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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment, filed 01/16/2026, has been entered. The examiner notes claims 1, 4-5, 8-11, and 14-18 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 6, filed 01/16/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejection of claims 2-3 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The applicant has canceled claims 2-3 and amended the limitations, with corrections, into the independent claims. The 35 USC 112 rejection of claims 2-3 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pages 6-7, filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s argument that the claim limitations of identifying the vital sign, identifying a quality value of the vital sign is greater than or equal to a threshold, and normalization of the trend pattern are unreasonably performed by the human mind, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes the human mind is capable of “detecting”, “identifying”, and/or “determining” respiration rate by counting a patient’s breaths while simultaneously observing a clock to account for time. Furthermore, the human mind is capable of comparing a quality value to a threshold. For example, the human mind can decide whether a cup of coffee is hot enough to drink by mentally comparing its perceived temperature to a minimum/maximum comfortable threshold. The examiner further notes that the step of “normalizing” the trend pattern is a mental process capable of being performed by the human mind. For example, the human mind is capable of considering a patient’s current vital sign in comparison to a patient’s usual or previous measurements, as well as factors such as the normal ranges for age, medical history, fitness level, etc.
The examiner appreciates the elements of claim 8 and the addition of new claim 16, which limits the general recitation of a “sensor”. However, as mentioned in the previous office action, the prior art in the applicant’s field of endeavor teaches these are well-understood, routine, and conventional features as disclosed by:
Bang (US 2022-192600 A1) para. 0052 which discloses conventional methods of sensing using ECG and accelerometers.
The applicant’s argument that the claims are not directed toward methods of organizing human activity are moot, as the examiner is not making this contention.
Therefore, the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1, 4-5, 8-11, and 14-15 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 7-14, filed 01/16/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1, 4-5, 8-11, and 14-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The examiner notes the prior art of record and from within the field of endeavor fail to teach the particular method of, in summary, obtaining a first vital sign, normalize the trend pattern of the first vital sign, calculating a second vital sign based on the normalized trend pattern of the first vital sign, and then modifying the vital sign by merging the first vital sign and the calculated second vital sign. The 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1, 4-5, 8-11, and 14-15 has been withdrawn.
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, 4-5, 8-11, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
An electronic device determining a vital sign while a user is active, the electronic device comprising:
a first sensor for detecting a vital sign of a user;
a second sensor for detecting an activity signal of the user;
memory, comprising one or more storage media and storing instructions; and
at least one processor connected to the first sensor, the second sensor, and the memory,
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
identify the vital sign determined through a first signal obtained through the first sensor,
identify whether a quality value of the vital sign is greater than or equal to a threshold,
identify a first vital sign data, of which the quality value is greater than or equal to a threshold, among the vital sign determined through the first signal,
identify a trend pattern of the first vital sign,
normalize the trend pattern of the first vital sign based on the first vital sign and an activity level of the user determined through the activity signal obtained through the second sensor,
identify a second vital sign data, of which the quality value is less than the threshold, among the vital sign determined through the first signal,
calculate the second vital sign based on the normalized trend pattern of the first vital sign, and
modify the vital sign by merging the first vital sign and the calculated second vital sign.
Independent Claim 11 recites:
A method for operating an electronic device determining a vital sign while a user is active, the method comprising:
identifying a vital sign of the user determined through a first signal obtained through a first sensor;
identifying whether a quality value of the vital sign is greater than or equal to a threshold;
determining a first vital sign data, of which the quality value is greater than or equal to the threshold, among the vital sign determined through the first signal;
normalizing a trend pattern of the first vital sign based on an activity signal of the user obtained through a second sensor;
identifying a second vital sign data, of which the quality value is less than the threshold, among the vital sign determined through the first signal;
calculating the second vital sign based on the normalized trend pattern of the first vital sign; and
modifying the vital sign by merging the first vital sign and the calculated second vital sign.
Independent Claim 17 recites:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing one or more computer programs including computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to perform operations, the operations comprising:
identifying a vital sign of a user determined through a first signal obtained through a first sensor;
identifying whether a quality value of the vital sign is greater than or equal to a threshold;
determining a first vital sign data, of which the quality value is greater than or equal to the threshold, among the vital sign determined through the first signal;
normalizing a trend pattern of the first vital sign based on an activity signal of the user obtained through a second sensor;
identifying a second vital sign data, of which the quality value is less than the threshold, among the vital sign determined through the first signal;
calculating the second vital sign based on the normalized trend pattern of the first vital sign; and
modifying the vital sign by merging the first vital sign and the calculated second vital sign.
Step 1:
The examiner determines that claim 1 is drawn to a machine and claim 11 is drawn to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1:
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.
“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).
The claimed steps of detecting, identifying, normalizing, determining, and modifying recite mental processes capable of being performed by the human mind.
The steps of “detecting”, “identifying”, and “determining” a vital sign or an activity of a user in independent Claims 1, 11, and 17 are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind. For example, the human mind is capable of “detecting”, “identifying”, and/or “determining” respiration rate by counting a patient’s breaths while simultaneously observing a clock to account for time. The step of “identifying” a quality value of the vital sign is greater than or equal to a threshold is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. For example, the human mind can decide whether a cup of coffee is hot enough to drink by mentally comparing its perceived temperature to a minimum/maximum comfortable threshold. The step of “normalizing” the vital sign in independent Claims 1, 11, and 17 is a mental process capable of being performed by the human mind. For example, the human mind is capable of considering a patient’s current vital sign in comparison to a patient’s usual or previous measurements, as well as factors such as the normal ranges for age, medical history, fitness level, etc. The step of “modifying” a vital sign signal in independent claims 1, 11, and 17 is an example of a mental process capable of being performed by the human mind. For example, the human mind is capable modifying a hypothesis or idea with new information.
The claimed steps of detecting, identifying, normalizing, determining, and modifying 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.
“[T]he ‘mental processes’ abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. The pending claims merely recite steps for estimation that include observations, evaluations, and judgments.
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, 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.
Regarding the dependent claims 4-5, 8-10, 12-16, and 18, 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. 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.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception (abstract idea) in Claims 1, 4-5, 8-11, and 14-18 is not integrated into a practical application because:
• The abstract idea amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computing device. For example, the recitations regarding the generic computing components for detecting, identifying, normalizing, determining, and modifying merely invoke a computer as a tool.
• The data-gathering step (detecting) and the data-output step do 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 computing device that is used as a tool for detecting, identifying, normalizing, determining, and modifying.
• 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 estimate bio-information.
• 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 computing device for detecting, identifying, normalizing, determining, and modifying. The claims do not apply the obtained prediction to a particular machine. Rather, the data is merely output in a post-solution step.
Step 2B:
The additional elements are identified as follows: sensor, processor, and memory.
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
• Applicant’s specification (e.g. paragraph [0033]) which discloses that the processor(s) comprise generic computer components that are configured to perform the generic computer functions (e.g. detecting, identifying, normalizing, determining, and modifying) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
• Applicant’s specification (e.g. paragraph [0035]) which discloses that the memory comprises generic memory components that are configured to perform the generic memory functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
• Bang (US 20220192600 A1) para. 0052 which discloses conventional methods of sensing using ECG and accelerometers;
• Applicant’s Background in the specification; and
• The non-patent literature of record in the application.
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 generic computer components as those claimed. See option III. A. 2. in the Berkheimer memorandum.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the units associated with the steps do not add meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. A computer, processor, memory, or equivalent hardware is merely used as a tool for executing the abstract idea(s). The process claimed does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of the computer.
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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JONATHAN M HANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 0730-1630 ET.
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.
/JONATHAN M HANEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JUSTIN XU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791