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
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s amendment which was received by the office on January 20, 2026. Claims 1-3,5-9 are currently pending and under examination.
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 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 is/are drawn a system which is/are a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim limitations within claim 1 that set forth or describe the abstract idea is/are: “determining status of the monitored subject according to the output signals, wherein the status classifier determines status of the monitored subject according to power ratios, an amount of phase points and voltage differences of the output signals of the radar; wherein a power ratio is defined as a ratio of power in a predetermined frequency range to total power, the amount of phase points is a quantity of phase between quadrature polarization signal and in-phase polarization signal of an output signal of the radar within a predetermined range, and the voltage difference is peak-to-peak voltage difference of an output signal stored in the data buffer”, “determining a vital sign of the monitored subject according to the determined status and according to a frequency associated with a maximum spectral energy of output signals of the radar only when the determined status is stationary status indicating that the monitored subject sleeps or rests, ”. The limitations of, “determining status of the monitored subject according to the output signals, wherein the status classifier determines status of the monitored subject according to power ratios, an amount of phase points and voltage differences of the output signals of the radar; wherein a power ratio is defined as a ratio of power in a predetermined frequency range to total power, the amount of phase points is a quantity of phase between quadrature polarization signal and in-phase polarization signal of an output signal of the radar within a predetermined range, and the voltage difference is peak-to-peak voltage difference of an output signal stored in the data buffer”, “determining a vital sign of the monitored subject according to the determined status and according to a frequency associated with a maximum spectral energy of output signals of the radar when the determined status of the monitored subject is stationary status indicating that the monitored subject sleeps or rests”, cover an abstract idea that is part of mathematical concepts. “A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words ....”. October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, “[T]here are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping.” /d. at Il. A. ii. See for example, Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 177 n.2, 179 n.5, 191-92 (1981) or Parker v. Flook 437 U.S. 584, 585, 198 USPQ 193, 195 (1978) (calculating a number representing an alarm limit using a mathematical formula). “[A] claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation.” /d. at Il. A. iii. See for example, SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (performing a resampled statistical analysis to generate a resampled distribution). The claimed step(s) of “determine status of the monitored subject according to the output signals, wherein the status classifier determines status of the monitored subject according to power ratios, an amount of phase points and voltage differences of the output signals of the radar; wherein a power ratio is defined as a ratio of power in a predetermined frequency range to total power, the amount of phase points is a quantity of phase between quadrature polarization signal and in-phase polarization signal of an output signal of the radar within a predetermined range, and the voltage difference is peak-to-peak voltage difference of an output signal stored in the data buffer.”, “determine a vital sign of the monitored subject according to the determined status and according to a frequency associated with a maximum spectral energy of output signals of the radar” recite mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mathematical formula or equation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The specification recites several mathematical calculations and algorithms used for determining the status of the subject and vital signal determination including the use of fast Fourier Transform algorithm (e.g. Fig. 2, para. [0019] of published application), frequency domain analysis, normalization and/or comparison of frequency spectrum, Figs. 3A/3B. Although not drawn to the same subject matter, the claimed limitation(s) is/are similar to concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as: a formula for computing an alarm limit in Parker v. Flook 437 U.S. 584, 585, 198 USPQ 193, 195 (1978), the Arrhenius equation in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 177 n.2, 179 n.5, 191-92 (1981). Thus, the claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception and fall squarely within the realm of "abstract ideas," which is a patent-ineligible concept (Step 2A: Prong One YES).
Analyzing the claim as whole for an inventive concept, the claim does not include additional elements/steps that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additionally recited element(s) appended to the abstract idea include: “a radar disposed in vicinity of a monitored subject”, “a data buffer storing output signals of the radar sampled in sequence during a predetermined period”, “a status classifier implemented by a digital signal processor” and “a vital-sign detector implemented by a digital signal processor”. The additional elements of “a radar disposed in vicinity of a monitored subject”, merely: add insignificant extra-solution activity and is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering output signals) and is merely nominally, insignificantly or tangentially related to the performance of the steps, i.e. amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity). All uses of the recited judicial exception require the pre-solution activity of data gathering. As discussed above with respect to integration of abstract idea into a practical, the additional elements of “a data buffer storing output signals of the radar sampled in sequence during a predetermined period”, “a status classifier implemented by a digital signal processor” and “a vital-sign detector implemented by a digital signal processor” to perform the “determining” amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. The “data buffer storing output signals of the radar sampled in sequence during a predetermined period”, “status classifier implemented by a digital signal processor” and “vital-sign detector implemented by a digital signal processor” are purely general-purpose computer components recited as carrying out the general- purpose computer functions of processing data and displaying to enable the abstract process. As such, this/these recitation(s) is/are nothing more than nominal recitation(s) of a computer covering an abstract concept. See Bancorp Servs. v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 103 USPQéd 1425 (Fed. Circ. 2012). See also Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc., 101 USPQ2d 1961 (U.S. 2012), which establishes that a claim cannot simply state the abstract idea and add the words "apply it’, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong Two, NO).
Claim 1 does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an inventive concept) for the same reasons as described above. e.g., all elements being directed to insignificant extra-solution activity including pre-solution activity, carried out using well-understood routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry and amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine and conventional activity in particular fields e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) or purely general-purpose computer components recited as carrying out the general-purpose computer functions of processing data and displaying to enable the abstract process, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). It was well-understood routine, conventional activities to use a radar for determining vital signs for a subject as evidence by US 2018/0263502 to Lin et al. (e.g. “monitored subject from a radar system which can then be evaluated by the vital sign estimation application”, para. [0093]) or US 2019/0212436 to Baheti et al. (e.g. radar system to monitor vital signal of a user, para. [0071]). Similarly, when considered as an ordered combination, the additional components/steps of the claim(s) add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately (Step 2B: NO). The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 5-9 depend directly or indirectly from claim(s) 1. Therefore, the dependent claims rely upon the same abstract idea as the independent claim(s), as set forth above. Additionally, the dependent claims do nothing more than further limiting the abstract idea while failing to qualify as "significantly more’, and the specificity of an abstract idea does not make it any “less abstract" as it is still directed to concepts relating to mathematical concepts. Therefore, the dependent claim(s) are also not patent eligible for the reasons discussed above. Claim(s) 2-3 fail(s) to provide significantly more, when considered as an order combination, as it/they merely provide further limitation regarding the “data gathering” which merely: add insignificant extra-solution activity, and is merely nominally, insignificantly or tangentially related to the performance of the steps, i.e. amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering. The claims recite a radar which is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering signals) and is merely, nominally, insignificantly or tangentially related to the performance of the steps, i.e. amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity). Claim(s) 6 and 8 fail(s) to provide significantly more, when considered as an ordered combination, as it/they merely provide further limitations for determining the vital sign of the monitored patient, which can still nonetheless be performed in the mind with the aid of pen and paper or as a mathematical concept. Claims 5,7 and 9 fail(s) to provide significantly more, when considered as an ordered combination, as it/they merely provide further limitations regarding the processor which are purely general-purpose computer components recites as carrying out the general-purpose computer functions of processing data and displaying to enable the abstract idea. As such, this/these recitation(s) is/are nothing more than nominal recitation(s) of a computer covering an abstract concept. See Bancorp Servs. v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 103 USPQéd 1425 (Fed. Circ. 2012). See also Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc., 101 USPQ2d 1961 (U.S. 2012), which establishes that a claim cannot simply state the abstract idea and add the words "apply it’, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The instantly rejected claim(s) are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the interest of advancing prosecution, the examiner suggests: providing evidence, for example, delineating how the abstract idea and/or additional elements appended to the abstract idea results in an improvement to the technology/technical field, which can show eligibility and/or adding a practical application of the claimed method outside of a computer. See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of providing evidence supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration. For additional guidance, applicant is directed generally to MPEP § 2106.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered. It is noted that the 101 rejection has been updated in view of the claim amendments.
Claim Rejections under 35 USC §101 (p. 5-9 of response filed 1/20/2026)
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 regarding the 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “The claimed radar is not a generic data input device. It is a specialized sensor (e.g., continuous-wave or ultra-wideband radar) configured to detect micro-movements of a human body.”, see pg. 6 of response filed 1/20/2026. This is not persuasive. Claim 1 recites “A non-contact vital-sign monitoring system having a radar configured to be disposed in vicinity of a monitored subject,” which recites a radar configured to be disposed in a vicinity of a patient. There is no specialized sensor claimed that requires a specific placement or signal characteristics as argued by applicant. As stated within the 101 rejection above, “a radar disposed in vicinity of a monitored subject”, merely: add insignificant extra-solution activity and is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering output signals) and is merely nominally, insignificantly or tangentially related to the performance of the steps, i.e. amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity). All uses of the recited judicial exception require the pre-solution activity of data gathering.
Applicant argues “The claimed data buffer is not a generic memory element. It is configured to store radar output signals sampled over a defined temporal window, enabling time-domain and frequency-domain analysis. The buffer's behavior is further specialized by setting non-stationary data to predetermined values, which is a novel technique to mitigate motion artifacts and preserve signal integrity for vital-sign extraction”, see pg. 6 of response filed 1/20/2026. This is not persuasive. Claim 1 recites “a data buffer configured to store output signals of the radar sampled in sequence during a predetermined period”. There is no specialized behavior of the data buffer claimed. The specification states that the data buffer can be implemented by a digital signal processor, see para. [0040] of published application US 2023/0293011, therefore the original disclosure also does not recite any specialized data buffer. As stated within the 101 rejection above, the “data buffer storing output signals of the radar sampled in sequence during a predetermined period”, “status classifier implemented by a digital signal processor” and “vital-sign detector implemented by a digital signal processor” are purely general-purpose computer components recited as carrying out the general- purpose computer functions of processing data and displaying to enable the abstract process.
Applicant argues “The claimed status classifier and vital-sign detector are not generic processors executing abstract logic. They implement a conditional signal-processing pipeline that dynamically classifies subject status (e.g., stationary, motion, no vital-sign) and selectively applies spectral analysis when the subject is stationary. This conditional gating of signal analysis is a practical, domain-specific improvement that enhances accuracy and reliability-particularly in real-world environments where subjects may move unpredictably.”, see pg. 6 of response filed 1/20/2026. This is not persuasive. Both the claim and the specification state the “vital-sign detector” and “classifier” being a digital signal processor, see claim 1 and para. [0040] of published application US 2023/0293011, therefore the recited elements are nothing more than purely general-purpose computer components recited as carrying out general- purpose computer functions. As stated within the 101 rejection above, the status classifier implemented by a digital signal processor” and “vital-sign detector implemented by a digital signal processor” are purely general-purpose computer components recited as carrying out the general- purpose computer functions of processing data and displaying to enable the abstract process.
Applicant argues “The claimed system improves the functioning of physiological monitoring technology itself. Unlike conventional systems that either require contact sensors or suffer from motion-induced inaccuracies, the claimed invention enables continuous, non-contact, and motion-resilient monitoring. This is a technical improvement in the field of biomedical sensing, not a mere automation of mental steps or abstract calculations”, see pg. 6-9 of response filed 1/20/2026. This is not persuasive. Applicant alleges technological improvements, and states that the status classification prior to vital-sign detection, selective spectral analysis based on status and data substitution for non-stationary periods provide the unconventional technical solution, see pg. 8-9 of response filed 1/20/2026, however the recited claim elements are part of the abstract idea, see 101 rejection above, eligibility cannot be furnished by the abstract idea itself. It is the additional elements in the claim that must transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application, see MPEP 2106.04 (II)(2). The claims do not include additional elements that transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. As stated within the 101 rejection above, “a radar disposed in vicinity of a monitored subject”, merely: add insignificant extra-solution activity and is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering output signals) and is merely nominally, insignificantly or tangentially related to the performance of the steps, i.e. amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity). All uses of the recited judicial exception require the pre-solution activity of data gathering. Additionally, it was well-understood routine, conventional activities to use a radar for determining vital signs for a subject as evidence by US 2018/0263502 to Lin et al. (e.g. “monitored subject from a radar system which can then be evaluated by the vital sign estimation application”, para. [0093]) or US 2019/0212436 to Baheti et al. (e.g. radar system to monitor vital signal of a user, para. [0071]). Further, the additional elements of “a status classifier implemented by a digital signal processor” and “a vital-sign detector implemented by a digital signal processor” to perform the “determining” amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. The “data buffer storing output signals of the radar sampled in sequence during a predetermined period”, “status classifier implemented by a digital signal processor” and “vital-sign detector implemented by a digital signal processor” are purely general-purpose computer components recited as carrying out the general- purpose computer functions of processing data and displaying to enable the abstract process. As such, this/these recitation(s) is/are nothing more than nominal recitation(s) of a computer covering an abstract concept.
Claim Rejections under 35 USC §102 and §103 (p. 9-11 of response filed 1/20/2026)
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 9-11, filed 1/20/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejections using Cuddihy and 35 USC 103 rejections using Cuddihy in view of Eyal have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments now reciting “wherein the status classifier determines status of the monitored subject according to power ratios, an amount of phase points and voltage differences of the output signals of the radar; wherein a power ratio is defined as a ratio of power in a predetermined frequency range to total power, the amount of phase points is a quantity of phase between quadrature polarization signal and in-phase polarization signal of an output signal of the radar within a predetermined range, and the voltage difference is peak-to-peak voltage difference of an output signal stored in the data buffer.”. The 35 USC 102 rejections using Cuddihy and 35 USC 103 rejections using Cuddihy in view of Eyal of claims 1-9 within the office action of 11/19/2025 have been withdrawn.
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 JENNIFER L GHAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5844. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM - 3:30PM 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, JENNIFER MCDONALD can be reached on (571)270-3061. 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.
/JG/Examiner, Art Unit 3796 /CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights