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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 12-20 remain withdrawn. Claims 1-10 have been amended. Claim 1 has been amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth in the Final Office Action mailed on 20 February 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
STEP 1
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a series of structural elements, including a sensor module. Thus, the claim is directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The steps of:
at least one processor comprising processing circuitry and, individually or collectively, configured to:
collect the first signal measured via the first sensor at a first time and the second signal measured via the second sensor at the first time,
match a first respiratory characteristic of the first signal of the first time and a second respiratory characteristic of the second signal of the first time by determining at least one of:
which of the rising pattern and the falling pattern in the second signal of the first time overlaps more with an inhalation interval of the first signal of the first time, or
which of the rising pattern and the falling pattern in the second signal of the first time overlaps more with an exhalation interval of the first signal of the first time,
estimate a respiration phase corresponding to the second time using the second signal of the second time by
converting, based on the matched first and second respiratory characteristics corresponding to the first time, a rising interval of the second signal of the second time into one of an inhalation interval or an exhalation interval, and
converting, based on the matched first and second respiratory characteristics corresponding to the first time, a falling interval of the second signal of the second time into the other of an inhalation interval or an exhalation interval.
set forth a judicial exception. These steps describe a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea. It is noted that the converting steps also describe mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations. Thus, the claim is also drawn to Mathematical Concepts, which is also an Abstract Idea.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 1 recites estimate a respiration phase corresponding to the second time using the second signal of the second time, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The estimating of the respiration phase does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the method does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the estimated respiration phase, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
STEP 2B
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional steps of:
a sensor module comprising a first sensor configured to sense a first signal corresponding to a pulse wave and a second sensor configured to sense a second signal comprising a plurality of patterns, wherein the plurality of patterns are distinguished from each other based on an inhalation and an exhalation of a respiration, and wherein the plurality of patterns comprise a rising pattern corresponding to a rising interval in the second signal and a falling pattern corresponding to a falling interval in the second signal
The sensing steps are well-understood, routine and conventional activities for those in the field of medical diagnostics. Further, the providing and recording steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the obtaining and comparing steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Regarding claim 1, the device recited in the claim is a generic device comprising generic components configured to perform the abstract idea. The recited sensor module, first sensor, and second sensor are generic sensors configured to perform pre-solutional data gathering activity and the at least one processor is configured to perform the Abstract Idea. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
The dependent claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims. Claims 2-10 recite steps that add to the Abstract Idea as these claims recite mental processes and/or mathematical concepts. Claim 11 merely recites what the second sensor is, which is an additional element that does not add anything significantly more. The steps recited in the independent claims maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the subject matter of claim 1 is not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) and is directed to a specific technological improvement in wearable-device respiration-phase detection. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the additional elements are not WURC as the sensor module (first sensor and second sensor) are generic sensors that perform the pre-solution activity of data gathering and the at least one processor is a generic computer component that performs the Abstract Idea. Applicant also argues that the steps are directed to the technological improvement. Applicant also argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application because the claims provide specific improvements over prior systems. It is noted that the steps performed by the processor are Abstract Ideas (see 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection above). It is noted that section 2106.05(a) II. of the MPEP states that “…it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-11 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AURELIE H TU whose telephone number is (571)272-8465. The examiner can normally be reached [M-F] 7:30-3:30.
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.
/AURELIE H TU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights