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
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments, filed 04/02/2026 regarding the U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the claims could not be performed mentally and are not directed towards an abstract idea with no practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the practical application of the claims, the Applicant cites the vibration unit that provides vibration to a body part of a user as a reason why the claims could not be rejected under U.S.C. 101. The use of this vibration unit is merely to provide data that can then be sensed by the claims. In other words, the vibration unit, as claimed, is the necessary precursor to get the data you need; therefore, it is still considered extra solution activity/data gathering. If the Applicant is making adjustments to the vibration based on the data analysis (or doing something in general with the data after it has been split/after an anomaly has been detected), then the Examiner encourages them to amend the claims to reflect that. Further, the amendments do not take the claim language out of mere data gathering and analysis. The claims still recite taking in data from the vibration unit, measuring this data (via an accelerometer and EMG that can measure a change in elasticity), running the measured data through an isolation forest algorithm to detect anomalies, and then determining a risk if thrombosis. These tasks could be performed mentally/on a piece of paper by a person of ordinary skill in the art if given enough time. Regarding the isolation forest algorithm specifically, the Examiner notes that algorithms/machine learning techniques are mental processes completed by a computer/processor rather than a user in order to examine larger amounts of data quickly. Based on the breadth of the claims, a user could mentally perform the same functions that this algorithm does. The rejection still stands.
The Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 04/02/2026, regarding the U.S.C. 112a and 103 rejections, have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn.
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.
3. Claims 1, 3-6, 9, and 11-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claim 1 recites a method for determining the risk of thrombosis in a patient, wherein the measuring unit comprises: an electromyograph (EMG) that measures an electromyograph EMG signal of the body part, and an accelerometer that detects reflex vibration generated in the body part in response to the vibration, wherein the processing unit weights the data and determines the risk of thrombosis based on the change in the elasticity of the body part by using executing an anomaly detection algorithm, wherein the anomaly detection algorithm is an isolation forest algorithm. The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, calculating an abnormality in a user based on the muscle response to applied vibration could simply be done by looking at the response data on a printout or screen or could be accomplished mentally. Also, the use of an isolation tree algorithm is merely a mental process that is completed by a computer/processing system. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than any structure that can look a response data and generate determine if the patient has an abnormality in their muscle. Further, the use of a vibration unit and a measuring unit in the claims, are merely insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Accordingly, 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.
The additional elements, such as a vibration unit, while being mere structures for data gathering are also well-understood, routine, conventional activity that is widely prevalent or common use in the relevant industry. In terms of common/well-known/pervasive, there is an entire US classification (600/552) and CPC (A61B 5/0051) devoted to sensitivity to vibration is an indication of how common it is. For example, there are 5k+ reference classified in A61B 5/0051, which seemingly supports the position that this is a well-known/common/pervasive type of measurement in diagnostics. Well-understood, routine and conventional activity cannot be significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Prior Art Rejections
4. There are currently no art rejections applied to the claims. They contain subject matter that is not found in the art. Such subject matter including applying vibration via a vibration plate and then measuring the elasticity in the muscle with both EMGs and accelerometers; and wherein anomaly detection algorithm that detects whether there is anomaly in a variable based on a result of the first operation, wherein the anomaly detection algorithm is an isolation forest algorithm that detects anomaly by splitting anomaly data based on a tree, and wherein the isolation forest algorithm is configured to split as outlier when there is a sudden change in a frequency component of the reflex vibration and a frequency component of the EMG signal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SKYLAR LINDSEY CHRISTIANSON whose telephone number is (571)272-0533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30-5:30 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, Niketa Patel can be reached at (571) 272-4156. 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.
/S.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/LYNSEY C Eiseman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights