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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 12th, 2026 has been entered.
Amendment Entered
In response to the amendment filed on July 29th, 2026, amended claims 13, 24, and 35 are entered. Claims 24-25, 28-32, 35, and 43-47 remain withdrawn from consideration. Claims 13-14 and 17-21 are currently under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed on January 22nd, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejections are maintained, and further clarified, in view of the amendment.
At Pg. 9 of the Reply, Applicant argues wherein “The Claims Provide an Improvement in the Field of Medical Monitoring and Blood Pressure Measurement”, specifically arguing that “the subject matter of the claims is rooted in specific physical instrumentation and multi-axis signal processing that cannot be practically performed in the human mind or by pen and paper”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to clarify that the “specific physical instrumentation” seems to be referring to a “sensor device including an accelerometer and a gyroscope”, which is considered as a data-gathering element. Furthermore, the “multi-axis signal processing” is simply processing the data from the sensor device, which would comprise multi-axis signals. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind, see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Determining blood pressure measurement based on chest vibrations are assessments that may be performed by a human. This applies for all claims dependent on claim 13.
The claims recite mental processes performed on a computer control system. The “Federal Circuit has explained, ‘[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.’ Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. Thus, the use of the “computing device” including a “processor” and “memory” does not prevent identification of the abstract idea as a mental process. There is no time limit recited for performing the steps. The claimed steps can be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind with no time limit. The computer is merely utilized as a tool to perform the mental steps.
At Pgs. 10-11 of the Reply, Applicant further argues that the claimed subject matter provides an improvement. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed steps do not improve the functioning of the data acquisition or the signal exchange. “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.” MPEP 2106.05(a). The data acquisition and signal exchange appear to perform the same with or without the abstract idea. Therefore, any improvement resides solely within the abstract idea. “The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification).” MPEP 2106.05(a). “That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.” Id.
“[I]n McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea.” MPEP 2106.05 (a). There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. Unlike McRO, the claimed system invokes a computer as a tool to perform a mathematical concept and/or mental process.
The processor and units perform the same with or without the claimed abstract idea. Therefore, it is unclear how the abstract idea can improve the standard functions of the additional elements.
Applicant further cites [0379] and [0387] of the Applicant’s Specification in order to argue that the claims provide an improvement. The Examiner would like to emphasize that no particular improvements are being claimed, and that the claims are significantly broader than the Specification.
At Pgs. 12-13 of the Reply, Applicant argues that the “Claims are Integrated into a Practical Application”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the Applicant has amended the claim to further specify the abstract idea, the abstract idea is still not integrated into practical application. The additional elements of a “sensor device”, an “accelerometer”, and a “gyroscope” detect the physical signal exploited in the abstract idea, but they do not constitute a particular machine (i.e., both are recited at a high level of generality). Further, the judicial exception is not applied or used in a meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Additionally, there are no additional elements which apply or use the judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or transform a particular article to a different state or thing. Recitation of the “computing device”, “communication port”, “processor”, and “memory” merely indicates that a computer or equivalent hardware is used as a tool for executing the abstract idea(s), and the claimed system does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of the computer.
The current claims do not have any limitations drawn to performing any decisions, procedures, or steps in response to the determination output by the abstract idea. Although the claims recite a “display device” that is configured for outputting the blood pressure measurement, the “display device” is not part of the abstract idea and is considered data-outputting, categorized under insignificant, extra-solution activity. “As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978)” MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, there is nothing outside of the abstract idea that shows integration into practical application or significantly more.
Furthermore, at Pg. 14 of the Reply, the Applicant argues that “the claimed techniques improve the refinement of physiological information. This is a technical transformation of computer-encoded sensor data – not a mental process”. Examiner would like to point out that the Applicant seems to be misinterpreting the usage of “transformation” by the MPEP. The transformation of an article means that the “article”, which is a physical object or substance, has changed to a different state or thing. Therefore, in this case, the claim limitations fail to recite any sort of “transformation”.
At Pgs. 15-16 of the Reply, Applicant argues that the “Claims Provide an Inventive Concept”. The Examiner would like to note that even newly discovered abstract ideas are considered abstract. The Court recognized that “a novel and useful structure created with the aid of knowledge of scientific truth” might be patentable. Id., at 67 (quoting Mackay Radio, 306 U. S., at 94). But it held that simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle. For the mathematical formula had “no substantial practical application except in connection with a digital computer.” Benson, supra, at 71. Hence the claim (like the claims before us) was overly broad; it did not differ significantly from a claim that just said “apply the algorithm.” See Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012). The Examiner would further like to clarify that the Examiner is not asserting that the whole claim is an abstract idea. Rather, the Examiner is arguing that the abstract idea is only coupled with limitations that are insufficient in showing integration into practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Applicant's remarks and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
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 13-14 and 17-21 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. Each of Claims 13-14 and 17-21 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 1
Claims 13-14 and 17-21 recite a system for non-invasive blood pressure measurement of a subject. Thus, the claims are directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 13-14 and 17-21 recites at least one step or instruction for non-invasive blood pressure measurement of a subject, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG. The claimed steps of determining and generating can be practically performed in the human mind using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas.
Accordingly, each of Claims 13-14 and 17-21 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 13 recites the abstract idea of: “determine a vibration feature exclusively from the vibration signal, wherein determining the vibration feature includes processing the vibration signal to generate vibrational cardiography (VCG) waveform data comprising SCG waveform data and GCG waveform data corresponding to acceleration and rotational velocity signals of the vibration signal, respectively, determine a blood pressure measurement from the vibration feature such that the blood pressure measurement is obtained exclusively from the detected myocardial vibrations, and generate a human-readable format of the blood pressure measurement”.
Further, dependent Claims 14 and 17-21 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the abstract idea steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claim 13 (and its dependent Claims 14 and 17-21) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: “sensor device”, “accelerometer”, “gyroscope”, “computing device”, “communication port”, “processor”, “memory”, and “display device” are generically recited elements in independent Claim 13 (and its dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 13 (and its dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., “computing device” as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 13 (and its dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, independent Claim 13 (and its dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 13-14 and 17-21 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: “sensor device”, “accelerometer”, “gyroscope”, “computing device”, “communication port”, “processor”, “memory”, and “display device” as recited in independent Claim 13 and its dependent claims. The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks and/or categorized as data-gathering or data-outputting elements. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. The steps of detecting, transmitting, receiving, storing, and outputting are categorized as extra-solution activity in the forms of data-gathering and data-outputting.
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by the Applicant’s specification (e.g. paragraphs [0179-0196]) which discloses that the processor(s) comprise generic computer components that are configured to perform the generic computer functions (e.g. determining, generating) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry; the Applicant’s Background in the specification; and the non-patent literature of record in the application.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term “computing device” is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the computing device. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 13-14 and 17-21 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the system of Claims 13-14 and 17-21 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 13-14 and 17-21 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claim 13 (and its dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 13-14 and 17-21 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 13-14 and 17-21 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 13-14 and 17-21 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANEL J YOON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2695. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on 571-272-4233. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANEL J YOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
