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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 17th, 2026 has been entered.
Amendment Entered
In response to the amendment filed on August 17th, 2026, amended claims 1, 3, 5, 8, and 12 are entered. Claims 6-7 and 13-14 are canceled. Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-17 are currently under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and amendments with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered. The objections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Applicant's remarks and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(d) have been fully considered. The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Applicant's arguments, filed on August 17th, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejections are maintained, and further clarified, in view of the amendment.
At Pg. 9 of the Reply, Applicant argues that “[a]s amended, independent claim 1 is directed to a specific computer-implemented physiological signal-processing method applied to a photoplethysmogram (PPG) signal received from a PPG sensor located at a single measurement point on a subject”. Examiner would like to clarify that the step of receiving data from the photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor is not part of the abstract idea and is considered data-gathering, which is insignificant, extra-solution activity. “As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978)” MPEP 2106.05(g). Once the data is received from the PPG sensor, there is no time limit recited for performing the steps of the abstract idea, and the claimed steps can be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind with no time limit. The computer is merely utilized as a tool to perform the mental steps.
Furthermore, as noted below, the claims also fall under the mathematical concepts group. “A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words ….” October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, II. A. i. “[T]here are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping.” Id. at II. A. ii. “[A] claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation.” Id. at II. A. iii. See for example, SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
At Pgs. 9-10 of the Reply, Applicant argues that “[e]ven if the claims were considered to recite an abstract idea, the claims integrate any such exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two”. Applicant specifically argues that the claims have been amended to recite that “the PWS is a PPG signal received from a PPG sensor at a single measurement point and that the first average cardiac cycle waveform is processed to determine a blood-pressure measure”. Examiner would like to once again emphasize that the step of receiving data from the photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor is not part of the abstract idea and is considered data-gathering, which is insignificant, extra-solution activity. Thus, the amendment fails to integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do not constitute a particular machine (i.e., as they are recited at a high level of generality), nor are they integral to the process claimed. Currently, the claims recite the additional elements of: “a photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor” in independent claims 1 and 8; and “computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having computer readable code embodied therein”, “computer”, and “processor” in dependent claim 15. The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks and/or elements used for data-gathering. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (“photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor” is categorized as a data-gathering element). See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
The step of “wherein the PWS is received from a photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor” is simply data-gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity and does not add significantly more to the abstract ideas identified, as it merely specifies the nature of the data which is exploited in the steps encompassing a mental process. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Each of the additional elements claimed, considered alone and in combination, do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exceptions identified to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, the current claims do not apply the abstract idea to a particular machine. “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b). II. “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b) III. The pending claims merely utilize a computer for analysing, determining, performing, and forming, and do not apply the analysis of the pulse wave signal to a particular machine.
At Pgs. 10-11 of the Reply, Applicant further argues that the claims are directed to patentable subject matter for at least the same reasons that the Court found the claims eligible in SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1303-04 (Fed. Cir. 2019), CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 1368-71 (Fed. Cir. 2020), and McRo, 837 F.3d at 1313-16. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regardless of the analysis of the Federal Circuit decisions in SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1303-04 (Fed. Cir. 2019), CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 1368-71 (Fed. Cir. 2020), and McRo, 837 F.3d at 1313-16, each case is judged on its own merit. Furthermore, the currently claimed limitations lack the specificity of those in SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1303-04 (Fed. Cir. 2019), CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 1368-71 (Fed. Cir. 2020), and McRo, 837 F.3d at 1313-16. In this case, the computer is simply used as a tool; thus, the claims still recite mental processes/mathematical concepts performed on a computer control system.
The claimed steps do not improve the functioning of the data acquisition or the signal exchange. “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.” MPEP 2106.05(a). The data acquisition and signal exchange appear to perform the same with or without the abstract idea. Therefore, any improvement resides solely within the abstract idea.
Further at Pgs. 10-11 of the Reply, Applicant cites the Applicant’s Specification, arguing that it describes a technical problem and Applicant’s solutions to the technical problem. The Examiner notes that no particular improvements are stated, and that the claims are significantly broader than the Specification.
“The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification).” MPEP 2106.05(a). “That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.” Id.
“[I]n McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea.” MPEP 2106.05 (a). There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. Unlike McRO, the claimed system invokes a computer as a tool to perform a mathematical concept and/or mental process.
The processor, units, and medium perform the same with or without the claimed abstract idea. Therefore, it is unclear how the abstract idea can improve the standard functions of the additional elements.
Further at Pg. 11 of the Reply, Applicant argues that “Examiner's Step 2B analysis treats the sensor and computer- related components in isolation, but the ordered combination must be considered as a whole. (Previous Action, pp. 21-23.) The amended claims require a particular arrangement of PPG acquisition, derivative processing, narrowed-window onset/reference-point detection, cardiac- cycle normalization, polynomial fitting, average-waveform formation, and blood-pressure- measure determination. Examiner has not shown that this specific ordered physiological signal- processing combination is well-understood, routine, and conventional as a whole”. Examiner would like to clarify that under Step 2B, it is the additional elements (considered both individually and in combination) that are under consideration of being well-understood, routine, and conventional. The Applicant’s argument of the requirements of a “particular arrangement of PPG acquisition, derivative processing, narrowed-window onset/reference-point detection, cardiac- cycle normalization, polynomial fitting, average-waveform formation, and blood-pressure- measure determination” are not equivalent to the additional elements. Currently, the claims recite the additional elements of: “a photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor” in independent claims 1 and 8; and “computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having computer readable code embodied therein”, “computer”, and “processor” in dependent claim 15. The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks and/or elements used for data-gathering. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering (“PPG sensor”) and computing (“computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having computer readable code embodied therein”, “computer”, and “processor”).
Taking the additional elements (both individually and in combination), the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1 and 8 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity specified at a high level of generality. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-17 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Given their broadest, reasonable interpretations, the additional elements are generic computer components for performing generic computer functions. There is nothing special about the computing devices or PPG sensor (which is equivalent to data-gathering), as there are no limitations regarding specialized hardware for these structures.
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 1-5, 8-12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Each of Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-17 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 1
Claims 1-5 and 16 recite a series of steps or acts for analysing a pulse wave signal. Thus, the claims are directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 8-12, 15, and 17 recite an apparatus or computer program product for analysing a pulse wave signal. Thus, the claims are directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-17 recites at least one step or instruction for analysing a pulse wave signal, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG. The claimed steps of analysing, determining, performing, and forming further recite mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations) and can be practically performed in the human mind using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas. Accordingly, each of Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-17 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, independent claims 1 and 8 recite the abstract idea of determining, analysing, performing, applying, forming, and processing. Further, dependent claims 2-5, 9-12, and 15-17 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1 and 8 (and their respective dependent claims 2-5, 9-12, and 15-17) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: “photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor” in independent claims 1 and 8; “computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having computer readable code embodied therein”, “computer”, and “processor” in dependent claim 15 are generically recited computer elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field and/or serve as data-gathering element(s). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 8 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process/mathematical concepts) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., “computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having computer readable code embodied therein”, “computer”, and “processor” as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 8 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1 and 8 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-17 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: “photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor” in independent claims 1 and 8; “computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having computer readable code embodied therein”, “computer”, and “processor” in dependent claim 15. The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks and/or serve as data-gathering elements. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (“photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor” is categorized as a data-gathering element, which is classified as insignificant extra-solution activity). See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by Applicant’s specification (e.g. Pages 8-10) which discloses that the processor(s) comprise generic computer components that are configured to perform generic computer functions.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed terms “computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having computer readable code embodied therein”, “computer”, and “processor” is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the “computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having computer readable code embodied therein”, “computer”, or “processor”. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-17 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the method, apparatus, and the computer program of Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-17 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-17 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1 and 8 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity specified at a high level of generality. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-17 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-17 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-17 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANEL J YOON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2695. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on 571-272-4233. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANEL J YOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights