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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 26, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on December 26, 2025. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 2, 4, and 5 have been amended, claim(s) 1, 10-11, 13, 15, 24-26, and 30-32 have been cancelled, and no claim(s) have been added. Thus, claims 2-9, 12, 14, 16-23, 27-29 and 33-36 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 8-14, filed December 26, 2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
However, upon further search and consideration the Examiner believes that the specific distance arrangement of the first and second sensors from the light source is in fact well-understood, routine and conventional. Therefore, a 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims has been presented below with analysis of the claims and art that shows this is in fact well-understood, routine and conventional.
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 2-9, 12, 14, 16-23, 27-29 and 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention details a system and process (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 2-9, 12, 14, 16-23, 27-29 and 33-36 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 2-9, 12, 14, 16-23, 27-29 and 33-36 recites at least one step or instruction for determining that the wearable device is positioned for use, 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 2-9, 12, 14, 16-23, 27-29 and 33-36 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 2 recites
A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer executable code that, when executing on one or more processors of a wearable device, causes the wearable device to perform the steps of:
detecting, with a motion sensor (additional element) of the wearable device, a transition event indicative of placing the wearable device for use on a user; (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
in response to detecting the transition event, performing the steps of:
providing illumination from a light emitting diode of the wearable device, (additional element)
measuring a first intensity of the illumination with a first optical sensor (additional element) a first distance from the light emitting diode, (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
measuring a second intensity of the illumination with a second optical sensor (additional element) a second distance from the light emitting diode, wherein the second distance from the light emitting diode is greater than the first distance from the light emitting diode, (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
detecting that the wearable device is positioned for use on a skin of the user based on a comparison of the first intensity to the second intensity,
in response to detecting, based on the transition event, the first intensity, and the second intensity, that the wearable device is positioned for use, entering a validation state by monitoring the first intensity, the second intensity, and a motion signal from the motion sensor over a validation window to obtain a confidence that the wearable device is on-body, and (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
after validation over some predetermined period to obtain the confidence that the wearable device is on-body, transitioning to an on-body state indicating that the wearable device is positioned for use; and (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
displaying an indicator to the user that the wearable device is positioned for use with a light emitting diode on the wearable device. (additional element)
Similarly, Claim 4 recites
A method, comprising:
detecting a transition event indicative of placing a wearable monitor for use on a user; (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
in response to detecting the transition event, performing the steps of:
providing illumination from a light emitting diode of the wearable monitor, (additional element)
measuring a first intensity of the illumination with a first optical sensor a first distance from the light emitting diode, (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
measuring a second intensity of the illumination with a second optical sensor a second distance from the light emitting diode, wherein the second distance from the light emitting diode is greater than the first distance from the light emitting diode, (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
detecting that the wearable monitor is positioned for use on a skin of the user for acquisition of physiological data based on a comparison of the first intensity to the second intensity, (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
in response to detecting, based on the transition event, the first intensity, and the second intensity that the wearable monitor is positioned for use, entering a validation state by monitoring the first intensity, the second intensity, and a motion signal from a motion sensor over a validation window to obtain a confidence that the wearable monitor is on-body, and (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
after validation over some predetermined period to obtain the confidence that the wearable monitor is on-body, transitioning to an on-body state indicating that the wearable monitor is positioned for use; and (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
displaying an indicator to the user that the wearable monitor is positioned for use. (additional element)
Additionally, Claim 5 details
A device, comprising:
a physiological monitor comprising a light source providing a source of illumination (additional element), a first sensor responsive to the illumination and positioned a first distance from the light source(additional element), and a second sensor responsive to the illumination from the light source and positioned at a second distance greater than the first distance from the light source(additional element); and
a processor within the physiological monitor, the processor configured to:
activate the light source in response to a transition event to provide the illumination, to measure a first intensity of the illumination at the first sensor, and to measure a second intensity of the illumination at the second sensor, (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
detect that the physiological monitor is positioned for use on a skin of a user based on a comparison of the first intensity to the second intensity, (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
in response to detecting based on the transition event, the first intensity, and the second intensity, that the physiological monitor is positioned for use, to enter a validation state by monitoring the first intensity, the second intensity, and a motion signal from a motion sensor over a validation window to obtain a confidence that the physiological monitor is on-body, and (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
after validation over some predetermined period, to transition to an on-body state indicating that the device is positioned for use. (additional element)
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 2, 4 and 5 (and their respective dependent Claims 3, 6-9, 12, 14, 16-23, 27-29 and 33-36) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 2, 4 and 5), 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: motion sensor, light source, first and second optical sensor, and display are generic and used for data gathering adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception in independent Claims 2, 4, and 5 (and their 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 Claims 2, 4 and 5 (and their 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 method and 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 Claims 2, 4, and 5 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claims 2, 4 and 5 (and their 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 2-9, 12, 14, 16-23, 27-29 and 33-36 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: motion sensor, light source, first and second optical sensor, and display. 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, [0048] and [0059] details that the invention utilizes motion sensors which is a generic statement that details that these sensors can be from accelerometers, gyroscopes or other motion sensors that are generically available motion sensor for detecting repositioning and/or reorientation of the device. Per Applicant’s instant specification, [0043] details the use of a processor that it could be any microprocessor, microcontroller, or other processing circuity suitable for controlling operation of the physiological monitor with such generality that they are generic and commercially available. Further, the light source as detailed in the Applicant’s instant specification [0044] can include one or more light emitting diodes or other sources of illumination which are generically available. Additionally, the first and second light sensors can be photodiodes, photodetectors or any other sensors responsive to illumination from the light source which are generic sensors that are commercially available. Lastly, the instant specification details the visual indicator to the user that the wearable physiological monitor is retained in the position for use utilizes a light emitting diode in [0005]-[0006] with such generality that they are generic and commercially available.
Further, Han (US 2016/0058312 A1) discloses the arrangement of the light emitters and light detectors having different locations and separation distances ([0005] and [0046]-[0047] Figs. 6a and 6b) in order to accommodate a variety of users and usage conditions in order to optimize for cancellation of noise due to artifacts resulting from tilt and/or pull of the device. Additionally, Liu (US 2024/0090784 A1) discloses a wearable device and wearing status detection method wherein the light sensor emits a light to two different optical sensors where the first optical sensors are closer and the second optical sensors are farther away, and when the smartwatch is not worn correctly or loosely the light ray is reflected to the second optical sensors that are father away (e.g. [0096]-[0098] Figs 5a/b). Both of the prior arts, detail how it is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the art to utilize a light sensor that emits a light to two different optical sensors where the first optical sensors are at different distances with one being greater than the other.
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 the processor. 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 Claims 2, 4 and 5 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 2-9, 12, 14, 16-23, 27-29 and 33-36 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 Claims 2, 4 and 5 (and their 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 2-9, 12, 14, 16-23, 27-29 and 33-36 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 2-9, 12, 14, 16-23, 27-29 and 33-36 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 March 3, 2026
/J.F.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796