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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has amended the claims to add limitations to the neural network, stating that the claims improve the functioning of a computer/technology. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. To reiterate the claim limitations, the hardware that is given is a generically recited wearable device with a generic sensor and a generic computing system (eg. Para. 114-115 of the specification describes a generic computer device) with instructions to implement an abstract idea (neural network) on a generic computer. There are no additional elements beyond what a generic computer has. The Applicant has argued that the neural network is an additional element. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. A neural network is an abstract idea (e.g., mental process) because a person could observe, evaluate or make judgement with pen and paper. For example, a person can perform mathematics (abstract idea) just like the hidden layer does to calculate likelihood values. Abstract ideas cannot provide a practical application or significantly more (e.g., an improvement). Both Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B require an additional element, not an abstract idea, to provide a practical application or significantly more (e.g., an improvement). See Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial LLC (Fed Cir 2016). With regards to the Applicant’s arguments about the practical application and prophylaxis argument, the claims are not directed to a particular treatment like the prophylaxis case; the claims recite outputting a result for display to a medical provider, a patient, or both, which falls under an insiginificant extrasolution activity of result outputting (eg. see MPEP 2106.05(g)). With regards to 101 examples 39 and 47 in the Applicant’s arguments, the Applicant is reminded that each case has it’s own merits. Example 39 recites a method for facial detection that does not recite any mental processes and image manipulation/modification, whereas the instant application claims recite determination steps such as determining systolic phase angles and determining the size of a myocardial infarction via mathematical calculations. Example 47 claim 3 was found eligible because while steps a-d were not eligible under 101, steps e-f were eligible because they were specified remedial actions as opposed to the instant application claims reciting merely displaying results. The Examiner recommends adding more specific/non-generic physical/structural elements and/or a particular treatment step to the claims. The 101 rejection is maintained below.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments regarding the 112 rejection, see pages 16-17, filed 8/25/2025, with respect to USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejection of claims 1-12 and 14-15 has been withdrawn.
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 1-12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the following analysis:
Step 1: Do the claims recite one of the statutory categories of matter (i.e. method, apparatus, etc.)? YES, claims 1-12, 14, and 16-17 recite an apparatus and claims 15 and 18 recite a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: Is there an abstract idea involved? YES, the claim language recites computing a first intrinsic frequency, a second intrinsic frequency, relative height of a dicrotic notch, and an envelope ratio of the cardiac cycle of a patient (calculations); determining a systolic intrinsic phase angle and a diastolic intrinsic phase angle (analysis/calculations); and determine a size of a myocardial infarction experienced by the patient (analysis/calculations). These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind or by a person using a pen and paper.
Step 2a Prong 2: Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application? NO, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims recite a wearable device comprising at least one sensor, a computing system comprising one or more processors, which are recited at a high level of generality and is recited as performing generic computer functions. i.e., data processing. The computing system is recited in a generic manner in view of the Applicant’s specification (eg. Para. 114-115). The wearable with sensors is described generically in Para. 37 and 39-40). The elements amount to 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 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, each of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Furthermore, the generic sensors are considered an insignificant extrasolution activity of necessary data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: Do the additional elements amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception? The emphasized elements cited above do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’I, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
The additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) 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, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
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 J LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-2317. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 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, Carl Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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 J LAU/Examiner, Art Unit 3796