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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/27/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 contains the term “candidate data point”, it is unclear what is meant by this term. A candidate data point is not a term used in the art, nor is it defined within the specification of the application. For purposes of examination the term “candidate data point” is being interpreted as merely a “data point”. The same issue is present in claims 2-11, 14, 17-18, and 20-21
Claim 1 contains the phrase “and a difference between a corresponding frequency of the first candidate data point and a corresponding frequency of the at least second candidate data point is less than a threshold value”. It is unclear if this “difference” is a determination that is made or if it is merely defining how the first candidate data point and the second candidate data point are related. If it is merely defining the relationship between the first candidate data point and the second candidate data point, it is recommended that the claim be amended to say “wherein a difference between a corresponding frequency of the first candidate data point and a corresponding frequency of the at least second candidate data point is less than a threshold value”.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear how a curve can comprise multiple curves. Line 6 states that a curve is selected “in response to the selected curve comprising more than one curve”. The claim is being interpreted according to spec [0051] to mean “in response to multiple curves having a length larger than the preset length, selecting a curve with a largest length from the at least one curve as the selected curve”.
Claims not explicitly rejected above are rejected because they depend from claims rejected above as indefinite.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 02/27/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Amended Figures 3-4 show the improved accuracy of the claimed method compared to a previous method within the art. The 35 U.S.C 101 rejection of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gu (US 20180296106 A1) teaches an optical sensor that obtains a PPG signal ([0014]), a frequency spectrum corresponding to a PPG signal by a short-time Fourier transform of the PPG signal ([0022]), and determining the minima a maxima points using thresholding ([0023]).
Priyankara (US 20190380592 A1) teaches determining a frequency spectrum corresponding to a PPG signal ([0099-0100]).
Arbel (US 20080045844 A1) teaches determining a frequency spectrum corresponding to a PPG signal ([0119]) and determining minimum points on the curve of each pulse wave ([0094]).
Zhang (US 20190192018 A1) teaches receiving a PPG signal carrying information of heart activity of the subject; decomposing frequency information of the PPG signal into a plurality of components in order to estimate the heart rate of the user (Abstract).
In regards to claim 1, none of the prior art teaches or suggests, either alone or in combination, a method comprising obtaining, by the processor, at least one candidate data point associated with a current time point based on the frequency spectrum associated with the current time point, each of the at least one candidate data point comprising a local peak and a corresponding frequency; and determining, by the processor, at least one curve to which the at least one candidate data point associated with the current time point belongs, wherein a first curve in the at least one curve comprises a first candidate data point associated with the current time point and at least one second candidate data point associated with at least one previous time point within the preset time window, and a difference between a corresponding frequency of the first candidate data point and a corresponding frequency of the at least second candidate data point is less than a threshold value, in combination with the other claimed steps.
In regards to claim 8 none of the prior art teaches or suggests, either alone or in combination, a device comprising a processor that obtains at least one candidate data point associated with a current time point, each of the at least one candidate data point comprising a local peak and a corresponding frequency obtained from the frequency spectrum associated with the current time point; and update a curve cluster within associated with the preset time window, the curve cluster comprising a plurality of curves, each of the plurality of curves comprising at least one candidate data point associated with at least one time point within the preset time window;, in combination with the other claimed steps.
Claims 1-21 contain no prior art rejections, however they are not in condition for allowance due to their rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY EPPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-0818. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/LUCY EPPERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ETSUB D BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights