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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II, claims 7-13, in the reply filed on November 21, 2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
In response to amendment filed November 21, 2025, no claims are amended, cancelled or added. Claims 1-6 and 14-19 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to non-elected inventions. Claims 7-13 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 7-13 are all within at least one of the four categories.
The independent claim 7 recites:
determining, based on the sensor data, a measure of a contact pressure of a bottom portion of the wrist-worn device on the wrist of the user;
identifying a target contact pressure of the wrist-worn device for a physiological measurement to be made using the wrist-worn device;
identifying at least one change to be made in connection with performing the physiological measurement based on a difference between the determined measure of the contact pressure and the target contact pressure; and
performing the physiological measurement using the at least one change to generate a physiological metric of the user.
The above claim limitations constitute an abstract idea that is part of the Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes group identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019. See footnotes 14 and 15.
“A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words ….” October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, II. A. i. “[T]here are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping.” Id. at II. A. ii. “[A] claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation.” Id. at II. A. iii. See for example, SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (performing a resampled statistical analysis to generate a resampled distribution).
The claimed steps of determining; identifying and performing 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.
Examples of ineligible claims that recite mental processes include:
a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.;
claims to “comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations,” where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp.
a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC.
See p. 7-8 of October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.
With respect to the pending claims, for example, an experienced physician can perform the claimed step of determining a measure of a contact pressure by mentally looking at obtained sensor data. The experienced physician can then identify a target contact pressure and also identify at least one change to be made based on a difference between determined measure of the contact pressure and the target contact pressure looking at the obtained sensor data. The experienced physician can then further perform a physiological measurement using the at least one change and generate a physiological metric of user using mathematical manipulation in the mind. Thus, the claims can be readily interpreted as being a mere application of a mental process on a computer.
Regarding the dependent claims, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data output that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry. For example, dependent claims 8-13 recite steps (e.g. integrating and utilizing) that can be performed in the mind. 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.
This judicial exception (abstract idea) in claims 7-13 is not integrated into a practical application because:
The abstract idea amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For example, the recitations regarding the generic computing components for determining, identifying, performing, generating, integrating and utilizing merely invoke a computer as a tool.
The data-gathering step (obtaining) does not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. “The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.” MPEP 2106.05(a) II. The claims recite a computer that is used as a tool for determining, identifying, performing, generating, integrating and utilizing.
The claims do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Rather, the abstract idea is utilized to determine a relationship among data to provide information about pressure measurements.
The claims do not apply the abstract idea to a particular machine. “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b). II. “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b) III. The pending claims utilize a computer for determining, identifying, performing, generating, integrating and utilizing. The claims do not apply the obtained data to a particular machine. Rather, the data is merely output in an post-solution step.
The additional elements are identified as follows: one or more sensors; a wrist-worn device.
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 non-patent literature cited by applicant:
YOUSEFIAN P., et al., "The Potential of Wearable Limb Ballistocardiogram in Blood Pressure Monitoring via Pulse Transit Time," Scientific Reports, Vol. 9, No. 1, July 23, 2019, 11 pages.
Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3.
Furthermore, the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(lI) note the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of such additional elements as those claimed. See option III. A. 2. in the Berkheimer memorandum.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (i.e. the generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (US 20160278704 A1; cited by applicant).
With respect to claim 7, Park discloses
A method for utilizing contact pressure measurements of wrist-worn devices (see paragraph 0070-0079 and Figs. 4-5B), comprising:
obtaining sensor data from one or more sensors disposed in or on a wrist-worn device worn on a wrist of a user (see Fig 1, Figs.4-5B and paragraph 0070-0079, bio-signal measurer #100 receives data in form of bio-signals where #100 is arranged on a strap and main body of the biometric information detecting apparatus #300 which is worn on a wrist; and see paragraph 0047-0048, bio-signal measurer #100 can be a sensor);
determining, based on the sensor data, a measure of a contact pressure of a bottom portion of the wrist-worn device on the wrist of the user (see paragraph 0070-0079, based on the bio-signal detected by the bio-signal measurer #100 a contact pressure between #300 and the skin of the target object is determined);
identifying a target contact pressure of the wrist-worn device for a physiological measurement to be made using the wrist-worn device (see paragraph 0070-0079, an appropriate target contact pressure is identified to display biometric information measured via biometric information detection);
identifying at least one change to be made in connection with performing the physiological measurement based on a difference between the determined measure of the contact pressure and the target contact pressure (see paragraph 0070-0079, when the contact pressure is inappropriate the user adjusts a state in which #300 is worn in order get the appropriate contact pressure in order to measure correct biometric information); and
performing the physiological measurement using the at least one change to generate a physiological metric of the user (see paragraph 0070-0079, when the contact pressure is appropriate as the user has adjusted #300 properly then the user can touch the touch region #225 to continuously detect biometric information).
With respect to claim 8, all limitations of claim 7 apply in which Park further discloses wherein the at least one change comprises a change to operating characteristics of at least one component of the wrist-worn device used to perform the physiological measurement (see paragraph 0070-0079, the adjusting of a state in which #300 is worn is a operating change of the bio-signal measurer worn on the strap and body of the wrist worn device #300).
With respect to claim 9, all limitations of claim 8 apply in which Park further discloses wherein the at least one component is a light source (see paragraphs 0047-0048 and 0070-0079, the bio-signal measurer worn on the strap and body of #300 may include at least one light emitting diode or at least one laser diode), and wherein the change to the operating characteristics comprises a change in current provided to the light source (see paragraph 0082, the current component in signal changes based on contact pressures).
With respect to claim 10, all limitations of claim 7 apply in which Park further discloses wherein the at least one change comprises a change to an analysis of sensor data collected while performing the physiological measurement to generate the physiological metric of the user (see paragraph 0080-0083, measurement of biometric information is changed when the state in which a biometric information detecting apparatus #300 is worn and adjusted and contact pressure changes).
With respect to claim 11, all limitations of claim 10 apply in which Park further discloses wherein the change to the analysis of the sensor data comprises integrating the sensor data over a time duration that is different than a standard integration time duration, wherein the time duration is determined based at least in part on the difference between the determined contact pressure and the target contact pressure (see paragraph 0062-0064, the signal processer analyzes a waveform of bio-signal with the signal is within a reference range over a time duration and that is determined when the contact pressure is appropriate).
With respect to claim 12, all limitations of claim 7 apply in which Park further discloses wherein the at least one change comprises a change to a manner in which the physiological metric is logged (see paragraph 0083-0084, measurement of biometric information is changed based on whether the contact pressure is appropriate).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20160278704 A1; cited by applicant) in view of Vule (US 20200323440 A1).
With respect to claim 13, all limitations of claim 7 apply in which Park does not disclose wherein the at least one change comprises utilizing motion sensor data collected using one or more motion sensors of the wrist-worn device to generate the physiological metric of the user.
Vule teaches utilizing motion sensor data collected using one or more motion sensors of a wrist worn device to generate physiological metric of a user (see paragraph 0065-0066, in addition to inwards and outward facing sensors the apparatus #100 may comprise accelerometers and/or gyroscopic components to determine whether and to what extent a user is in motion and this information can be used in conjunction with physiological information collected by other sensors; and see paragraph 0033 and Fig. 1, apparatus #100 may be a physiological monitor worn as a wrist watch).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park with the teachings of Vule to have utilized motion sensor data because it would have resulted in the predictable result of using motion information in conjunction with physiological information to determine a user’s calorie expenditure (Vule: see [0066], [0072]-[0073]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIDHI PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2379. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays to Fridays 9AM-5PM.
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 Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/N.N.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ERIC J MESSERSMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791