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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/3/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With regards to Claim 1, the limitation “… an increase an accuracy of the second body composition data received from the low-precision body composition analyzer” is indefinite because it is unclear what the patentable boundaries of this limitation are. This limitation describes intended use result without clear boundaries.
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 1-3 and 5-7 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.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“A data integration system of a body composition analyzer, comprising: a high-precision body composition analyzer for detecting a first body composition data of a participant; a low-precision body composition analyzer for detecting a second body composition data of the participant; and a computing device electrically connected with the high-precision body composition analyzer and the low-precision body composition analyzer and receiving the first body composition data and the second body composition data, the computing device including a database storing the first body composition data and the second body composition data, and a computing unit configured to apply a correction parameter to the second body composition data based on a comparison between the first and second body composition data, the computing unit comprising an error correction module configured to receive the first and second body composition data in real-time, determine sensor-specific bias characteristics of the low-precision body composition analyzer, calibrate the second body composition data received from the low-precision body composition analyzer, and transform the second body composition data to a calibrated second body composition data, based on the correction parameter, suitable for use in body composition evaluation, and increase an accuracy of the second body composition data received from the low-precision body composition analyzer, wherein the first and second body composition data are skeletal muscle mass; when the first and second body composition data are plural in number, the calibrated second body
PNG
media_image1.png
226
647
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above (including the entire wherein clause); the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
The above claim comprises the following additional elements:
A data integration system of a body composition analyzer, comprising:
a high-precision body composition analyzer for detecting a first body composition data of a participant;
a low-precision body composition analyzer for detecting a second body composition data of the participant; and
a computing device electrically connected with the high-precision body composition analyzer and the low-precision body composition analyzer and receiving the first body composition data and the second body composition data,
the computing device including a database storing the first body composition data and the second body composition data, and a computing unit;
increase an accuracy of the second body composition data received from the low-precision body composition analyzer.
The additional elements in the preamble are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The additional elements in the claim such as a computing device including a computing unit are examples of generic computer equipment (components) that are generally recited and, therefore, are not qualified as particular machines.
The limitations that generically recite a database storing the first body composition data and the second body composition data represent insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
The limitations that generically recite a high-precision body composition analyzer for detecting a first body composition data of a participant and a low-precision body composition analyzer for detecting a second body composition data of the participant correspond to mere data gathering steps. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
An amended limitation “increase an accuracy of the second body composition data received from the low-precision body composition analyzer” is not meaningful as recited in generality and represents insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record including Masuo Yoshihisa et al. (CN 1474668) and Ying Kong et al. (CN 107845428).
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2, 3, 5-7 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims (additionally comprising abstract idea steps) and, therefore, these claims are not eligible either without additional elements that would reflect a practical application and/or qualified for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
Examiner Note with regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are distinguished over the prior art made of record based on the reasons below.
In regards to Claim 1, the teachings of Kodawa, Yoshihisa, and Kong, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious that the corrected second body composition data is obtained by the claimed formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
24
270
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, where
PNG
media_image3.png
24
22
media_image3.png
Greyscale
is the corrected second body composition data;
PNG
media_image4.png
43
96
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image5.png
42
95
media_image5.png
Greyscale
are weighting coefficients; σA and σB are standard deviations of the first and second body composition data, respectively; σA is much smaller than σB; BiasBA is an average measurement deviation between the first and second body composition data, and an initial default value for the average measurement deviation is zero; if σA is zero and σB is not zero,
PNG
media_image6.png
24
230
media_image6.png
Greyscale
which is approximate to xB^=xA=xB-BiasBA, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 12/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (p.7-8): Applicant respectfully submits that besides the judicial exception, the claim further recites at least additional elements, for example, including: a computing unit configured to apply a correction parameter to the second body composition data based on a comparison between the first and second body composition data, the computing unit comprising an error correction module configured to receive the first and second body composition data in real-time … These additional elements recited in the invention recite the manner to calibrate and transform the second body composition data received from the low-precision body composition analyzer to become a calibrated second body composition data to increase an accuracy of the second body composition data received from the low-precision body composition analyzer. The additional elements do not simply apply the composition data collected from the analyzers. They realize the increase of the accuracy of the second body composition data received from the low- precision body composition analyzer, which is not as good as that of high-precision body composition analyzer (i.e., professional-type machine). These additional elements have impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception, and cannot be extra-solution activity or a field-of-use … Further, the Federal Circuit clarified claims that are not directed to' a judicial exception (which are therefore patent eligible), if claims improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or technological field … It is clear that the claimed system improves the field of body composition analysis techniques … Therefore, the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception, in which case the claim is not directed to a judicial exception.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The above additional elements are recited in generality and are not qualified for a particular machine. The Examiner submits that recited “… machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. … For example, as described in MPEP § 2106.05(f), additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. See, e.g., Versata Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must "play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly") (MPEP 2106.05(b).II).
With regards to “the increase of the accuracy of the second body composition data received from the low- precision body composition analyzer” and the improvement argument, the Examiner additionally submits that this improvement is accomplished via abstract idea steps. However, according to the October 2019 Update on 2019 PEG: “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.
With regards to ingestion to a practical application, the Examiner submits that the claims do not recite meaningful additional elements to demonstrate a practical application as required by MPEP.
The eligibility analysis presented in the rejection is consistent with the analysis in Flook. As noted by the Supreme Court in that case, in order to be patent eligible, the process itself, not merely the mathematical algorithm, must be new and useful, the novelty of the algorithm is not a determining factor in determining eligibility.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kuen-Chang Hsieh et al. (US 20110112428) discloses a body composition measuring apparatus using a neural network algorithm, which shows a measuring precision higher than the bioelectric impedance analysis associated with the conventional linear regression equation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863