DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-7, 9-17 are pending; claims 3-7, 11-16 are withdrawn.
This action is Final.
Claim Interpretation
No claims are interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “repeatedly determine, during the measurement period, a length of the measurement period according to the frequency of the pulse wave”. It is noted that this does not appear to be new matter strictly from the existence of Figure 9.
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 1-2, 9-10, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 1:
repeatedly determine, during the measurement period, a length of the measurement period according to the frequency of the pulse wave (mathematical concepts and mental processes (i.e. recognize t = x if pp>60BPM)), and
estimate biological information from the pulse wave detected during the measurement period (mathematical concepts and mental processes)
These claim limitations fall within the identified groupings of abstract ideas:
Mathematical Concepts:
mathematical relationships
mathematical formulas or equations
mathematical calculations
Mental Processes
concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Under the step 2A, analysis is conducted on the additional features of the claim. Under this analysis, the additional features beyond the judicial exception are:
Claim 1
a sensor configured to detect a pulse wave on a living organism during a measurement period (data gathering, insignificant pre-solution activities)
a processor configured to (computer/circuit structures used as a tool)
control the sensor to detect a frequency of the pulse wave after an initiation of the measurement period (computer/circuit structures used as a tool, data gathering, insignificant pre-solution activities)
These features in the claim do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception as the additional elements in the claim do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Limitation concepts that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitation concepts that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Under Step 2B, the claim limitations are evaluated for an inventive concept. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. Analyzing the additional claim limitations individually, the additional limitation that is not directed to the abstract idea are the same as those identified above in step 2A. Such limitations related to the sensors are recognized by the courts as routine data gathering in order to input data to the mathematical algorithm/mental process, and thus, do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as it would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the mathematical algorithm/mental process. In addition, these sensor structures are known from Fontanel et al. (Fontanel, US 2019/0328316) and Venkatraman et al. (Venkatraman, US 2014/0276119), and in general include generic sensors in generic locations producing the expected signals such as photoplethysmographic (PPG) related data signals. The computer structures cited above are claimed as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims are directed to further details of the data processing and include intended use of the claimed structures (A more specific abstraction is still an abstraction). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Therefore, analyzing the claims as an ordered combination under the Mayo/Alice analysis the features claimed are directed to patent ineligible limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 10, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fontanel et al. (Fontanel, US 2019/0328316).
Regarding claim 1, Fontanel teaches a biological information estimating device (see at least [0051]) comprising:
a sensor configured to detect a pulse wave on a living organism during a measurement period (see at least [0051] PPG); and
a processor (see at least [0105]) configured to:
control the sensor to detect a frequency of the pulse wave after an initiation of the measurement period (reads on adaptive feature as sensing sampling is dynamically adjusted, see at least [0057] In particular embodiment, the sensing period (i.e., sampling period or measurement period) or frequency may be adaptive and adjusted based on a number of factors),
repeatedly determine, during the measurement period, a length of the measurement period according to the frequency of the pulse wave (reads on adaptive feature as sensing sampling is dynamically adjusted as explained, see at least [0057] “In particular embodiment, the sensing period (i.e., sampling period or measurement period) or frequency may be adaptive and adjusted based on a number of factors. In particular embodiments, the sensing period may be adjusted based on the user's heart rate, the data from accelerometer, or a combination of both. As an example and not by way of limitation, the sensing period may be adjusted to a shorter time period corresponding to a higher measurement frequency when a user's heart rate increases and/or the user's activity becomes more intense. As an example and not by way of limitation, the sensing period may be adjusted to a longer time period time corresponding to a lower measurement frequency when the user's has a relatively low heart rate (e.g., when the user's heart rate is within their resting area) or the user's activity is less intense.”), and
estimate biological information from the pulse wave detected during the measurement period (see at least [0057] In particular embodiments, data from on one or more bio-sensors (e.g., ECG, PPG, accelerometer) may be monitored and collected from a user, e.g., to measure that user's heart rate, activity, or other related parameters.)
Regarding claim 2, Fontanel teaches wherein the processor is further configured to reduce the length of the measurement period in response to an increase in the frequency (see at least [0105], [0057]).
Regarding claim 10, Fontanel teaches wherein the biological information includes a pulse rate (see at least Figures 14-17, [0057]).
Regarding claim 17, Fontanel teaches wherein increase in the frequency is determined based on an increase in the frequency of the pulse wave as detected after the start of the measurement period (see at least [0105], [0057]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontanel et al. (Fontanel, US 2019/0328316) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Venkatraman et al. (Venkatraman, US 2014/0276119).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations are met by Fontanel, except the limitation of wherein the biological information includes a blood pressure is not directly taught.
Venkatraman teaches a related system for measuring physiological data including stress as well as heart rate and others from sensors including PPG (see at least Figure 4a-b, [0123]-[0128]), and teaches the biological information includes a blood pressure (see at least [0119], [0122]-[0124]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of measuring blood pressure in addition to heart rate and stress in order to increase physiological condition/state understanding of the user such as identifying hypertension conditions during stressful events.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s submission of amendments to the claims filed 6/2/2026.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim interpretation have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments to the claims. No claims are interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the rewording of the substantially similar subject matter as previously presented does not recite a judicial exception. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the claims recite computer functional limitations being performed including determine and estimate, which under a broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure as filed are recited as both mathematical concepts and mental processes. Applicant argues that the claimed sensor and process are not conventional since the processor controls the sensor. This is not found to be persuasive as adaptive or dynamic sensing is common in the art for data sampling, and these features are to data gathering steps. As such, this is not compelling that such additions add more than the exceptions recited. Applicant argues that an improvement exists to the functioning of a computer and cites to paragraphs 14, 52, 65 of the specification as filed.
PNG
media_image1.png
494
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
228
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
334
654
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This is not found to be persuasive as there is no discussion into any improvement to the computer, merely that a time period is adjusted, such has no improvement to a computer, the computer functions normally, just data gathering period is changed, then the computer still proceeds with analyzing the data. The examiner is unpersuaded that changing sampling time/length improves a computer. The examiner reiterates that the claimed controlling a sensor is not enough to account for significantly more than the claimed exception, as a whole considering the computer is merely a tool for implementation of the exception and data gathering. The rejections are respectfully maintained as presented above to account for the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claims in view of prior art have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the art cited does not teach that the step is repeated, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the term “adaptive” connotates the same meaning to one in the art, and secondly, the specification as filed does not use “repeatedly” either, such that one could view Figure 9 as an “adaptive” or “dynamic” sampling adjustment process as well, and thus the art reasonably teaches the new additional limitations. As the data used to generate data in the art is not from a separate monitored data set, such reasonably teaches the estimate limitation as well. The rejections are respectfully maintained as presented above to account for the amendments to the claims.
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 MICHAEL R BLOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3252. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 EST.
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 (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571)272-3672. 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.
/MICHAEL R BLOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights