DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/4/2026 has been entered.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 5/4/2026, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 3, 10, 18, 21 and 22 have been amended; Claims 4 – 6 have been canceled.
Claims 7 – 9, and 11 – 15 have been previously canceled.
Claims 1 – 3, 10, and 16 – 22 are pending.
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, 10, and 16 – 22 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.
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a machine (claims 1 – 3, 10, and 16 – 22), which recite abstract idea steps of:
determine a location of a device;
receive data from the one or more optical sensors;
determine a pulse rate based on the received data;
determine a presence of an alert condition based on the pulse rate; and
in response to determining the presence of the alert condition:
determine a proximity of the one or more of a contact relative to a determined location of a physiological monitoring system;
contact the one or more of a contact based on the determined location of the physiological monitoring system;
provide the determined location of the device;
select, based on the determined location, an emergency service system and transmit an alert including the determined location; and
identify nearby medical devices or equipment proximate the physiological monitoring system;
establish a link with at least one identified medical device or equipment to receive additional medical or physiological reading data.
These steps of claims 1 – 3, 8 – 10, and 12 – 22, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity. The Examiner understands the claimed invention in light of the Specification. For example, paragraph 7 states:
[0007] Embodiments of the present disclosure provide a portable health organizer that enables patients and healthcare personnel to manage health data, and in particular, physiological reading data from one or more health data collection devices such as a glucometer or pulse oximeter. In an embodiment, the personal health organizer is a dedicated portable device that is adapted to retrieve reading data from a health data collection device, which is a noninvasive device in an embodiment and an invasive device in another embodiment.
From the Specification, the invention is directed toward managing personal behavior and also commerce. Healthcare is a business and the process of providing healthcare is a business function.
Therefore, the pulse oximeter or claimed as both a light source / optical sensor and a motion sensor/ pulse rate sensor, provides input into the instant invention. The pulse oximeter is considered extra-solution activity. The abstract idea is applied to a pulse oximeter to supply the data but the data could be supplied from any source including a database.
Regarding the PDA or claimed as a hardware processor, the abstract idea is applied to the device to achieve all the benefits of applying an abstract idea to the hardware. Further, the GPS notification is part of the device as shown in paragraph 48:
[0048] The personal health organizer can also include a GPS receiver component 212, which can determine the location of the personal health organizer. The GPS receiver component 212 can include a digital GPS receiver that can determine the location of the personal health organizer by determining coordinates, such as latitude, longitude, altimeter, etc. using conventional methods know in the art. In the case of an emergency associated with a user of the personal health organizer, emergency services or address book contacts can be contacted and location information of the user can be given by the personal health organizer using information provided by the GPS receiver component 212. In addition, the personal health organizer can be adapted to locate and discover nearby healthcare facilities and/or computing devices. For instance, the personal health organizer can determine its location as discussed above, and from knowing its location it could determine the closest hospital or pharmacy, etc. The personal health organizer can also determine what medical devices, equipment, monitors, and/or other computing devices are located near it, for example, by using the broadcast IDs of these devices (e.g. Wi-Fi SSIDs).
The invention merely uses the input from the hardware GPS receiver however that input could also come from a database. The particular way the location is determined is considered extra-solution activity.
The new limitation, “establish, via a wired or wireless interface, a communication link with at least one identified medical device or equipment to transmit at least one of the pulse rate, the physiological analyte concentration, or the determined location” is broadly understood. There is nothing that states that the link can be performed using a human to transfer a “physiological analyte concentration, or the determined location” to “medical device or equipment.” The requirement is that information is broadcast either wired or wireless but the actual transmission format is not claimed.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2, 10, and 16 – 22 reciting particular aspects of how alert determination may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements 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 a processing system 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 monitor the pulse amounts to mere data gathering, recitation of provide the determined location amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2, 10, and 16 – 22, additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea). 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 conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/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 elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as claims 1 – 3, 8 – 10, and 12 – 22; communicating with, contact, provide, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); determine pulse rate, determine presence of alert, determine proximity, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii))
Additional elements
a location determination module – paragraph 48, gps
optical sensors – paragraphs 29, 95 finger clip sensor
pulse rate sensor – paragraph 50
emergency service system – the specification never states what this is. Paragraph 48 describes this as a person.
GPS receiver – paragraph 73 built in such as paragraph 32, iPhone
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2, 10, and 16 – 22, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)). 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 conventional computer implementation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Applicant states, “These limitations recite device-side sensing, location, discovery, communication, and data-acquisition operations, not acts that can reasonably be performed mentally or as a pen-and-paper organization of human activity.” The question of whether the invention is or not a mental activity was not argued by the Examiner.
The Applicant states, “The amended claims apply the sensed physiological condition in a specific technical environment by causing the claimed device to perform a coordinated emergency-response workflow using GPS-derived location coordinates and device-to-device communication. The specification supports this practical application.” The Examiner believes that the invention does “apply” technology to the abstract idea to obtain all the benefits of applying that technology to the abstract idea. The claimed GPS technology is known as noted by the disclosed iPhone.
The Applicant states, “The rejection also states that the physiological and location data could be supplied from any source, including a database. Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims do not merely recite generic data retrieval. Claim 1 requires optical sensors that measure near-infrared light attenuated by tissue of the patient, receipt of a signal responsive to that attenuated near-infrared light, and determination of pulse rate and physiological analyte concentration based on the received optical-sensor signal.” The Applicant has replaced the input of the invention to specific technology. However, that does not change the fact that this technological input is extra-solution activity.
The Applicant states, “The amendments also address the Examiner's concern that the prior communication-link limitation was broadly stated and did not claim the actual information flow.” The Examiner is not sure specifically what the Applicant is responding to. The introduction of more known technology does not change the underlying abstract idea. The Applicant is just more specific as to how technology is applied to the abstract idea.
The Applicant states, “The amended discovery and data-acquisition limitations further integrate the alleged exception into a practical application because they change the operation of the physiological monitoring device in response to the detected alert condition.” The Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s opinion.
The Applicant further states, “Thus, the claims apply the alert determination in a concrete physiological-monitoring environment to acquire additional data from discovered proximate medical equipment, rather than merely organizing healthcare activity or transmitting a notification.” The Examiner disagrees that the retrieval of more information is concrete. As shown in Figure 6A, the retrieved data is only potentially acted upon.
The Applicant states, “Accordingly, the claimed location-based emergency-service selection is part of the disclosed GPS-based emergency-response functionality.” Please see above regarding applying technology to the abstract idea.
The Applicant states, “For similar reasons, even if the claims were deemed to involve an abstract idea, the claims recite significantly more under Step 2B. The amended limitations, considered as an ordered combination, are not a generic instruction to notify a person or transmit data.” The Examiner disagrees. The question of “ordered combination” is whether the invention, understood as a whole in light of the Specification, is a technical or technological improvement. The Specification does not disclose that the invention is a technical or technological improvement and therefore the Applicant opinions are without proof.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nadler et al., Pub. No.: US 2010/0222645 A method and system for monitoring wellness information method may receive wellness information from a mobile device.
Park et al., Pub. No.: US 2010/0145171 Provided are a method of measuring the pulse wave at the back of a wrist, etc. where measurement of the pulse wave is difficult so as to prevent a user to feel inconvenience in a mobile environment and a method of detecting the pulse wave at a write portion or at the back of the wrist which has comparatively weak restraint force in a human body by recovering an original signal with comparatively minimum errors so as to be robust to motion noise according to motion of the wrist.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Neal R Sereboff whose telephone number is (571)270-1373. The examiner can normally be reached M - T, M - F 8AM - 6PM.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached on (571)272-6773. 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.
/NEAL SEREBOFF/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights