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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 23, 25-33, 37, and 39-42 are rejected. Claims 1-22, 24, 34-36, and 38 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Some of the previous 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the configuration enables simultaneous measurement from a single data collection operation, improving measurement efficiency, reducing user interactions, and providing a measurable technical enhancement to the operation of the electronic device. However, the alleged improvement is directed to the abstract idea. An improvement to the abstract idea is still an abstract idea. Applicant is encouraged to integrate the abstract idea with a particular machine so that the combination of the abstract idea and the particular machine provide the improvement. Currently, there is data gathering performed as a pre-solution activity, execution of the abstract idea, and display as post-solution activity. None of the additional elements alone or in combination are integrated with the abstract idea as recited.
Applicant asserts that the claims explicitly recite hardware elements and their interaction to perform specific signal acquisition and data processing steps. Applicant asserts that the steps are tied to concrete technological processes, including signal collection, data extraction, and numerical computation of physiological parameters, which go beyond mere mental steps or abstract data analysis. However, the Examiner disagrees. The physiological parameter sensor amount to nothing more than pre-solution activity of data gathering. The one or more processors and user interface are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than parts of a generic computer. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 4/23/26, with respect to claims 23, 25-33, 37, and 39-42 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claims 23, 25-33, 37, and 39-42 has been withdrawn. See the Examiner’s Note section below for further details.
Claim Objections
Claim 41 is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant is encouraged to change “the requirement” in line 2 to recite --the requirement for analyzing the first physiological parameter-- for consistency purposes. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 23, 25-33, 37, and 39-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 23 and 37, the limitation of “wherein the second data related to the first physiological parameter is partially or completely the same as the third data related to the second physiological parameter” seems unclear. The specification discloses the following:
For example, that the extracted data related to the first physiological parameter is completely the same as the extracted data related to the second physiological parameter may be
understood as that a type of the data related to the first physiological parameter is the same as a type of the data related to the second physiological parameter (page 4); and
For example, that the extracted data related to the first physiological parameter is partially the same as the extracted data related to the second physiological parameter may be understood as that a type of the data related to the first physiological parameter is the same as a type of the data related to the second physiological parameter (page 4).
Therefore, it remains unclear what the difference would be between partially or completely the same, since the specification discloses that both mean they are the same type of data. For the purposes of examination, the limitation of partially or completely the same will be interpreted as the same type of data. Dependent claims 25-33 and 39-42 are rejected for the same deficiency in claims 23 and 37.
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 23, 25-33, 37, and 39-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea.
Step 1
The claimed invention in claims 23, 25-33, 37, and 39-42 are directed to statutory subject matter as the claims recite an electronic device and method.
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claims 23 and 37, the recited steps are directed to a mental process of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection (III)).
Regarding claims 23 and 37, the limitations of “wherein the physiological parameter measurement operation comprises an operation of selecting, among the physiological parameter identifiers, a first physiological parameter identifier and a second physiological parameter identifier; collect from the signals and in response to the physiological parameter measurement operation, first data of a measured object; extract, from the first data, second data related to a first physiological parameter and third data related to a second physiological parameter: obtain the first physiological parameter based on the second data: and obtain the second physiological parameter based on the third data, wherein the second data related to the first physiological parameter is partially or completely the same as the third data related to the second physiological parameter, wherein the second data related to the first physiological parameter is used to analyze the second physiological parameter, wherein a data volume of the second data related to the first physiological parameter meets a data volume of data that needs to be collected when the second physiological parameter is analyzed, and wherein a data type of the second data related to the first physiological parameter comprises a type of data that needs to be collected when the second physiological parameter is analyzed” are a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional choosing the first and second physiological parameter identifiers, receiving a print out of the physiological parameter measurement operation and analyzing first data of a measured object, further extracting second and third data from the first data, obtaining the first physiological parameter based on the second data: and obtaining the second physiological parameter based on the third data, wherein the second and third data are the same type, comparing a data volume of the second data to a threshold that needs to be collected, and the second data is a type needed when the second physiological parameter is analyzed.
Step 2A, Prong Two
For claims 23 and 37, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 23 and 37 recite “A physiological parameter sensor configured to collect signals from a user, one or more processors, display, on a user interface, receive, via the user interface, and a physiological parameter measurement operation.” The physiological parameter sensor amount to nothing more than pre-solution activity of data gathering. The one or more processors and user interface are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than parts of a generic computer. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into
a practical application, the additional element of the physiological parameter sensor amounts to nothing more than mere pre-solution activity of data gathering, which does not amount to an inventive concept. Moreover, the physiological parameter sensor is recited at a high level of generality and are well-understood, routine, and conventional structures as evidenced by US 20150351653 (¶46-conventional ECG device includes two or more leads or electrodes), US 20020072682 (¶36-a conventional ECG monitor), and US 20110082359 (claim 1-a conventional 12-lead electrocardiographic instrument from electrocardiographic signals acquired from the plurality of electrodes). Further, 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)).
Regarding dependent claims 25-33 and 39-42, the limitations of claims 23 and 37 further define the limitations already indicated as being directed to the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 25 and 39, the rejection under Step 2B shows the physiological parameter sensor as a well-understood, routine, and conventional structure. The limitations of “determine whether the first data meets a data quality requirement; and update, when the first data does not meet the data quality requirement, the first data with the fourth data until the first data meets the data quality requirement” are a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional comparing first data to a quality requirement and replacing the first data with fourth data until the first data meets the quality requirement.
Regarding claims 26 and 40, the limitations of “extract, based on the second data, feature data related to the first physiological parameter; determine whether the feature data meets a requirement for analyzing the first physiological parameter; and obtain the first physiological parameter based on the feature data when the feature data meets the requirement for analyzing the first physiological parameter” are a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional extracting feature data from a print out of second data, comparing the feature data to a requirement and obtaining the first physiological parameter when the feature data meets the requirement.
Regarding claims 27 and 41, the limitations of “determine whether a data volume corresponding to the feature data meets the requirement for analyzing the first physiological parameter; and obtain the first physiological parameter based on the feature data when the data volume meets the requirement for analyzing the first physiological parameter” are a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional determining whether a data volume corresponding to the feature data meets the requirement; and obtaining the first physiological parameter based on the feature data when the data volume meets the requirement.
Regarding claims 28 and 42, the limitations of “perform data processing on the feature data; and determine that the data volume meets the requirement for analyzing the first phycological parameter when the feature data after the data processing meets the requirement for analyzing the first physiological parameter” are a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional processing feature data on paper and determining that the data volume meets the requirement when the feature data after the data processing meets the requirement.
Regarding claim 29, while a PPG sensor is not explicitly recited in the claim, a PPG sensor is a well-understood, routine, and conventional structure as evidenced by US 20170055860 (¶3-a conventional reflective PPG sensor), US 20140371583 (¶32-conventional photoplethysmography (PPG)), and US 20170347938 (¶62-conventional PPG systems). The limitation of “determine whether the feature data meets the requirement for analyzing the first physiological parameter based on the lead state and the ECG data” is a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, this limitation is nothing more than a medical professional analyzing a print out of feature data to determine whether it meets the requirement.
Regarding claim 30, see the rejection under Step 2B showing the ECG sensor as a well-understood, routine, and conventional structure. The limitation of “determine whether the feature data meets the requirement for analyzing the first physiological parameter based on the lead state and the ECG data” is a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, this limitation is nothing more than a medical professional analyzing a print out of feature data to determine whether it meets the requirement.
Claim 31 amounts to post-solution activity of displaying.
Regarding claim 32 see the rejection under Step 2B showing the physiological parameter sensor as a well-understood, routine, and conventional structure.
Claim 33 further defines the data used for the abstract idea itself.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 23, 25-33, 37, and 39-42 distinguish over the prior art but are still rejected under 35 USC § 101 and 35 USC § 112.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The scope of collect, from the signals and in response to the physiological parameter measurement operation, first data of a measured object; extract, from the first data, second data related to a first physiological parameter and third data related to a second physiological parameter: obtain the first physiological parameter based on the second data: and obtain the second physiological parameter based on the third data, wherein the second data related to the first physiological parameter is partially or completely the same as the third data related to the second physiological parameter, wherein the second data related to the first physiological parameter is used to analyze the second physiological parameter, wherein a data volume of the second data related to the first physiological parameter meets a data volume of data that needs to be collected when the second physiological parameter is analyzed, and wherein a data type of the second data related to the first physiological parameter comprises a type of data that needs to be collected when the second physiological parameter is analyzed were not found in the prior art alone or in combination with one another to be obvious over the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record is DE 102019104798; however it fails to recite wherein the second data related to the first physiological parameter is used to analyze the second physiological parameter, wherein a data volume of the second data related to the first physiological parameter meets a data volume of data that needs to be collected when the second physiological parameter is analyzed, and wherein a data type of the second data related to the first physiological parameter comprises a type of data that needs to be collected when the second physiological parameter is analyzed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DE 102019104798: relates to a medical monitoring device and a method therefor, and in particular relates to a system and a method for arrhythmia detection (¶3). An inter-beat interval detection module configured to extract at least one inter-beat interval (IBI) feature in each PPG signal segment; and a morphology detection module configured to extract at least one morphology-based feature in each PPG signal segment (¶12).
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 LAURA HODGE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7101. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am-5:00 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, UNSU JUNG can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/L.N.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3792 /AMANDA L STEINBERG/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights