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 1-20 are pending.
This action is Non-Final.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and Species A (claims 1-8, 11-12, 14-19) in the reply filed on 1/8/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9-10, 13, 20 are withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a detection unit configured to”, “a modifying unit configured to”, “an estimating unit configured to” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
In review of the disclosure as filed the following statements of correspondence are made:
“a detection unit configured to” corresponds to structures of at least one PPG type contact sensors with or without processing capabilities; RGB camera with CPU with programming or dedicated circuitry, and equivalents
“a modifying unit configured to” corresponds to structures of CPU with programming or dedicated circuitry, and equivalents
“an estimating unit configured to” corresponds to structures of CPU with programming or dedicated circuitry, and equivalents
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 1-8, 11-12, 14-19 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):
determine whether or not the pulse wave contains disturbance and to modify a length of a measurement period based on a result of the determination (mathematical concepts and mental processes (i.e. change t to x if disturbance))
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 detection unit configured to detect a pulse wave on a living organism (data gathering, insignificant pre-solution activities)
a modifying unit configured to (computer/circuit structures used as a tool)
an estimating unit configured to (computer/circuit structures used as a tool)
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 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 1-8, 11-12, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Venkatraman et al. (Venkatraman, US 2014/0276119).
Regarding claim 1, Venkatraman teaches a biological information estimating device (see title and abstract) comprising:
a detection unit configured to detect a pulse wave on a living organism (see at least Figure 4a-b, [0126]-[0128]);
a modifying unit configured to determine whether or not the pulse wave contains disturbance and to modify a length of a measurement period based on a result of the determination (uses motion sensing to determine if motion disturbances may be present, i.e. motion above certain levels, or not present, and adjusts sampling based on such factors including turning off duty circling, increase/decrease intervals of recording: see at least [0119] processors/circuity/instructions/memory, Figure 9, [0052], [0060], [0132]-[0135] “For example, the biometric monitoring device may reduce power consumption by reducing the sensor sampling rate--for instance, the biometric monitoring device may sample the heart rate (via the heartbeat waveform sensor) once every 10 minutes, or 10 seconds out of every 1 minute.”, [0165] buffer lengths of data held can include 1-40 seconds, [0187]- [0193] exercise cause near continuous measurements, sedentary causes measurements for about 10 seconds every minute); and
an estimating unit configured to estimate biological information from the pulse wave detected during the measurement period (see at least [0119] processors/circuity/instructions/memory; [0122]-[0124], [0135]).
Regarding claim 2, Venkatraman teaches wherein the modifying unit increases the length of the measurement period in a case that the pulse wave is determined to contain the disturbance (claimed as intended use, structures capable, see at least [0119], Figure 9, [0052], [0060], [0132]-[0135], [0165], [0187]- [0193]).
Regarding claim 14, Venkatraman teaches wherein the disturbance includes disturbance is caused by a motion of the living organism (see at least [0119], Figure 9, [0052], [0060], [0132]-[0135], [0165], [0187]- [0193]).
Regarding claim 15, Venkatraman teaches wherein the disturbance is caused by a motion of the living organism or a motion of the biological information estimating device, or by both the motion of the living organism and the motion of the biological information estimating device (see at least [0119], Figure 9, [0052], [0060], [0132]-[0135], [0165], [0187]- [0193]).
Regarding claim 16, Venkatraman teaches wherein the modifying unit: determines whether or not each pulse of a plurality of pulses detected on the pulse wave, after the measurement period is started, contains the disturbance, and in a case that a count of pulses, in the plurality of pulses, that are determined not to contain the disturbance, reaches a specified value, ends the measurement period (claimed as intended use, structures capable, see at least [0119], Figure 9, [0052], [0060], [0132]-[0135], [0165], [0187]- [0193]).
Regarding claim 17, Venkatraman teaches wherein in a case that a pulse on which the determination is made is not used in estimating the biological information, the modifying unit determines that the pulse on which the determination is made contains the disturbance (claimed as intended use, structures capable, see at least [0119], Figure 9, [0052], [0060], [0132]-[0135], [0165], [0187]- [0193]).
Regarding claim 18, Venkatraman teaches wherein in a case that a pulse on which the determination is made has a component that has a frequency out of a specified range and an intensity higher than a specified intensity, the modifying unit determines that the pulse on which the determination is made contains the disturbance (claimed as intended use, structures capable, see at least [0119], Figure 9, [0052], [0060], [0132]-[0135], [0165], [0187]- [0193]).
Regarding claim 19, Venkatraman teaches wherein in a case that a difference between a pulse width of a pulse on which the determination is made and a pulse width of a pulse adjacent to the pulse on which the determination is to be made is greater than or equal to a specified difference, the modifying unit determines that the pulse on which the determination is made contains the disturbance (claimed as intended use, structures capable, see at least [0119], Figure 9, [0052], [0060], [0132]-[0135], [0165], [0187]- [0193]).
Regarding claim 3, Venkatraman teaches wherein the disturbance is caused by a motion of the living organism (see at least [0119], Figure 9, [0052], [0060], [0132]-[0135], [0165], [0187]- [0193]).
Regarding claim 4, Venkatraman teaches wherein the disturbance is caused by a motion of the living organism or by a motion of the biological information estimating device, or by both the motion of the living organism and the motion of the biological information device (see at least [0119], Figure 9, [0052], [0060], [0132]-[0135], [0165], [0187]- [0193]).
Regarding claim 5, Venkatraman teaches wherein the modifying unit determines whether or not each pulse of a plurality of pulses detected on the pulse wave, after the measurement period is started, contains the disturbance and in a case that a count of pulses, in the plurality of pulses, that are determined not to contain the disturbance, reaches a specified value, ends the measurement period (claimed as intended use, structures capable, see at least [0119], Figure 9, [0052], [0060], [0132]-[0135], [0165], [0187]- [0193]).
Regarding claim 6, Venkatraman teaches wherein in a case that a pulse on which the determination is made is not used in estimating the biological information, the modifying unit determines that the pulse on which the determination is made contains the disturbance (claimed as intended use, structures capable, see at least [0119], Figure 9, [0052], [0060], [0132]-[0135], [0165], [0187]- [0193]).
Regarding claim 7, Venkatraman teaches wherein in a case that a pulse on which the determination is made has a component that has a frequency out of a specified range and an intensity higher than a specified intensity, the modifying unit determines that the pulse on which the determination is made contains the disturbance (claimed as intended use, structures capable, see at least [0119], Figure 9, [0052], [0060], [0132]-[0135], [0165], [0187]- [0193]).
Regarding claim 8, Venkatraman teaches wherein in a case that a difference between a pulse width of a pulse on which the determination is made and a pulse width of a pulse adjacent to this pulse on which the determination is made is greater than or equal to a specified difference, the modifying unit determines that the pulse on which the determination is made contains the disturbance (claimed as intended use, structures capable, see at least [0119], Figure 9, [0052], [0060], [0132]-[0135], [0165], [0187]- [0193]).
Regarding claim 11, Venkatraman teaches wherein the biological information includes blood pressure (see at least [0119], [0122]-[0124]).
Regarding claim 12, Venkatraman teaches wherein the biological information includes a pulse rate (see at least [0119], [0122]-[0124], [0135]).
Conclusion
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