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 .
The present Office Action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination dated 23 February 2026.
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 23 February 2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
In the amendments filed via the RCE filed 23 February 2026:
Claims 2 and 5 are cancelled
Claim 1 has been amended
Claims 1,3-4,6-12 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 1-5, 8-10, 12, 13, and 15 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 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim recites a method, which are within a statutory category.
Step 2A1
The limitations of:
preliminary preparing a series of templates, wherein each template comprises a set of interrelated critical parameter values for different functional parameters and temporal characteristics thereof in terms of duration and periodicity,
receiving signals comprising measured functional parameters, before converting signals into binary signals, wherein an average value of the signal at a given time interval is determined for tuning against interference, wherein each of the received signals is converted in a real time model into a binary signal at a given time interval in a signal conversion block, wherein the signal is given a value of 1 if the signal exceeds an average value of a threshold of a critical parameter value which is stored in one of the plurality of pre-prepared templates, and a value of 0 if the average value is not exceeded,
and comparing the binary signals with each other in a signal comparison block and, if the values of 1 temporally coincide among the set of signals of each of the pre-prepared templates, a decision is made automatically about the presence of certain health risks in an overall risk assessment block,
wherein the method is realized by using automated information processing means, and interaction between the elements of the system is performed using standard means and data transmission protocols,
as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for 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 indicate health risks, in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The rules or instructions are the claimed steps of “receiving, converting and comparing signals” as indicated supra.
Other than reciting generic computer components (discussed infra), i.e., a method implemented by a system using information processing, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. 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” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
The claim further recites the additional element of a wearable personal device. The wearable personal device merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a wearable personal device was determined to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. 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. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 3-4,6-12 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 merely describe(s) the templates, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 4 merely describe(s) the signals from the wearable personal device, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 6 merely describe(s) converting signals, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 7 merely describe(s) signal threshold, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 8 merely describe(s) deciding health risk, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 9 merely describe(s) the signals, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 10 merely describe(s) the time window, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 11 merely describe(s) the length of the time window, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 12 merely describe(s) a human health risk assessment, which further defines the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1,3-4,6-12, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are not persuasive. Any arguments inadvertently not addressed are unpersuasive for at least the following reasons. Applicant argues:
None of the steps in claim 1 establish rules of conduct for users, govern relationships between people, or relate to business processes, games, or social interaction. Each step relates exclusively to the conversion and comparison of telemetry data (heart rate, type of activity, observation time, etc.), as disclosed, for example, on pages 5-7 of the description and in Fig. 2-7. The Examiner did not provide evidence that this sequence is "organization of human activity". According to Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F .3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018), such conclusions must be based on facts, not mere assertions
These features show that the claimed method improves the functioning of a specific technological system for diagnosis based on signals from wearable devices and thereby integrates any abstract elements into practical application MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I) and§ 2106.05(a).
The Applicant’s invention solves a similar technical problem: noisy physiological signals from wearable devices reduce the reliability of risk assessment. The specific sequence(averaging---> binarization---> multi-parameter templates ---> integrated assessment) is a technical solution to a technical problem that satisfies the requirements of MPEP § 2106.05.
Comparison to several cases as a means to support solving a technological problem:• Enjish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., McRO v. Bandai Namco, DOR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, CardioNet, LLC v. lnfoBionic , Inc, SAP America, Inc. v. lnvestPic, Diamond v. Diehr
The elements suggested by the Applicant are not WURC.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Initially, the Examiner refers applicant to and reiterates the responses to arguments in the Final Rejection dated 23 September 2025. Multiple CAFC decisions that the Office has characterized as Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity did not actively recite a person or persons performing the steps of the claims (see, e.g., EPG, TLI communications, Ultramercial). Because whether a human is required to perform the step of the claim is not a requirement for claims to encompass certain method of organizing human activity, this argument is not persuasive. The Examiner asserts that responses are not made on mere assertions. Examiner points to MPEP 2106.07(a)(III) for any arguments related to Berkheimer. In is unclear what factual evidence Applicant believes is required given the statement in the MPEP. Berkheimer is directed to degerming whether the additional element of the claim are well-understood, routine, and convention, not whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates
that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. See, e.g., DOR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (finding that claiming a website that retained the "look and feel" of a host webpage provided a
technological solution to the problem of retention of website visitors by utilizing a website descriptor that emulated the "look and feel" of the host webpage, where the problem arose out of the internet and was thus a technical problem). Here, the Examiner cannot find, nor has the Applicant identified, any
technological problem that was caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined. Further, the claim does not actually do anything with the results of the data analysis. The analysis just exists. Therefore the claims are not improving anything.
Regarding (c), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no support in the Specification for
Applicant's statement. No technical problem is identified.
Regarding (d), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. These cases provide a technical solution to a
technical problem. Since a technical problem tied to the computer or technological field cannot be found, a practical application is not present.
Regarding (e), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.05(d) states: "Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry (emphasis added)." Further, MPEP 2106.05(1) states: "As made clear by the courts, the novelty of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter (internal quotations omitted, emphasis original)." As such, it is only the additional elements identified by the Examiner to not be part of the abstract idea that are analyzed to determine whether they represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the field of the invention.
In that regard, MPEP 2106.05(d)(I) indicates that in determining whether the additional elements represent are well-understood, routine, conventional activities, the Examiner should consider whether the additional elements (1) provide an improvement to the technological environment to which the claim is confined, (2) whether the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception, or (3) whether the additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements of the claims do not provide significantly more based on this inquiry.
Taking these in turn, whether the additional elements of the claim provide an improvement was analyzed/addressed in the 2A2 analysis, no improvement was present because no technical problem tied to the computer and/or technology can be found. The technological environment to which the claims are confined (a general-purpose computer performing generic computer functions [see Spec. Page 4 Embodiments Para. 11) is recited at a high level of generality and has been found by the courts to be insufficient to provide a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Alice Corp.). None of the additional elements of the claim were found to represent extra-solution activity and thus no well-understood, routine, conventional analysis is required. As such, when viewed either individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea and the claims are not subject matter eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
BURTON et al (Foreign Publication CN-108024730-A) discloses method and system to diagnoses illnesses.
Sobol et al (US Publication No. 20220039673) discloses a system and methods of monitoring with a wearable electronic device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN C EDOUARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730 - 430.
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.
/JONATHAN C EDOUARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683