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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3-7, 9-16 & 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected specie(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 18, 2025.
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 1-20, specifically independent claims 1, 8 & 17 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Please see the below analysis providing the details as to why the invention is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a system, which is a product, i.e. a statutory category of invention.
Claim 8 is directed to a method, a statutory category of invention.
Claim 17 is directed to a system, which is a product, i.e. a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claim 1 recites the method steps of (i.e. memory storing a disease diagnosis application to direct the processor to):
“…perform a remote photoplethysmography process (r-PPG)that generates a final r-PPG signal…”
“…generating a first r-PPG signal estimate…”
“…generating a second r-PPG signal estimate…”
“…determining the final r-PPG signal estimate…”
“…perform a respiratory rate process that generates a final respiratory waveform signal…”
“…generating a first respiratory waveform estimate…”
“…generating a second respiratory waveform estimate…”
“…determine the final respiratory waveform signal…”
“…perform a blood oxygenation process that generates an oxygen saturation estimation…”
“…perform a decision level fusion process…”
“…second model receives as inputs raw data from the plurality of different types of sensors.”
Claim 8 recites the method steps of:
“…identifying regions of interest (ROI) from video data…”
“…generating temporal waveforms from the ROIs…”
“…analyzing the generated temporal waveforms…”
“…generating outputs…”
Claim 17 recites the method steps of (i.e. a plurality of different types of sensors that do the following steps):
“…generate a first vital sign estimate…”
“…generate a second vital sign estimate…”
“…perform decision level fusion by applying fuzzy aggregation…”
These limitations, under their broadest interpretation, fall within the mental processes (i.e. perform, determining, identifying and analyzing). These limitations, under their broadest interpretation, fall within the mental processes (i.e. receiving, defining, correcting) and mathematical concept (i.e. generating, applying) groupings of abstract ideas. It would be practical, but for the recitation “direct the processor to/a plurality of different types of sensors” to perform the steps in a human’s mind, or with a pen and paper, to utilize the claimed signals.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claims as a whole fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1 & 17 recites the following additional elements, which for the reasons set forth below, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1
“…a plurality of different types of sensors…” which is directed to data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“….a RGB camera…” which is directed to data output, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“…a near infrared imaging (NIR) camera…” which is directed to data output, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“…a least one processor…” which is directed to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 17
“…a plurality of different types of sensors…” which is directed to data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner also notes that the additional elements recited in claims 1 & 17 do not apply or use the judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. The claims are silent to providing any treatment at all to a patient.
Step 2B:
The claims as a whole fails to recite an inventive concept. The additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons as set forth above in Step 2A, Prong 2. Upon re-evaluating the limitation that was previously identified as insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong 2, the following evidence to show that the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional:
real-time discrete data obtained from a medical device/data previously collected from a medical device (i.e. body surface/unipolar electrodes) Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, 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).
producing at said computer processor a human-readable output (i.e. processor) of the analysis of the gathered data, this is also WURC, as evidenced by Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed.Cir. 2016), which discusses “conventional computer, network, and display technology” and states that “nothing in the patent contains any suggestion that the displays needed for that purpose are anything but readily available. We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are “insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application” of an abstract idea”.” Similarly, there is nothing in Applicant’s specification that indicates that the device that is “producing at said computer processor a human-readable output indicating” the findings of the analysis is anything but readily available.
Therefore, the claims fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea and claims 9-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101.
The limitations of the dependent claims 2, 18 & 20 further defines steps of computing a skin reflectance variation, and generating the first and second r-PPG signal(s) which further limit claim limitations already indicated above as being directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, claims 2, 18 & 20 are directed to patient-ineligible subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 5, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the following point(s) in which the examiner provides a reason(s) as to why the arguments are not persuasive:
The applicant argues that the current (and amended) claims are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more since the claims are directed to specific technological improvements in multi-modal health sensing system that solve technical problems in the field of vital sign monitoring and disease diagnosis,
i.e. the claim 1 is not directed to abstract mental processes and mathematical concepts but rather addresses the technical problem of accurately measuring vital signs without physical contact by utilizing sophisticated senor fusion and signal processing techniques that cannot be performed mentally.
i.e. claim 17, as amended, clarify that the system performs specific technical operations involving fuzzy aggregation algorithms to combine multiple vital sign estimates representing a concrete technological application rather than an abstract mental process.
Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation the examiner disagrees and further points out that claims do not recite a specific improvement to sensing hardware or signal acquisition, but instead recites steps of performing, generating, determining and identifying data to determine health-related information, which constitutes mental processes and mathematical concepts.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely perform conventional functions of data collection and processing.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The recited components perform their well-understood, routine and conventional functions and the claims amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic technology. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 is maintained, and the claims are still deemed directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant’s arguments, filed December 5, 2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C 112(b) and 103 claim rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive and have been withdrawn.
The examiner notes that there are no pending prior art claim rejections of the current claims. However, as directed above, the pending claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C 101. Please see the above action.
Conclusion
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 NICOLE F JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm 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, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/NICOLE F JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796