the mind through the evaluation and determination of patient data for the purposes of providing diagnostics and recommendations. This could be analogized to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (MPEP 2106). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements, non-italicized portions identified above for claims 1, 8, and 15, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of at least one computing device including a processor, system memory, a network interface; via the network interface; via a wireless communication interface; one or more external network services; by an Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML) engine including one or more artificial neural networks having an input layer, at least one hidden layer, and an output layer; by a health engine and symptoms checking engine of the EAM services; and, neural-network-refined evaluations amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of collecting […] real-time patient physiological data; collecting environmental data […] including weather data retrieved; storing the physiological data and environmental data; and, transmitting […] diagnostics and treatment recommendations to a patient device amounts to mere data gathering, storage, and output since it does not add meaningful limitations to the collecting, storing, and transmitting actions performed, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as recitation of one or more wearable radial artery patches positioned on a patient, each wearable radial artery patch including a plurality of bioinformatic sensors to measure at least pulse rate variability, temperature, moisture, and oxygenation. As can be seen, employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not make the claim patent eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Each of the above additional elements therefore only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions within the abstract idea using generic computer components or other machines within their ordinary capacity, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the above claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception in particular fields such as at least one computing device including a processor, system memory, a network interface; via the network interface; via a wireless communication interface; one or more external network services; and, by a health engine and symptoms checking engine of the EAM services, e.g., a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f); and, by an Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML) engine including one or more artificial neural networks having an input layer, at least one hidden layer, and an output layer; and, neural-network-refined evaluations, e.g., requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f)
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as recitation of collecting […] real-time patient physiological data; collecting environmental data […] including weather data retrieved; and, transmitting […] diagnostics and treatment recommendations to a patient device; e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); storing the physiological data and environmental data, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use such as recitation of one or more wearable radial artery patches positioned on a patient, each wearable radial artery patch including a plurality of bioinformatic sensors to measure at least pulse rate variability, temperature, moisture, and oxygenation, e.g., simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., MPEP 2105.05(h)
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, in consideration of all the facts, the present invention is clearly not a patent-eligible invention under USC 101.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed on 27 February 2026 have been considered, but are not fully persuasive.
Regarding the USC 101 rejection, applicant asserts that under Step 2A Prong 1, the claims are not an abstract idea and directed to a specific distributed computing architecture; wearable sensor integration; time-series data storage structures; neural network processing; and real-time graphical body map updating. Under Step 2A Prong 2, applicant argues that, even if considered abstract, the claims are improving the computerized health monitoring systems. For Step 2B, applicant argues that the ordered combination as recited are not conventional. Applicant requests withdrawal of the USC 101.
Examiner disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. The MPEP makes it clear that claims can recite an abstract idea even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The courts have also found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite abstract idea even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely by a human. The computer in the claim is not used in a specific, inventive way. The limitations identified as abstract in the present application are very outcome-based or result-focused and don’t give much technical detail that goes beyond what a human can do. The computer in the present claims are recited at a high level of generality. Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Just as Diehr could not save the claims in Alice, which were directed to ‘implement[ing] the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer’, it cannot save OIP's claims directed to implementing the abstract idea of price optimization on a generic computer.") (citations omitted). Even if the claims nominally recite computer components that are rooted in technology, there is no recitation of how the computer components are specifically programmed to distinguish from generic computer processes.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2, applicant needs to understand that one of the main/glaring issues is that specification does not show or describe a deficiency in technology. Applicant is merely using computers to improve upon the judicial exception. That is, all the applicant is doing is applying computers for their intended benefit(s) to a new data environment and calling it an improvement (see Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., Case No.18-2239 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2020). Applicant’s specification [0002] literally discloses East Asian Medicine, also known as Oriental Medicine, is based on thousands of years of practice and theories.
The examiner asserts the following facts are evident:
1) the invention does NOT involve a novel algorithm or data structure that significantly improves the computer's functionality
2) the invention does NOT involve a new hardware component or configuration that works with the computer to achieve a specific technical benefit
3) the computer is NOT used in a completely new way demonstrating a significant technical advancement.
Thus, examiner does not see how the present claims improve the functioning of a computer or provide improvements to any other technology or technical field.
With respect to Step 2B, the “apply it”, “well-understood, routine, and conventional”, and as well as “generally linking” analysis was performed with court case citations, which didn’t result in the claim being eligible under USC 101. Examiner is not persuaded by the applicant’s assertion of eligibility under Step 2B. In comparison to Bascom, examiner points out that Bascom is not similar to the present application because Bascom claimed a technical improvement in the art i.e., a technology-based solution to filter content on the internet. On the other hand, the present claims are not presenting an improvement to computer technology (as indicated above). Furthermore, the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). The "significantly more" standard has not been satisfied. Thus, the present invention is not patent-eligible under USC 101. Therefore, the USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Regarding the USC 103 rejection, the references of record are understood to be the closest prior art. For claims 1 8, and 15, while the combination of Zhang et al. (Artificial Intelligence–Based Traditional Chinese Medicine Assistive Diagnostic System: Validation Study) in view of Gelissen et al. (US20170360299A1) and further in view of Cluff et al. (Passive Wearable Skin Patch Sensor Measures Limb Hemodynamics Based on Electromagnetic Resonance) teaches most of the limitations of the claim, the scope of the claims clarifies collecting environmental data correlated to a geolocation of the wearable radial artery patches. This goes beyond any teachings or suggestions in the art. Therefore, the USC 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Prior Art Cited but Not Relied Upon
Liu, Z., He, H., Yan, S., Wang, Y., Yang, T., & Li, G. Z. (2020). End-to-end models to imitate traditional Chinese medicine syndrome differentiation in lung cancer diagnosis: model development and validation. JMIR Medical Informatics, 8(6), e17821.
This reference is relevant because is discloses end-to-end TCM diagnostic models to imitate lung cancer syndrome differentiation.
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 WINSTON FURTADO whose telephone number is (571)272-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM 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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/WINSTON R FURTADO/Examiner, Art Unit 3687