DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The action is in response to amendments filed on 07/08/2026. Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-18 are pending and examined below.
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.
Regarding claims 10-12, 14-18, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to receiving and manipulating data without significantly more.
Claim 10 recites “An electronic device, comprising: a storage device; and at least one processor, wherein the storage device stores one or more programs, when executed by the at least one processor, the one or more programs cause the at least one processor to: obtain a pulse wave data in a first time window; determine a length of a second time window according to the pulse wave data; apply the second time window to slide on the pulse wave data in the first time window, and determine peak position within the first time window; and determine the pulse rate according to a difference of the peak position and a sampling frequency of the pulse wave data.”
This falls into a mental process grouping of abstract ideas. These limitations are either capable of being performed mentally by looking at measurements and making mental assessments thereafter or considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
The step of obtaining a pulse wave data in a first time window is insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering).
The step of determining a length of a second time window according to the pulse wave data is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind or by a pencil and paper by a skilled clinician.
The step of applying the second time window to slide on the pulse wave data in the first time window, and determining peak position within the first time window is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind.
The step of determining the pulse rate according to a difference of the peak position and a sampling frequency of the pulse wave data is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind.
Additionally the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of a processor/storage device for performing the steps is, at its broadest reasonable interpretation, a generic computer structure for performing the generic computer function of data processing, which does not qualify as an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Finally, the claims analyzed as a whole do not provides any element, or combination of elements, sufficient to amount to significantly more than the mental process as only a processor/storage device is claimed. As noted previously, the addition of a generic computer structure for performing the generic computer function of data processing does not qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding dependent claims 11-12, 14-19, the claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea or provide insignificant extra solution activity.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is a parallel method claim to that of claim 10 and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding dependent claims 2-3, 5-9, the claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea or provide insignificant extra solution activity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/08/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2026 in regards to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has traversed the 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 1 and 10 and claims dependent thereof.
Specifically, Applicant argues first on page 11 of the Remarks that claim 10 is not directed to a judicial exception as the claimed invention relates to a computer processing in human health technology for reducing measurement time and improving the accuracy of physiological state measurement. Applicant further argues that claim 10 is an electronic device having a storage device and processor for performing the specific steps of a method. Applicant then argues that each of these steps are either not a mental process or could not practically be performed by a human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the claims including a storage device and a processor, does not necessarily mean the claimed invention is not directed to a judicial exception. Further the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of a processor/storage device for performing the steps is, at its broadest reasonable interpretation, a generic computer structure for performing the generic computer function of data processing, which does not qualify as an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Finally, the claims analyzed as a whole do not provides any element, or combination of elements, sufficient to amount to significantly more than the mental process as only a processor/storage device is claimed. As noted previously, the addition of a generic computer structure for performing the generic computer function of data processing does not qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Second, the limitations/steps are either either capable of being performed mentally by looking at measurements and making mental assessments thereafter or considered insignificant extra-solution activity. The step of obtaining a pulse wave data in a first time window is insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering). The step of determining a length of a second time window according to the pulse wave data is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind or by a pencil and paper by a skilled clinician. The step of applying the second time window to slide on the pulse wave data in the first time window, and determining peak position within the first time window is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind. The step of determining the pulse rate according to a difference of the peak position and a sampling frequency of the pulse wave data is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind.
Additionally, Applicant notes that many of these steps cannot be performed in the human mind because they are performed in real time. However, the claims do not state that any of these steps or mental processes are performed in real time. Further, given enough time, a human would be able to perform these steps using a pencil and paper.
As such Applicant’s arguments are found to be unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ABID A MUSTANSIR whose telephone number is (408)918-7647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 am to 6 pm Pacific Time.
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.
/ABID A MUSTANSIR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
