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 .
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, 2, 5-9, 12-18, and 21-24 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(s) 1, 2, 5-9, 12-18, and 21-24 recite(s) abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into practical application for the reason below. The claim(s) 1, 2, 5-9, 12-18, and 21-24 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons provided below which are in line with the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, p 74618, December 16, 2014), the July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 146, p. 45429, July 30, 2015), the May 2016 Subject Matter Eligibility Update (Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 88, p. 27381, May 6, 2016), and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, page 50, January 7, 2019), and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 89, No. 137 p. 58128, July 17, 2024).
The analysis of claim 1 is as follows:
Step 1: Claim 1 is drawn to a method, which is a statutory category.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Claim 1 is drawn to an abstract idea in the form of a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Additionally, or alternatively, claim 1 is drawn to an abstract idea in the form of mathematical algorithms and/or formulas.
In particular, claim 1 recites the following limitations:
obtaining an nth degree polynomial equation in two variables that represents a curve which fits the values of blood oxygen saturation level, where n is an integer equal to or greater than one;
determining whether a leading coefficient of the nth degree polynomial equation is smaller than a predetermined value that is associated with a normal variation in blood oxygen saturation level;
determining whether… severe low level of blood oxygen saturation;
These elements are drawn to an abstract idea because they are steps that are capable of being mentally performed, or mentally performed with the aid of pen, paper, and a calculator.
Step 2A - Prong Two: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
A method for monitoring blood oxygen saturation level of a user, the method to be implemented by a monitoring device communicating with a blood oxygen saturation detector,
The blood oxygen saturation detector being worn by the user to periodically measure the blood oxygen saturation level of the user,
obtaining a plurality of values of blood oxygen saturation level from the blood oxygen saturation detector, the values of blood oxygen saturation level being detected during in a time period of a predetermined duration;
when it is determined that the leading coefficient is smaller than the predetermined value, outputting a warning indicating that the blood oxygen saturation level of the user is getting worse
“outputting a first warning…check on the user”
“outputting a second warning… oxygen saturation level”
The elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The element [A2] do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - See MPEP 2106.04(d), 2106.05(b) and MPEP 2106.05(f). The elements [B2]-[D2] does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solutions activity to the judicial exception - See MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, each of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Claim 1 recites the following additional elements: “a blood oxygen saturation detector” and “a monitoring device”
The elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Simply reciting the elements do not qualify as significantly more because these elements are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93).
Additionally, a blood oxygen saturation detector with monitoring device is well-understood, routine and conventional as evidenced by Heath et al. (US 20130041279 A1), teaches that a pulse oximeter is a known instrument and is a device that detects blood oxygen saturation of a patient. ([0040] Optionally, a pulse oximeter 370 can be included as part of the system 300. As is known in the art, a pulse oximeter may measure the level of oxygen saturation in the blood of a patient). Additionally, it is used often in the medical field and is used not limited to admitting patients or routine visits and usual placement is the finger. Simply reciting the elements does not qualify as significantly more because the element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, mere data gathering and outputting, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g); and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h)
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of the elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Independent claim 8 recites mirrored system limitations and are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons as stated above.
Independent claim 17 recites mirrored system and computer program product limitations therefore not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons as stated above.
Claims 2 and 5-7 depend from claim 1, and they recite the same abstract idea as claim 1. Claims 9 and 12-16 depend from claim 8, and they recite the same abstract idea as claim 8. Claims 18, and 21-24 depend from claim 17, and they recite the same abstract idea as claim 17. Furthermore, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the mental process or mathematical algorithm) and/or append abstract ideas (that is, the claims only recite limitations that add further mental processes or mathematical algorithms) and/or append further insignificant extra-solution activity (that is, any additional limitations recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor is significantly more than the abstract idea). Therefore claims 1, 2, 5-9, 12-18, and 21-24 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/1/25, with respect to the 35USC103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35USC 103 rejections of 1, 2, 5-9, 12-18, and 21-24 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/1/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive towards the 35USC101 rejection.
Regarding the arguments to the 101 rejection and the claims reciting a practical application, outputting warnings is extra solution activity and not sufficient practical application. It is noted that no real world actions are actually recited just the notification of a warning. The system itself does not provide a practical application (e.g. sufficient and specific therapy). Regarding the arguments to the 101 rejection and the claims reciting an improvement, the improvement is within the mathematical concept/mental process and thus is entirely within the judicial exception. Regarding the arguments to the 101 rejection and the claims reciting additional elements including “a wearable SpO2 detector”, the high level of generality of that component which is clearly well understood, routine, and conventional in the art as demonstrated by the lack of explanation in the disclosure as well as the prior art of record does not overcome step 2B.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hornick (9,492,095), Lynn (2013/0060110), Bajers (WO2013/029617), and Mazar (CN113518582) all disclose blood oxygen saturation monitors that utilize polynomials/exponents in their diagnostic calculations and alarms.
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 ALEX M VALVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-4233. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
ALEX M. VALVIS
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791