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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 07/07/2026, the following occurred: Claims 1, 14 and 16-19 were amended. Claims 2, 13, 15 and 20 were canceled. Claims 21 and 22 are new.
Claims 1, 3-12, 14, 16-19 and 21-22 are currently 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, 3-12, 14, 16-19 and 21-22 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.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims recite a method and a system for identifying taggable events, which are within a statutory category.
Step 2A1
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the limitation of (claim 1 being representative) acquiring first physiological data during a first time interval, comprises a plurality of candidate taggable events that are selectable by the user; training to identify the taggable events associated with the user based at least in part on the first physiological data acquired during the first time interval, and first geographical location data associated with the user throughout the first time interval; receiving second geographical location data associated with the user throughout a second time interval; acquiring second physiological data during a second interval; inputting the second geographical location data and the second physiological data; identifying one or more gestures the user engaged in based at least in part on the second physiological data; correlating the second physiological data with a subset of candidate taggable events corresponding to the one or more gestures, the subset of candidate taggable events identified from the plurality of candidate taggable events defined within the application and based at least in part of the one or more gestures, the subset of candidate taggable events associated with one or more confidence values that indicate a confidence level that the corresponding candidate taggable event occurred within the second time interval; selectively modifying the one or more confidence values associated with the subset of candidate taggable events based at least in part on the second geographical location data to generate one or more modified confidence values; causing to display a prompt to confirm or dismiss a taggable event of the subset of candidate taggable events based at least in part on a modified confidence value of the taggable event exceeding a threshold confidence value; receiving, based at least in part on the prompt, a confirmation of the taggable event; identifying the taggable event of the subset of candidate taggable events that occurred at a location associated with the second geographical location data and within the second time interval based at least in part on the confirmation, wherein the taggable event comprises food consumption, caffeine consumption, alcohol consumption, or any combination thereof that occurred at the location associated with the second geographical location data; identifying an effect of the taggable event on the second physiological data or additional physiological data acquired during the second time interval; and transmitting a signal configured to display an indication of the effect of the taggable event on the second physiological data or the additional physiological data, a recommendation for the user associated with the effect of the taggable event on the second physiological data or the additional physiological data, or both as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims encompass a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to acquire first physiological data, train a machine learning model to identify taggable events and first geographical location data, receive second geographical location data, acquire second physiological data, input second geographical location data and second physiological data to the machine learning model, identify one or more gestures, correlate data, modify one or more confidence values, cause a graphical user interface to display a prompt to confirm or dismiss a taggable event, receive a confirmation of the taggable event, identify the taggable event, identify an effect of the taggable event and display an indication of the effect of the taggable event and/or a recommendation in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The rules or instructions are the claimed steps of “acquiring …training…acquiring…inputting… identifying…correlating…modifying… causing to display… receiving… identifying… identifying and transmitting a signal to display” as indicated supra.
Other than reciting generic computer components (discussed infra), i.e., (in claim 14) one or more processors, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people (i.e., rules or instructions). The Examiner notes that Claim 1 is not tied to any particular technological environment. The Examiner also notes that certain “method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, following rules or instructions)” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The Examiner notes that “a machine learning model” and “training a machine learning model” is recited in the claim. The type of training and machine learning model utilized by the claimed invention is not described by the Applicant. As such the Examiner is required to analyze the training/machine learning steps given the broadest reasonable interpretation. The steps performed to train and use a machine learning model are considered to be part of the abstract idea because they fall under data manipulations that humans perform (i.e., fitting a model to data) and thus are interpreted to be part of the abstraction--the rules or instructions that fall under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. See, e.g., Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., No. 2023-2437 at 12 (Fed. Cir. April 18, 2025) (finding that “[i]terative training using selected training material…are incident to the very nature of machine learning.”). Alternatively or in addition, a machine learning model encompasses an element that can be executed manually, such as with pen and paper, by a user. For example, a model could be in the form of an equation, formula, or a set of rules applied to the input data and training the model by updating elements, such as weights. As such, the claims encompass a user manually identifying one or more gesture, correlating data, modifying the one or more confidence values and identify taggable events. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 is not tied to any particular technological environment. Claim 14 recites the additional elements of one or more processors. These additional elements are not exclusively defined by the Applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic server or computer components for enabling access to medical information or for performing generic computer functions. See Spec. at Para. [0168]) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. As set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d) “merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 14 also recite the additional element of a machine learning model to identify one or more gesture, correlate data and modify one or more confidence values and training the machine learning model to identify taggable events. This represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Implementing an abstract idea using a generic computer or components thereof does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See, e.g., Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., No. 2023-2437 at 10 (Fed. Cir. April 18, 2025) (finding that claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment are ineligible). Alternatively or in addition, the implementation of the trained machine learning model to identify one or more gesture, correlating data, modifying the one or more confidence values and identifying a taggable event merely confines the use of the abstract idea (i.e., the trained model) to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claims 1 and 14 further recite the additional elements of a set of sensors of a wearable ring device associated with an application, a graphical user interface and a user device. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a general means to acquire/receive/transmit/display data) and amount to extra solution activity. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that extra-solution data gathering activity cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the one or more processors to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”). Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the machine learning model and training the machine learning model to identify one or more gesture, correlating data, modifying the one or more confidence values and identifying a taggable event was found to represent mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer and/or confine the use of the abstract idea (i.e., the trained model) to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to be insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(I) indicates that mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer and/or confining the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. See also Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., No. 2023-2437 at 17 (Fed. Cir. April 18, 2025) (finding that applying machine learning to an abstract idea does not transform a claim into something significantly more).
Also as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the graphical user interface and user device were considered extra-solution activity (or alternatively generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment). This has been re-evaluated under “significantly more” analysis and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) indicates that receiving and/or transmitting data over a network has been held by the courts to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity (citing Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs., and buySAFE). The additional elements of the set of sensors of a wearable ring device associated with an application were considered extra-solution activity (or alternatively generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment). This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
The Examiner notes that: A well-known, general-purpose computer has been determined by the courts to be a well-understood, routine and conventional element (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank; see also MPEP 2106.05(d)); and Performing repetitive calculations is/are also well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see, e.g., Parker v. Flook; MPEP 2016.05(d)).
Claims 3-12, 16-19 and 21-22 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Claim(s) 3 and 16 merely describe(s) inputting data and retraining the machine learning model. Claim(s) 4 and 17 merely describe(s) identifying historical taggable event data and second geographical location data. Claim(s) 5 and 18 merely describe(s) identifying historical taggable event data and that the second time interval is within the time of day. Claim(s) 6 and 19 merely describe(s) receiving a confirmation and/or a modification of the taggable event. Claim(s) 7 merely describe(s) the second physiological data, identifying a plurality of motion segments and a gesture. Claim(s) 8 further merely describe(s) identifying a relationship. Claim(s) 9 merely describe(s) the second geographical location data and determining that one or more additional users are located at the location during at least a portion of the second time interval. Claim(s) 10 merely describe(s) selectively adjusting scores. Claim(s) 11 and 12 merely describe(s) the second geographical location data. Claim(s) 21 and 22 merely describe(s) compressing data, stored in a memory of the wearable ring device based at least in part on a total amount of used or available memory of the wearable ring device, an elapsed time since the wearable ring device last transmitted the physiological data to the user device, or both. As can be seen, Claims 3-12, 16-19 and 21-22 further define the abstract idea and are rejected for the same reason presented above with respect to claims 1 and 14.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 3-12, 14, 16-19 and 21-22, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments, but does not find them persuasive. Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claims 1 and 14 are allowable for at least the same reasons that independent claim 1 of Example 40 (Adaptive Monitoring of Network Traffic Data) was found to be allowable. In Example 40, the USPTO concluded that, even though the claim recited a judicial exception (e.g., "comparing at least one of the collected traffic data to a predefined threshold"), the claim as a whole was patent eligible because it integrated that exception into a practical application… Independent claims 1 and 14 are patent eligible for at least the same or similar reasons. Like Example 40, the claims use a threshold-driven analysis as part of an integrated, adaptive technical workflow that improves system operation, rather than merely "comparing" information in the abstract. The claimed wearable-ring system acquires physiological sensor data (and contextual data such as geographical location), uses a machine learning model to narrow from a plurality of candidate taggable events to a relevant subset (e.g., based on detected gestures), selectively modifies confidence values using contextual inputs, and prompts a user to confirm/deny a taggable event only when the modified confidence value satisfies the threshold. Such prompting based on the threshold then drives concrete downstream system behavior, such as generating outputs (e.g., indications, effects, and recommendations), thereby improving automated tag identification and reducing unnecessary processing and user interaction compared to prior systems that require users to manually search/scroll through lists of events.
Regarding 1, The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicants invention is not like that of Example 40, claim 1. Example 40, claim 2 was found ineligible, however claim 1 was found eligible because the claim as a whole is directed to a particular improvement in collecting traffic data. Specifically, the method limits collection of additional Netflow protocol data to when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance. The collected data can then be used to analyze the cause of the abnormal condition. This provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network monitoring, thus providing a practical application. Applicants invention does not provide a specific improvement over prior systems. The claims modify a confidence value based on an event exceeding a threshold confidence value then a user can confirm or dismiss a taggable event. This does not provide any significance in terms of providing a practical application and still recites an abstract idea. Moreover, the written description of the instant application describes an improvement to overall physical health (para. 0012), improve sleep quality (para. 0013), improve identification of taggable events (para. 0015), improve and provide health-related insights to the user (e.g., determine how alcohol consumption affects the user's physiological data, and provide recommendations to the user accordingly) (para. 0017), improve physiological data collection (para. 0033), improve detection of rhythms in physiological data (para. 0035), all of which is an administrative/health improvement.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. 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.
The prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Yang (US 2016/0166161) discloses novel design considerations in the development of a photoplethysmography ring. Rezai (US 2021/0162217) discloses methods and systems of improving and monitoring addiction using cue reactivity. Jensen (US 2018/0279910) discloses ingestion-related biofeedback and personalized medical therapy method and system. Ibarria (US 2019/0095957) discloses systems, apparatuses, and methods for physiological data collection and providing targeted content.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to LIZA TONY KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4664. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 9:00am-6:00pm ET.
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 the 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/docs 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.
/L.T.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3683 /ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights