CTFR 18/025,585 CTFR 100381 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment The amendments filed 20 th January 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 13-17, 19, 27-28, 31-33 are pending. Claims 26 & 29 have been canceled. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that ‘Claims 1 & 33 now recite “receive a first derivative metric generated by the first wearable device based on the first heart rate estimate signal using a first derivative algorithm, receive a second derivative metric generated by the second wearable device based on the second heart rate estimate signal using a second derivative algorithm, and combine the first derivative metric and the second derivative metric to produce a third derivative metric.", Claim 19 as newly presented now recites "wherein the first device and the second device are configured to, respectively, generate a first derivative metric related to the user and a second derivative metric related to the user respectively using a derivative algorithm; and combining, at the processing device, the first derivative metric and the second derivative metric using a weighted average to form a third derivative metric.". It is respectfully submitted the claims as newly presented do not encompass a mental process or a certain method of organizing human activity.’. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant, the amendments recite more abstract ideas via receiving/generating metrics, combining said metrics to generate a third metric, which is well within the capability of the human mind and grouped as a mental process. Such receiving and generating is accomplished through extra solution activity by generically recited additional elements of ‘the first device and the second device’ and ‘the processing device’ as claimed. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 13-17, 19, 27-28, and 31-33 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 1, 3-5, 7-9, 13-17, 19, 27-28, and 31-33 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions. Step 2A, Prong 1 Each of Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 13-17, 19, 27-28, and 31-33 recites at least one step or instruction for receiving data, making determinations based on the data, and outputting data, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 13-17, 19, 27-28, and 31-33 recites an abstract idea. Specifically: Claim 1: An apparatus, comprising: a processing device coupled to a memory storing instructions, the instructions causing the processing device to: receive a first heart rate estimate signal ( Observation ) from a first wearable device having a first sensor that can generate a first signal associated with a human heart rate, receive a second heart rate estimate signal ( Observation ) from a second wearable device having a second sensor that can generate a second signal associated with the human heart rate, and combine the first heart rate estimate signal and the second heart rate estimate signal to generate a combined heart rate estimate ( Judgement ). receive a first derivative metric generated by the first wearable device based on the first heart rate estimate signal ( Observation ) using a first derivative algorithm, receive a second derivative metric generated by the second wearable device based on the second heart rate estimate signal ( Observation ) using a second derivative algorithm, and combine the first derivative metric and the second derivative metric to produce a third derivative metric ( Observation ) Claim 19: A method of determining a physical condition of a user, the method comprising: receiving , from a first device , a first measure of a heart rate or a blood oxygenation level of the user ( Observation ); receiving , from a second device , a second measure of the heart rate or the blood oxygenation level of the user ( Observation ); generating , at a processing device , a third measure of the heart rate or the blood oxygenation level of the user based on at least a combination of the first measure and the second measure of the heart rate or the blood oxygenation level of the user ( Observation ); wherein: the first measure of the heart rate or the blood oxygenation level is generated at the first device and is based on at least a first signal received by a sensor of the first device ; and the second measure of the heart rate or the blood oxygenation level is generated at the second device and is based on at least a second signal received by a sensor of the second device . wherein the first device and the second device are configured to, respectively, generate a first derivative metric related to the user and a second derivative metric related to the user respectively ( Observation ) using a derivative algorithm; and combining , at the processing device , the first derivative metric and the second derivative metric using a weighted average to form a third derivative metric ( Observation ) Claim 33: A system, comprising: a first wearable device having a first wireless interface and a first sensor , the first wearable device configured to generate a first heart rate estimate signal associated with a human heart rate; a second wearable device having a second wireless interface and a second sensor , the second wearable device configured to generate a second heart rate estimate signal associated with a human heart rate and; and a processing device coupled to a memory storing instructions, the instructions causing the processing device to : receive the first heart rate estimate signal ( Observation ) from the first wearable device , receive the second heart rate estimate signal ( Observation ) from a second wearable device , and combine the first heart rate estimate signal and the second heart rate estimate signal to generate a combined heart rate estimate ( Judgement ). receive a first derivative metric generated by the first wearable device based on the first heart rate estimate signal ( Observation ) using a first derivative algorithm, receive a second derivative metric generated by the second wearable device based on the second heart rate estimate signal ( Observation ) using a second derivative algorithm, and combine the first derivative metric and the second derivative metric to produce a third derivative metric ( Observation ) Regarding the dependent claims, the following dependent claims are directed to steps that are also abstract or organizing human activity. Claims 5, 8, 13-17, 27-28, 31-32 include steps that are also abstract as a mental process through additional data gathering or analysis Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea. 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 Claims 1, 19, and 33 (and their respective dependent Claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1, 19, and 33), 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: Processing device (Para. [0047]) , memory (Para. [0039]) , wearable device (Para. [0023]) , PPG sensors (Para. [0022]) , accelerometer (Para. [0034]) are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1, 19, and 33 (and their respective 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 Claims 1, 19, and 33 (and their respective 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 method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., processing 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 Claims 1, 19, and 33 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 19, and 33 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG. Step 2B None of Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 13-17, 19, 27-28, and 31-33 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: Processing device (Para. [0047]) , memory (Para. [0039]) , wearable device (Para. [0023]) , PPG sensors (Para. [0022]) , accelerometer (Para. [0034]). 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. 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. Per Applicant’s specification, Processing device (Para. [0047]) , memory (Para. [0039]) , wearable device (Para. [0023]) , PPG sensors (Para. [0022]) , accelerometer (Para. [0034]). Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term processing 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 processing 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 ). Regarding the dependent claims, the dependent claims are directed to further recite additional elements at a high level of generality which are conventional in the art or steps that generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Claims 3-5, 7-9, 13-17, 27-28 recite additional elements at a high level of generality which are conventional in the art The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 13-17, 19, 27-28, and 31-33 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 apparatus, system, and methods of Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 13-17, 19, 27-28, and 31-33 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 1, 3-5, 7-9, 13-17, 19, 27-28, and 31-33 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 Claims 1, 19, and 33 (and their 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 instruct the practitioner to 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 1, 3-5, 7-9, 13-17, 19, 27-28, and 31-33 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 1, 3-5, 7-9, 13-17, 19, 27-28, and 31-33 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 13-17, 19, 27-28, and 31-33 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 13-15, 27 & 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 13 ‘wherein the processing device is configured to generate a third metric based upon a first metric and a second metric’, it is unclear whether the recited numerical metrics are referring to the previously recited ‘first derivative metric’, ‘second derivative metric’ and ‘third derivative metric’ of Claim 1 or not, rendering claim 13 indefinite. Both groups of metrics are based on heart rate estimate signals using derivative algorithm(s). Examiner interprets these limitations to be referring to the same metrics. Claim 13 ‘a derivative algorithm’, it is unclear whether this is part of the previously recited ‘first derivative algorithm’ or ‘second derivative algorithm’, rendering claim 13 indefinite. Claim 14 ‘the third metric’, it is unclear whether the recited metric is referring to the previously recited ‘third derivative metric’ of claim 1, rendering claim 14 indefinite similarly to claim 13. Examiner interprets this metric to intend to read ‘third derivative metric. Claim 15 ‘the third metric… first metric and the second metric’, it is unclear whether the recited numerical metrics are referring to the previously recited ‘first derivative metric’, ‘second derivative metric’ and ‘third derivative metric’ of Claim 1 or not, rendering claim 15 indefinite, similarly to claim 13. Examiner interprets these metrics to intend to read ‘first derivative metric’, ‘second derivative metric’ and ‘third derivative metric’. Claims 27, ‘the first metric’, ‘the second metric’, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in this claim. Examiner interprets these limitations to intend ‘the first derivative metric’, ‘the second derivative metric’. Claim 32 ‘the third metric’, ‘the first metric and the second metric’, it is unclear whether the recited numerical metrics are referring to the previously recited ‘first derivative metric’, ‘second derivative metric’ and ‘third derivative metric’ of Claim 19 or not, rendering claim 32 indefinite. Examiner interprets these metrics to intend to read ‘first derivative metric’, ‘second derivative metric’ and ‘third derivative metric’. Claims 14-17 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected parent claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 3-5, 7-9, 13, 15, 19, 28, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190159690 A1 to Patel et al. (hereinafter, Patel) in view of US 20210298647 A1 to Axo et al. (hereinafter, Axo) . Regarding Claim 1 , Patel discloses an apparatus (Patel: Abstract), comprising: a processing device coupled to a memory storing instructions (Patel: Para. [0036-0037]), the instructions causing the processing device to: receive a first heart rate estimate signal from a first wearable device having a first sensor that can generate a first signal associated with a human heart rate (Patel: Para. [0006] ‘ a first monitoring device configured to couple to a first body part of a subject, wherein the first monitoring device is configured to measure a first cardiovascular signal and a first motion signal at the first body part ’), receive a second heart rate estimate signal from a second wearable device having a second sensor that can generate a second signal associated with the human heart rate (Patel: Para. [0006] ‘ a second monitoring device configured to couple to a second body part of the subject, wherein the second monitoring device is configured to measure a second cardiovascular signal and a second motion signal at the second body part .’). combine the first heart rate estimate signal and the second heart rate estimate signal to generate a combined heart rate estimate (Patel: Para. [0006] ‘ combine the received first and second cardiovascular signals, (iii) filter the combined cardiovascular signals by removing one or more spectral components of the combined cardiovascular signals that correspond to one or more spectral components of the first and second motion signals, and (iv) determine, based on a remaining spectral component of the filtered combined cardiovascular signals, cardiovascular information of the subject .’; [0029]). Patel is silent on derivative metrics based on heart rate signals and combining derivative metrics to produce another derivative metric. However, Axo teaches a derivative metric based on heart rate generated by a device using an algorithm (Axo: Para. [0032]) and Combining derivative metrics based on heart rate to produce another derivative metric (Axo: Para. [0032]) (Note: Thus, Patel in view of Axo teaches receiving a first derivative metric generated by the first wearable device using a first derivative algorithm/ a second derivative metric generated by the second wearable device using a second derivative algorithm) One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Patel to include deriving metrics based on heart rate as taught by Axo to aid in tracking emotional state and focus data of a user (Axo: Para. [0002]). Regarding Claim 3 , Patel in view of Axo discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Patel further discloses wherein the first sensor and the second sensor are photoplethysmography (PPG) sensors (Patel: Para. [0032]; Para. [0070] ‘ The first cardiovascular signal may be a PPG signal generated by using a light source and a light sensor, and the first motion signal may be generated using an IMU or an accelerometer .’; Para. [0035]; Para. [0071] ‘ The second cardiovascular signal may be a PPG signal generated by using a light source and a light sensor, and the second motion signal may be generated using an IMU or an accelerometer .’). Regarding Claim 4 , Patel in view of Axo discloses the apparatus of claim 3. Patel further discloses wherein the first wearable device and the second wearable device contain an accelerometer (Patel: Para. [0033]; Para. [0035]). Regarding Claim 5 , Patel in view of Axo discloses the apparatus of claim 4. Patel further discloses wherein the first heart rate estimate signal and the second heart rate estimate signal are calculated by the first wearable device and the second wearable device based upon data from PPG sensors and accelerometers (Patel: Para. [0070] ‘ The first cardiovascular signal may be a PPG signal generated by using a light source and a light sensor, and the first motion signal may be generated using an IMU or an accelerometer .’; Para. [0071] ‘ The second cardiovascular signal may be a PPG signal generated by using a light source and a light sensor, and the second motion signal may be generated using an IMU or an accelerometer .’; Para. [0004] Note: The motion signals are used to filter the cardiovascular signals). Regarding Claim 7 , Patel in view of Axo discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Patel further discloses wherein the processing device is included in the first wearable device (Patel: Para. [0036]; Para. [0041] ‘ all or part of the controller(s) 130, user interface(s) 140, and/or communication system(s) 150 may be implemented as part of one or both of the first and second monitoring devices 110, 120. ’). Regarding Claim 8 , Patel in view of Axo discloses the apparatus of claim 7. Patel further discloses wherein the second wearable device wirelessly transmits the second heart rate estimate signal to a first wireless interface included on the first wearable device (Patel: Para. [0039-0040]; Para. [0041] ‘ all or part of the controller(s) 130, user interface(s) 140, and/or communication system(s) 150 may be implemented as part of one or both of the first and second monitoring devices 110, 120. ’). Regarding Claim 9 , Patel in view of Axo discloses the apparatus of claim 8. Patel further discloses wherein the first wearable device and the second wearable device comprise either a smartwatch or an earbud (Patel: Para. [0042] ‘ The wearable device 200 may be used as the first or second monitoring device 110, 120 described above with respect to the system 100 depicted in FIG. 1. As shown, the wearable device 200 is a wrist-mountable device (e.g., a wristwatch) that includes a mount 202 for mounting the device 200 to a wrist 204 of the subject. The mount 202 may take the form of a strap or band that can be wrapped around the wrist 204, or the mount 202 may include an adhesive substrate for adhering the wearable device 100 to the wrist 204 of the subject. ’). Regarding Claim 13 , Patel in view of Axo discloses the apparatus of claim 1. While Patel discloses first and second wearable devices that receive/generate first and second heart rate data and combining generated data to produce a third metric of data (Para. [0006] ‘ the first monitoring device is configured to measure a first cardiovascular signal and a first motion signal at the first body part… the second monitoring device is configured to measure a second cardiovascular signal and a second motion signal at the second body part… combined cardiovascular signals ’) and the use of a derivative algorithm (Para. [0056]). Patel is silent on derivative metrics based on heart rate signals using a derivative algorithm and combining derivative metrics to produce another derivative metric. However, Axo teaches a derivative metric based on heart rate generated by a device using an algorithm (Axo: Para. [0032]) and combining derivative metrics based on heart rate to produce another derivative metric (Axo: Para. [0032]) (Note: Thus, Patel in view of Axo teaches receiving a first derivative metric generated by the first wearable device using a first derivative algorithm/ a second derivative metric generated by the second wearable device using a second derivative algorithm) One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Patel to include deriving metrics based on heart rate as taught by Axo to aid in tracking emotional state and focus data of a user (Axo: Para. [0002]). Regarding Claim 15 , Patel in view of Axo discloses the apparatus of claim 13. While Patel discloses first and second wearable devices that receive/generate first and second heart rate data and combining generated data to produce a third metric of data (Para. [0006] ‘ the first monitoring device is configured to measure a first cardiovascular signal and a first motion signal at the first body part… the second monitoring device is configured to measure a second cardiovascular signal and a second motion signal at the second body part… combined cardiovascular signals ’) and the use of a derivative algorithm (Para. [0056]). Patel is silent on wherein the third metric is based on a weighted average of the first metric and the second metric. However, Axo teaches combining derivative metrics based on heart rate to produce another derivative metric based on a weighted average (Axo: Para. [0032]) One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Patel to include deriving metrics based on heart rate as taught by Axo to aid in tracking emotional state and focus data of a user (Axo: Para. [0002]). Regarding Claim 19 , Patel discloses a method of determining a physical condition of a user (Patel: Abstract), the method comprising: receiving, from a first device, a first measure of a heart rate or a blood oxygenation level of the user (Patel: Para. [0006] ‘ a first monitoring device configured to couple to a first body part of a subject, wherein the first monitoring device is configured to measure a first cardiovascular signal and a first motion signal at the first body part ’); receiving, from a second device, a second measure of the heart rate or the blood oxygenation level of the user (Patel: Para. [0006] ‘ a second monitoring device configured to couple to a second body part of the subject, wherein the second monitoring device is configured to measure a second cardiovascular signal and a second motion signal at the second body part .’); wherein: the first measure of the heart rate or the blood oxygenation level is generated at the first device and is based on at least a first signal received by a sensor of the first device (Patel: Para. [0032] ‘ The first monitoring device 110 includes a pulse rate detector 112. The pulse rate detector 112 may take the form of a PPG system and may include a light source 114 and a light sensor 116 .’); and the second measure of the heart rate or the blood oxygenation level is generated at the second device and is based on at least a second signal received by a sensor of the second device (Patel: Para. [0035] ‘ Similar to the first monitoring device 110, the second monitoring device 120 also includes a pulse rate detector 122 and one or more motion sensors 128. The pulse rate detector 122 and the motion sensor(s) 128 of the second monitoring device 120 may operate in the same or in a similar manner as the pulse rate detector 112 and the motion sensor(s) 118 of the first monitoring device 110. As such, the pulse rate detector 122 of the second monitoring device 120 may take the form of a PPG system and may include a light source 124 configured to emit illumination into a portion of the subject's subsurface vasculature, and a light sensor 126’ ); generating, at a processing device, a third measure of the heart rate or the blood oxygenation level of the user based on at least a combination of the first measure and the second measure of the heart rate or the blood oxygenation level of the user (Patel: Para. [0006] ‘ combine the received first and second cardiovascular signals, (iii) filter the combined cardiovascular signals by removing one or more spectral components of the combined cardiovascular signals that correspond to one or more spectral components of the first and second motion signals, and (iv) determine, based on a remaining spectral component of the filtered combined cardiovascular signals, cardiovascular information of the subject .’ And [0029]). Patel is silent on derivative metrics based on heart rate signals and combining derivative metrics to produce another derivative metric. However, Axo teaches a derivative metric based on heart rate generated by a device using an algorithm (Axo: Para. [0032]) and Combining derivative metrics using a weighted average to form another derivative metric (Axo: Para. [0032]) (Note: Thus, Patel in view of Axo teaches receiving a first derivative metric generated by the first wearable device using a first derivative algorithm/ a second derivative metric generated by the second wearable device using a second derivative algorithm) One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Patel to include deriving metrics based on heart rate as taught by Axo to aid in tracking emotional state and focus data of a user (Axo: Para. [0002]). Regarding Claim 28 , Patel in view of Axo discloses the method of claim 19. Patel does not explicitly disclose wherein the derivative algorithm takes as input the first measure or the second measure and providing as output the first derivative metric or the second derivative metric. However, Axo teaches a derivative algorithm that takes heart rate data as input and outputs derivative metrics (Axo: Para. [0032]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Patel to include deriving metrics based on heart rate as taught by Axo to aid in tracking emotional state and focus data of a user (Axo: Para. [0002]). Regarding Claim 32 , Patel in view of Axo discloses the method of claim 19. While Patel discloses first and second wearable devices that receive/generate first and second heart rate data and combining generated data to produce a third metric of data (Para. [0006] ‘ the first monitoring device is configured to measure a first cardiovascular signal and a first motion signal at the first body part… the second monitoring device is configured to measure a second cardiovascular signal and a second motion signal at the second body part… combined cardiovascular signals ’) and the use of a derivative algorithm (Para. [0056]). Patel is silent on the generating derivative metrics and combining derivative metrics to produce another derivative metric. However, Axo teaches a derivative metric based on heart rate generated by a device using an algorithm (Axo: Para. [0032]) and combining derivative metrics based on heart rate to produce another derivative metric (Axo: Para. [0032]) (Note: Thus, Patel in view of Axo teaches receiving a first derivative metric generated by the first wearable device using a first derivative algorithm/ a second derivative metric generated by the second wearable device using a second derivative algorithm) One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Patel to include deriving metrics based on heart rate as taught by Axo to aid in tracking emotional state and focus data of a user (Axo: Para. [0002]). Regarding Claim 33 , Patel discloses a system (Patel: Abstract), comprising: a first wearable device having a first wireless interface and a first sensor, the first wearable device configured to generate a first heart rate estimate signal associated with a human heart rate (Patel: Para. [0006] ‘ a first monitoring device configured to couple to a first body part of a subject, wherein the first monitoring device is configured to measure a first cardiovascular signal and a first motion signal at the first body part ’; Para. [0032] ‘ The first monitoring device 110 includes a pulse rate detector 112. The pulse rate detector 112 may take the form of a PPG system and may include a light source 114 and a light sensor 116 .’; Para. [0039]; Para. [0041]); a second wearable device having a second wireless interface and a second sensor, the second wearable device configured to generate a second heart rate estimate signal associated with a human heart rate (Patel: Para. [0006] ‘ a second monitoring device configured to couple to a second body part of the subject, wherein the second monitoring device is configured to measure a second cardiovascular signal and a second motion signal at the second body part .’; Para. [0035]; Para. [0039]; Para. [0041]); and a processing device coupled to a memory storing instructions (Patel: Para. [0036-0037]), the instructions causing the processing device to: receive the first heart rate estimate signal from the first wearable device (Patel: Para. [0006] ‘ a first monitoring device configured to couple to a first body part of a subject, wherein the first monitoring device is configured to measure a first cardiovascular signal and a first motion signal at the first body part ’), receive the second heart rate estimate signal from a second wearable device (Patel: Para. [0006] ‘ a second monitoring device configured to couple to a second body part of the subject, wherein the second monitoring device is configured to measure a second cardiovascular signal and a second motion signal at the second body part .’), and combine the first heart rate estimate signal and the second heart rate estimate signal to generate a combined heart rate estimate (Patel: Para. [0006] ‘ combine the received first and second cardiovascular signals, (iii) filter the combined cardiovascular signals by removing one or more spectral components of the combined cardiovascular signals that correspond to one or more spectral components of the first and second motion signals, and (iv) determine, based on a remaining spectral component of the filtered combined cardiovascular signals, cardiovascular information of the subject .’ And [0029]). Patel is silent on derivative metrics based on heart rate signals and combining derivative metrics to produce another derivative metric. However, Axo teaches a derivative metric based on heart rate generated by a device using an algorithm (Axo: Para. [0032]) and Combining derivative metrics based on heart rate to produce another derivative metric (Axo: Para. [0032]) (Note: Thus, Patel in view of Axo teaches receiving a first derivative metric generated by the first wearable device using a first derivative algorithm/ a second derivative metric generated by the second wearable device using a second derivative algorithm) One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Patel to include deriving metrics based on heart rate as taught by Axo to aid in tracking emotional state and focus data of a user (Axo: Para. [0002]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 14, 27, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel in view of Axo in further view of US 20160302677 A1 to He . Regarding Claim 14 , Patel in view of Axo discloses the apparatus of claim 13. Patel does not explicitly disclose wherein the third metric is used for one of: atrial fibrillation detection, heart regularity, sleep analysis, emotional measurement, menstrual cycles tracking, respiration tracking, illnesses detection, or hydration levels. However, He teaches wherein the third metric is used for one of: atrial fibrillation detection, heart regularity, sleep analysis, emotional measurement, menstrual cycles tracking, respiration tracking, illnesses detection, or hydration levels (He: Para. [0060] ‘ derived parameters such as blood pressure, stroke volume, or arterial stiffness, and inferred parameters such as mood, stress level, or sleep deprivation .’). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Patel to derive health parameters as taught by He to track and warn a user when the derived parameter is outside an acceptable range (He: Para. [0060] ‘ the device 100 can be configured to warn the user (for example, by displaying a message) if a measured, derived, or inferred health parameter is outside an acceptable range for the parameter .’). Regarding Claim 27 , Patel in view of Axo discloses the method of claim 19. Patel does not explicitly disclose wherein the first metric or the second metric are used to determine one of atrial fibrillation detection, heart regularity, sleep analysis, emotional measurement, menstrual cycles tracking, respiration tracking, illnesses detection, or hydration levels. However, He teaches wherein the first metric or the second metric are used to determine one of atrial fibrillation detection, heart regularity, sleep analysis, emotional measurement, menstrual cycles tracking, respiration tracking, illnesses detection, or hydration levels (He: Para. [0060] ‘ derived parameters such as blood pressure, stroke volume, or arterial stiffness, and inferred parameters such as mood, stress level, or sleep deprivation .’). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Patel to be used to derive health parameters as taught by He to track and warn a user when the derived parameter is outside an acceptable range (He: Para. [0060] ‘ the device 100 can be configured to warn the user (for example, by displaying a message) if a measured, derived, or inferred health parameter is outside an acceptable range for the parameter .’). Regarding Claim 31 , Patel in view of Axo discloses the method of claim 19. Patel does not explicitly disclose comprising providing an alert to the user upon the third derivative metric being generated. However, He teaches comprising providing an alert to the user upon the third derivative metric being generated (Para. [00154]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention would have found it obvious to modify the processor of Patel to be configured to provide an alert to the user upon the third derivative metric being generated as taught by He in the case that a parameter is outside of an acceptable range (He: Para. [0060] ‘ the device 100 can be configured to warn the user (for example, by displaying a message) if a measured, derived, or inferred health parameter is outside an acceptable range for the parameter .’) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel in view of Axo in further view of US 7647185 B2 to Tarassenko et al. (hereinafter, Tarassenko) . Regarding Claim 16 , Patel in view of Axo discloses the apparatus of claim 15. Patel does not explicitly disclose wherein the weights are based on a confidence level associated with the first and second heart rate signal. However, Tarassenko teaches wherein the weights are based on a confidence level associated with the first and second heart rate signal (Tarassenko: Col. 5, lines 19-33). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the third metric of Patel to have weights based on a confidence level as taught by Tarassenko to combine known techniques to achieve predictable results, in this case to validate confidence of measurements to ensure reliable data analysis (Tarassenko: Col. 5, lines 24-27) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel in view of Axo in view of Tarassenko in further view of He . Regarding Claim 17 , Patel in view of Axo in view of Tarassenko discloses the apparatus of claim 16. Patel further discloses a motion detection of an accelerometer reading of the first wearable device or the second wearable device (Patel: Para. [0033] and [0035]). Patel does not explicitly disclose a confidence level. However, He teaches wherein the confidence level is based on a motion detection of an accelerometer reading (He: Para. [0072] ‘ confidence levels associated with a calculated instantaneous heart rate can be determined before being used in any subsequent analysis. For example, if a person suddenly stands up from a sitting position, the instantaneous heart rate during the transition may shoot up. In some implementations, the rate of such rapid increase can include meaningful information .’). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the third metric of Patel to have a confidence level based on a motion detection of an accelerometer reading as taught by He to allow for discarding unreliable data outliers in subsequent analysis (He: Para. [0072] ‘ the information obtained during this transition may not be reliable as an indicator of the person's health status. Determining confidence levels associated with the computed heart rates can allow for discarding such outliers in subsequent analyses .’). Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SHAWN CURTIS BROUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 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 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. /SHAWN CURTIS BROUGHTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/025,585 Page 2 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/025,585 Page 3 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/025,585 Page 4 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/025,585 Page 5 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/025,585 Page 6 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/025,585 Page 7 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/025,585 Page 8 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/025,585 Page 9 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/025,585 Page 10 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/025,585 Page 11 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/025,585 Page 12 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/025,585 Page 13 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/025,585 Page 14 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/025,585 Page 15 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/025,585 Page 16 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/025,585 Page 17 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/025,585 Page 18 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/025,585 Page 19 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/025,585 Page 20 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/025,585 Page 21 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/025,585 Page 22 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/025,585 Page 23 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/025,585 Page 24 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/025,585 Page 25 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/025,585 Page 26 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/025,585 Page 27 Art Unit: 3791 Application/Control Number: 18/025,585 Page 29 Art Unit: 3791
Prosecution Insights