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 .
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 1-19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "and the feature is a Barlow feature”. A trade name cannot be used as a limitation of a claim (MPEP 2173.05(U)). What is defined as a “Barlow feature” can change over time, and is thus seen as a trade name. This trade name are further not seen as well known in the art, and the limits of them are unclear. A web search for this term results in knife features or reference to an HB Barlow. This renders the claim unclear and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-19 and 54, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hafez et al., USPN 2021/0142910, in view of Foschini et al., USPN 2021/0151194,
With regard to claim 14, Hafez discloses a method including forming a plurality of constrained data sets associated with a plurality of predetermined constraints linked to a plurality of predetermined physiological conditions (0090, 01017, 0113, 0117, 0131-0135, 0148, 0158, 0165-0167), forming a plurality of independent static models based on the plurality of constrained data sets and the plurality of predetermined physiological conditions (0033-0035, 0043-0050, 0014, 0016), wherein each independent static model is linked to a specific constraint (0132-0135, 0015, 0056-0058, 0095-0096, 0107, 0113, 0122-0135), and installing the plurality of independent static models into an electronic device including a processor (0037, 0091, claim 1) to execute instructions and a sensor to collect sensor data linked to the plurality of independent static models (0136-0141, 0090, 0180, 0015). Hafez discloses the electronic medical record (EMR) or electronic health record (EHR) including information from genetic sequencing and using molecular data features (Sequencing may include next-generation sequencing (NGS) and may be long-read, short-read, or other forms of sequencing a patient's genome), such as features derived from RNA and DNA sequencing, imaging, and laboratory information such as performance scores, lab tests, and pathology results (0015), but does not specifically state using an electronic device including a sensor. Foschini discloses a method of assessing medical treatment (0012, claim 20), similar to that of Hafez, and further discloses collecting that information from an electronic device including a sensor (0006, 0036, claim 20). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the instant effective filing date, to collect at least some of the medical/health information of Hafez using the electronic device including a sensor of Foschini for the motivation of having a more robust and accurate medical record to improve the accuracy and nuance of the assessment.
With regard to claims 1, 3, and 11, Hafez in view of Foschini discloses the method of claim 14, as outlined above, and Hafez further discloses executing, by a user, one or more of the plurality of independent static models via a user interface based on the sensor data sensed from the user (0009, 0015, 0090, Fig. 3, 0022-0031), and providing one or more results to the user via the user interface associated with the execution of the one or more of the plurality of independent static models (0015, 0090, 0111, 0115, 0022-0031), wherein the one or more results reflects one or more physiological conditions of the user (0015, 0090, 0111, 0115, 0022-0031).
With regard to claims 2 and 4, Hafez in view of Foschini discloses the method of claim 14, as outlined above, and Hafez further discloses terminating the execution of the one or more of the plurality of independent static models (0011, 0053, 0107).
With regard to claims 5, 6, and 54, Hafez in view of Foschini discloses the method of claim 14, as outlined above, and Hafez further discloses the predetermined physiological condition/state is the age of the user and the constrained data set is associated with a range of age of the user or the constrained data set is associated with age cutoffs/boundaries conditions of the user (0113, 0133-0135, 0143, 0148, 0158, 0166, 0173, 0015).
With regard to claim 7, Hafez in view of Foschini discloses the method of claim 14, as outlined above, and Hafez further discloses the constrained data set is associated with the gender of the user (0015, 0090, 0107, 0113, 0133-0135, 0143, 0148, 0158).
With regard to claims 15 and 18, in view of Foschini Hafez discloses the method of claim 14, as outlined above, and Hafez further discloses performing a training operation using the plurality of data sets for each of the plurality of independent static models (0152, 0010, 0014, 0034, 0056, 0092, 0109).
With regard to claim 17, Hafez in view of Foschini discloses the method of claim 14, as outlined above, and Hafez further discloses splitting the plurality of data sets into a user's feature vector set, a validation feature vector set, and a test feature vector set based on the mathematical representations of the plurality of data sets (Figures 5c-10b), and evaluating each of the plurality of independent static models using the validation feature vector set to validate each of the plurality of independent static models (0020-0031); and testing each of the plurality of independent static models using the test feature vector set to determine the accuracy of each of the plurality of independent static models (Figures 5c-10b).
With regard to claim 19, Hafez in view of Foschini discloses the method of claim 14, as outlined above, and Hafez further discloses receiving a landscape feature vector set and a noise feature vector set, wherein the training is performed using the landscape feature vector set and the noise feature vector set (0145-0146).
With regard to claims 8-10, 12, 13, and 16, Hafez in view of Foschini discloses the method of claim 14, as outlined above, and Hafez further discloses the subject can be a pregnant woman (0179), and testing for all types of physical conditions (0133-0135), but does not disclose the constrained data set is associated with the attention state, ovulation status, pregnancy status, right or left handedness, neuro-muscular tone, or liveliness of the user. The examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art to test for each of these features while doing a medical or statistical test. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the instant effective filing date, to test for each of these features in the method of Hafez in view of Foschini for the motivation of providing a more thorough and accurate test and result output.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
With regard to applicant’s argument that Barlow is not a trade name, but rather refers to author John S. Barlow, the examiner points out that the issue with using a trade name in a claim, is that it can change. The term is seen as something that can change, based perhaps on future books written by an author. If there are specific technical features that define the claimed features, applicant is urged to include those in the claim.
Applicant further argues that Hafez does not disclose a sensor. The examiner points out that Hafez discloses genetic sequencing and using molecular data features (Sequencing may include next-generation sequencing (NGS) and may be long-read, short-read, or other forms of sequencing a patient's genome), such as features derived from RNA and DNA sequencing, imaging, and laboratory information such as performance scores, lab tests, and pathology results (0015). These means for collecting information read on the claimed sensors. The examiner further points out that physiological data digitally input by a doctor into an electronic medical record (EMR) or an electronic health record (EHR), could read on a sensor, but that since applicant amended the claims to state, “an electronic device”, the examiner added a secondary reference to teach that the health data input by the doctor of Hafez could also be input by electronic sensors, as taught by Foschini, as outlined above.
Applicant further argues that Hafez does not perform any medical testing. The examiner points out that part of the analysis of Hafez is medical testing (“genetic testing and laboratory information such as performance scores, lab tests, pathology results, prognostic indicators, date of genetic testing, testing provider used, testing method used”), and further that the predicting and evaluating based of medical data (abstract, 0006) is seen as medical testing.
References Cited
Kuperman et al., USPN 2022/0180993, discloses a method of assessing medical/health data using electronic sensors (0021).
Foschini et al., USPN 2023/0043921, discloses a method of assessing medical/health data using electronic sensors (0017-0019).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JACOB LIPMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3837. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Ali Shayanfar can be reached at 571-270-1050. 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.
/JACOB LIPMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434
Prosecution Insights