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 Species A (claims 1-4) in the reply filed on December 22, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 22, 2025.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention details a system (Step 1) directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 1-4 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of Claims 1-4 recites at least one step or instruction for obtaining signals, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, each of Claims 1-4 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites
An integrated sensing platform comprising:
a first sensor configured to obtain a first signal from a measurement target; (additional element)
at least one calibration temperature sensor configured to obtain a temperature signal in a vicinity of the first sensor; and (additional element)
a circuit layer (additional element) electrically connected to the first sensor and the at least one calibration temperature sensor and comprising a processor (additional element) configured to:
obtain the first signal from the first sensor; (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
obtain the temperature signal from the at least one calibration temperature sensor; and (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
adjust the first signal based on the temperature signal. (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claim 1 (and the respective dependent 2-4) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claim 1), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). More specifically, the additional elements of: first sensor, calibration temperature sensor, circuit layer, and processor are generic and used for data gathering adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception in independent Claim 1 (and the respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) 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 according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). 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 in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and the respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) 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., external programming device or computer 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 according to MPEP 2106.05(f). 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 according to MPEP 2106.05(a). 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 1 (and the respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claim 1 (and the respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of Claims 1-4 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: first sensor, calibration temperature sensor, circuit layer, and processor. 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, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with 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 instant specification, [0056]-[0057] details the first sensor may be a photoplethysmogram (PPG) sensor with such generality that they are generic and commercially available. Further, in applicant’s specification [0058] the calibration temperature sensor may be a thermistor or the like which is a generic sensor that is commercially available. Lastly, the circuit layer and processor are detailed in the instant specification [0069] that they can be separate components or assembled as a set with the circuit layer being an integrated circuit, a system on chip, system in pack or an application specific integrated circuit as an example having a variety types of processors such as a digital signal processor, microprocessor, central processing unit, and etc. that can utilized with such generality that they are generic and commercially available.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term processor 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 technology, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for computers. 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 MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claim 1 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 MPEP 2106.05(f) along with 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. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with 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, per MPEP 2106.05(a), 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 method and system of Claims 1-4 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 providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing 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 according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
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 1 (and the dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). 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 according to MPEP 2106.05(h). 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 according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, 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 according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 1-4 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-4 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hurwitz (US 2023/0055165 A1) (filed on 8/18/21).
Regarding claim 1, Hurwitz discloses an integrated sensing platform (e.g. Fig 1:199 and Fig 3) comprising: a first sensor configured to obtain a first signal from a measurement target (e.g. Fig 3:315 [0048]; Fig 2B:140 [0023]); at least one calibration temperature sensor configured to obtain a temperature signal in a vicinity of the first sensor; and a circuit layer electrically connected to the first sensor and the at least one calibration temperature sensor and comprising a processor (e.g. Fig 1:191 [0025] the system discloses the processor can be an application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs)) configured to: obtain the first signal from the first sensor (e.g. ); obtain the temperature signal from the at least one calibration temperature sensor (e.g. ); and adjust the first signal based on the temperature signal (e.g. [0043]; [0045]-[0046]; [0056] Fig 3:325 the state/interference module can “determine if a set of data or multiple sets/samples of PPG data have a low confidence value, such as below a predetermined value, simultaneously sample from external and/or internal temperature sensor(s) whether to compensate or adjust for excessive heat from inside the user device…”).
Regarding claim 2, Hurwitz discloses wherein the processor is further configured to adjust the first signal by inputting first signal data obtained from the first sensor and temperature data obtained from the at least one calibration temperature sensor into a first signal correction model (e.g. [0043]; [0045]-[0046]; [0050]-[0056] Fig 3:325.
Regarding claim 3, Hurwitz discloses wherein the first sensor comprises a light source (e.g. [0033]) mounted on the circuit layer and configured to emit light to the measurement target and a first light receiver mounted on the circuit layer and configured to receive light reflected from the measurement target (e.g. Fig 3:315 [0048]; Fig 2B:140 [0023]), wherein the integrated sensing platform further comprises a sensor cover having a portion that allows the light to pass through to the measurement target (e.g. Fig 2B; [0033] the back portion contains a glass portion that will allow light to pass through).
Regarding claim 4, Hurwitz discloses wherein the first sensor comprises one of a photoplethysmogram (PPG) sensor or an optical displacement sensor (e.g. Hurwitz Fig 3:315 [0048]; Fig 2B:140 [0023]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSANDRA F HOUGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7902. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 am - 4 pm.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)270-5625. 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.
Jessandra Hough January 22, 2026
/J.F.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/DAVID HAMAOUI/SPE, Art Unit 3796