DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/5/2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
This action is in reply to the filed on 1/5/2026.
Claims 1-14 and 20 have been amended.
Claim 1-20 currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The Applicant’s amendments, and cancellation, of the claims as currently submitted have been noted by the Examiner. Said amendments, and cancellation(s), are not sufficient to overcome the rejections previously set forth under 35 U.S.C. §101. As such, said rejections are herein maintained for reasons set forth below.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Moore 151 (US 2008/0040151) teach a data distribution gateway of a digital healthcare framework. Moore 151 do not teach “wherein the annotated physiological sensor data includes one or more data frames generated by a medical device that aggregates collected physiological sensor data, a unique device identifier (UDI), and a unique user identifier (UUI),” “wherein the coordination gateway is configured to receive the data frames as a bit stream from the medical device and tag the received data frames to form the annotated physiological sensor data,” etc. Therefore, the Applicant has successfully overcome the Examiner’s 35 USC 103 rejection and Examiner withdraws his 35 USC 103 rejection.
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.
Mental Process/Human Interactions Organized
Applicant discloses (Applicant’s Specification, [0008]) that current data distribution systems are unable to distinguish who in a household used a medical device to collect and record physiological data. So a need exists to organize these human interactions through data distribution using the steps of “collect physiological sensor data, receive unique device identifiers, receive unique user identifiers, formulate data frames, transmit data frames to a coordination gateway,” etc. Applicant’s method/computer readable medium/apparatus is therefore a mental process and a certain method of organizing the human activities as described and disclosed by Applicant.
Rejection
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 14 and 20 is/are directed to the abstract idea of “data distribution,” etc. (Applicant’s Specification, Abstract, paragraph(s) [0003]), etc., as explained in detail below, and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The Judicial Exception
The claim(s) recite(s) in part, method/computer readable medium/apparatus for performing the steps of “collect physiological sensor data, receive unique device identifiers, receive unique user identifiers, formulate data frames, transmit data frames to a coordination gateway,” etc., that is “data distribution,” etc. which is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (social activities, teaching, following rules, instructions) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. receivers, devices, sensors, device components, processors, memories, computers, mass storage devices, networks (Applicant’s Specification [0018], [0029], [0033], [0047], [0057], [0059], [0061]), etc.) to perform steps of “collect physiological sensor data, receive unique device identifiers, receive unique user identifiers, formulate data frames, transmit data frames to a coordination gateway,” etc. do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and this is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Insignificant extra-solution activity
Claim(s) 1-20 recites storing data steps, retrieving data steps, providing data steps, output steps (Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-12 (2010), Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 771 F.Supp.2d 1054, 1066 (E.D. Mo. 2011), aff’d, 687 F.3d at 1266), and/or transmitting data step (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1299, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) that is/are insignificant extra-solution activity. Extra-solution activity limitations are insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application (MPEP §2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Search for an Inventive Concept/Significantly More
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations (i.e. receivers, devices, sensors, device components, processors, memories, computers, mass storage devices, networks, etc.) only store and retrieve information and perform repetitive calculations, and these are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (Berkheimer- Court Decisions). These court decisions indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Individually and in Combination
The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to no more than generic computer components that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. receivers, devices, sensors, device components, processors, memories, computers, mass storage devices, networks, etc.). At paragraph(s) [0018], [0029], [0033], [0047], [0057], [0059], [0061], Applicant’s specification describes conventional computer hardware for implementing the above described functions including “receivers, devices, sensors, device components, processors, memories, computers, mass storage devices, networks,” etc. to perform the functions of “collect physiological sensor data, receive unique device identifiers, receive unique user identifiers, formulate data frames, transmit data frames to a coordination gateway,” etc. The recited “receivers, devices, sensors, device components, processors, memories, computers, mass storage devices, networks,” etc. does/do not add meaningful limitations to the idea of beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination 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. Therefore, claims 1-20 do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of “an idea of itself” (Alice).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim(s) 2-13 and 15-19 include(s) all the limitations of the parent claims and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Although dependent claims 2-13 and 15-19 add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. Dependent claims 2-13 and 15-19 merely describe physical structures to implement the abstract idea. These information and physical characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human interactions, and when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as independent claims 1 and 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/5/2026 with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed 1/5/2026.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/5/2026 with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant argues that (A) the Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to statutory matter.
101 Responses
As per Applicant’s argument (A), Applicant’s remarks with regard to the statutory nature of Applicant’s claimed invention are addressed above in the Office Action.
Rehash
Applicant's remarks and arguments merely rehash issues addressed in the Office Action mailed 9/4/2025 and incorporated herein.
Applicant’s Amendments
Applicant amended claims recite “collect physiological sensor data…,” “receive a unique device identifier…,” “receive a unique user identifier…,” “formulate a data frame…,” “transmit the data frame to a coordination gateway…,” etc. These are information processing steps that are part of Applicant’s abstract idea and do not move Applicant’s invention into eligible subject matter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Data Processing Step
Applicant’s amended steps of “collect physiological sensor data…,” “receive a unique device identifier…,” “receive a unique user identifier…,” “formulate a data frame…,” “transmit the data frame to a coordination gateway…,” is an/are abstract computational steps that are part of Applicant’s abstract idea. In Electric Power Group the collection, manipulation and display of data has been found to be an abstract process. When claims, such as Applicant’s claims, are “directed to an abstract idea” and “merely requir[e] generic computer implementation,” they “do[] not move into [§] 101 eligibility territory.” buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Further, analysis of information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, is essentially a mental processes within the abstract-idea category (Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1354). Further, Applicant appears to be claiming generic computer implementation of a certain method of organsing human interaction. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Technical Solution
Applicant’s claims do not provide a technical solution (e.g. avoiding backend correlation loss, enabling real-time clinical validation and regulatory compliance checks, annotations, and providing efficient storage of, and controlled access to, self-describing event data) to a problem rooted in computer technology. The mere application of generic computer components that are recited at a high degree of generality to an abstract idea does not amount to a technical solution to a problem rooted in computer technology. Additionally, simply adding insignificant data gathering steps that are tied to another technical field does not amount to a technical solution to a problem rooted in computer technology.
The claims are not directed to any technological solution other than computer data processing of healthcare data. As described above, the claims are directed to an abstract idea such as “an idea of itself” in Alice related to a certain method of organizing human interactions. This abstract idea is only generally linked to a particular technological environment by reciting the generic computer components that are well known in the art as acknowledged by Applicant’s specification.
Improvements – Advantageous over previous methods
The test for patent-eligible subject matter is not whether the claims are advantageous over previous methods. Even if Applicant’s claims provide advantages over manual collection of data, Applicant’s claims no technological improvement beyond improvement beyond the use of generic computer components. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Improvements
Despite recitation of receivers, devices, sensors, device components, processors, memories, computers, mass storage devices, networks, coordination gateways, data distribution gateways, Applicant’s claims are, at bottom, directed to the collection, organization, grouping and storage of data using techniques such as data processing. The receivers, devices, sensors, device components, processors, memories, computers, mass storage devices, networks, coordination gateways, data distribution gateways recited in Applicant’s claims are merely tools used for organizing human activity, and are not an improvement to computer technology. This, the claims do not present any specific improvement in computer capabilities. Applicant’s arguments are nothing more than conclusory statements unmoored from specific claim language. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant claims the improvement of “improvement in medical data handling,” “ensur[ing] the propagation of raw physiological sensor data as an intact bitstream, while enabling the annotation of that data with clinically significant data,” etc. It has been held that it is not enough to merely improve a fundamental practices or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool (Affinity Labs. of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation). In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), it was held that “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” was insufficient to render the claims patent eligible. In SAP America, Inc. v InvestPic, LLC it was held that patent directed to “selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying results,” are ineligible, and claims focused on an improvement in wholly abstract ideas are ineligible. Further, invocation of “already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be in advance…amounts to a recitation of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional” (SAP America, Inc. v InvestPic, LLC). Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Improved – Technology
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states “the word ‘improvements’ in the context of this consideration is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field, whether in Step 2A Prong Two or in Step 2B.” Here, there is no improvement to the computer nor is there an improvement to another technology (i.e. receivers, devices, sensors, device components, processors, memories, computers, mass storage devices, networks, coordination gateways, data distribution gateways). Because neither type of improvement is present in the claims, an improvement to technology is not present and there is no practical application.
Berkheimer/Well Understood, Routine, Conventional
Further, the Examiner maintains the position that the additional elements are well understood, routine, and conventional. The Examiner supports this position that the elements are well understood, routine, and conventional above in the Office Action by pointing to the Applicant’s Specification at [0018], [0029], [0033], [0047], [0057], [0059], [0061] where embodiments of Applicant’s claimed invention are composed of “receivers, devices, sensors, device components, processors, memories, computers, mass storage devices, networks, coordination gateways, data distribution gateways,” etc. and the like.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7788. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 7:30a-5:00p.
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, ROBERT W MORGAN can be reached on (571) 272-6773. 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.
/C. P. C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683