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 .
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 11/13/2025, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 3, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 7 – 9, and 11 – 15 have been previously canceled.
Claims 1 – 6, 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 – 6, 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 – 6, 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, alert the user to use the nearby medical devices or equipment, and establish 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.
These steps of claims 1 – 6, 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, 4 – 6, 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, 4 – 6, 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 – 6, 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.
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, 4 – 6, 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 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Applicant states, “The amended independent claims recite a specific, set of steps that operates in conjunction with particular hardware components to perform device operations that are not reasonably characterized as "organizing human activity" or as mere data collection.” The Examiner disagrees. The claimed invention, understood as a whole and in light of the Specification, represents the application of the abstract idea to technology.
The Applicant states, “In view of these concrete machine operations tied to particular hardware and communication channels, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.” The Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s narrow claim interpretation. Regardless, the Examiner believes that the Applicant is merely applying technology to the abstract idea.
The Applicant states, “These are concrete device actions that implement the alert response through hardware and produce real-world effects (routing to appropriate emergency services based on GPS and transferring physiological/location data to medical equipment) that go beyond mere data analysis or notification.” Please see above. The abstract idea remains the same.
The Applicant states, “The amended claims apply any alleged abstract concept with particular machines and interfaces in a meaningful way. For example, the claimed operations cannot be performed in the human mind and are not generic computer implementation at least because they require interaction with …” The Examiner agrees that the abstract idea is computer implemented. However, that implementation is not a technical or technological improvement but rather the use of existing technology in existing ways. For example, the Applicant uses “GPS receiver and location module” but does not disclose designing these devices.
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.
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 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