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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 1/14/26; 2/13/26 has/have been acknowledged and is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/26 regarding the 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the method can not be practically performed in the human mind and the acquiring data from a sensor is not data gathering. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The method does not require anything more than mental calculations. The Method receives data, determines shifts in the data to find a respiratory pattern and then finally compares the pattern to a profiled pattern. All of the above are perfectly capable of being performed in the mind. Unlike the other independent claims that require a wearable device with specific FBG sensors that uses light emitters and light sensors, the current claims just require already sensed data and it is processed and provided with a generic output that fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the rejections stand.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 1/22/26, with respect to the 112 and 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 and 103 rejections of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn.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.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1- Claim 1
Claim 1 and dependent claims 2-8 are drawn to a method and thus meet the requirements for step 1.
Step 2a (prong 1) - Claim 1
Claims 1 recites the step of “comparing the baseline respiratory pattern with profiled respiratory patterns to determine whether the baseline respiratory pattern is indicative of a disease state” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this step covers a concept capable of being performed in the human mind, and thus falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Other than reciting the method is “computer-implemented” in the preamble, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2a (prong 2) – Claim 1
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
Acquiring peak wavelength data from a plurality of fiber Bragg gratings of a user is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering),
Determining effective shifts of Bragg wavelengths is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering), and
Providing an alert of the disease state is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic devices, a “computer-implemented” method, performing generic computer functions like sending, receiving, and visually displaying data) is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data output).
These steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are insignificant extra solution activity.
Step 2b- Claim 1
The additional elements when considered individually and in combination are not enough to qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, providing a (providing an alert of the disease state) is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic devices, a “computer-implemented” method, performing generic computer functions like sending, receiving, and visually displaying data). Further, EXAMPLE acquiring peak wavelength data from a plurality of fiber Bragg gratings disposed in contact with a body is considered data gathering. It is noted that the fiber Bragg gratings are recited at a high level of generality.
The additional elements that were considered insignificant extra solution activity have been re-analyzed and do not amount to anything more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional when considered individually and in combination with evidence provided. Specifically:
acquiring peak wavelength data from a plurality of fiber Bragg gratings disposed in contact with a body is well understood, routine, and conventional (i.e., receiving data MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Determining effective shifts of Bragg wavelenths is well-understood routine and conventional (i.e., gathering data/statistics MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Providing an alert of the disease state is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (i.e., presenting data MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Claim 1 is thus consider to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1. The type of data analyzed as stated in claims 2-8 is considered extra solution activity. Thus, the dependent claim do not change the overall analysis that claims 2-8 are also directed to an abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-24 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The subject matter for the independent claims could not be found or was not suggested in the prior art. Based on Applicant's remarks and upon reconsideration, the Examiner finds Applicant's arguments convincing in light of amendments to the claims. The prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest, within the context of the other claimed elements, the concept of a wearable device having at least on FBG, along with determining a baseline respiratory pattern from the FBG axial strain and comparing it to a profiled pattern to determine a potential disease in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
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 REX R HOLMES whose telephone number is (571)272-8827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:30PM.
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 McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/REX R HOLMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796