DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Regarding claims 1-8, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to receiving and manipulating data without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “A computer-implemented method for determining an arterial blood oxygenation SpO2, measurement for a subject, the method comprising: receiving a first and second photoplethysmogram, PPG signals for the subject, wherein the first PPG signal is obtained using a first wavelength of light and the second PPG signal is obtained using a second wavelength of light, wherein the first and second PPG signals comprise pulse components relating to blood volume changes in the subject over time; determining a fundamental frequency corresponding to a pulse rate of the subject occurring during the measurement of the first and second PPG signals; and processing one or more higher harmonics of the pulse components of the first and second PPG signals at frequencies higher than the fundamental frequency to determine an SpO2 measurement for the subject based on the processed one or more higher harmonics of the pulse components of the first and second PPG signals, excluding the fundamental frequency of the pulse components.”
This falls into a mental process grouping of abstract ideas. These limitations are either capable of being performed mentally by looking at measurements and making mental assessments thereafter or considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
The step of receiving a first and second photoplethysmogram, PPG signals for the subject, wherein the first PPG signal is obtained using a first wavelength of light and the second PPG signal is obtained using a second wavelength of light, wherein the first and second PPG signals comprise pulse components relating to blood volume changes in the subject over time is insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering).
The step of determining a fundamental frequency corresponding to a pulse rate of the subject occurring during the measurement of the first and second PPG signals is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind or by a pencil and paper by a skilled clinician.
The step of processing one or more higher harmonics of the pulse components of the first and second PPG signals at frequencies higher than the fundamental frequency to determine an SpO2 measurement for the subject based on the processed one or more higher harmonics of the pulse components of the first and second PPG signals, excluding the fundamental frequency of the pulse components is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind.
Additionally the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of a computer/processor for performing the steps is, at its broadest reasonable interpretation, a generic computer structure for performing the generic computer function of data processing, which does not qualify as an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Finally, the claims analyzed as a whole do not provides any element, or combination of elements, sufficient to amount to significantly more than the mental process as only a computer/processor is claimed. As noted previously, the addition of a generic computer structure for performing the generic computer function of data processing, does not qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding dependent claims 2-8, the claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea or provide insignificant extra solution activity.
Regarding claim 9, a parallel apparatus claim to that of claim 1, is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of a computer/processor for performing the steps is, at its broadest reasonable interpretation, a generic computer structure for performing the generic computer function of data processing, which does not qualify as an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Finally, the claims analyzed as a whole do not provides any element, or combination of elements, sufficient to amount to significantly more than the mental process as only a computer/processor is claimed. As noted previously, the addition of a generic computer structure for performing the generic computer function of data processing, does not qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding dependent claims 10-15, the claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea or provide insignificant extra solution activity.
Regarding claim 16, a parallel tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium claim to that of claim 1, is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of a computer storage and processor for performing the steps is, at its broadest reasonable interpretation, a generic computer structure for performing the generic computer function of data processing, which does not qualify as an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Finally, the claims analyzed as a whole do not provides any element, or combination of elements, sufficient to amount to significantly more than the mental process as only a computer storage and processor is claimed. As noted previously, the addition of a generic computer structure for performing the generic computer function of data processing, does not qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding dependent claims 17-21, the claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea or provide insignificant extra solution activity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/28/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant traverses the 35 USC 101 rejection of record.
First, on pages 8-9, Applicant asserts that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and that they cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The question to be answered at step 2A prong 1 is whether the claim is directed to an abstract idea and as discussed in the rejection above the steps of claim 1 are a mental process grouping of an abstract idea. The steps of determining a fundamental frequency corresponding to a pulse rate of the subject occurring during the measurement of the first and second PPG signals and processing one or more higher harmonics of the pulse components of the first and second PPG signals at frequencies higher than the fundamental frequency to determine an SpO2 measurement for the subject based on the processed one or more higher harmonics of the pulse components of the first and second PPG signals, excluding the fundamental frequency of the pulse components are mental proceses that can be performed in a human mind. The step of receiving a first and second photoplethysmogram, PPG signals for the subject, wherein the first PPG signal is obtained using a first wavelength of light and the second PPG signal is obtained using a second wavelength of light, wherein the first and second PPG signals comprise pulse components relating to blood volume changes in the subject over time is insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering).
Additionally, Applicant argues that these calculations cannot be made in the human mind so continuous monitoring of SpO2 is not possible. These arguments are repeated and expanded on the Oath and Decleration filed on 01/28/2026 which outlines how long it would actually take a human being to make these calculations. Similar to the Remarks presented by Applicant, the Oath and Deceleration states that it is not possible to continuously measure SpO2 in the human mind. However, the claims themselves do not recite any limitation stating that continuous SpO2 is performed, but rather recites limitation that SpO2 is measured (under the broadest reasonable interpretation a single time). Nor does the claims recite any limitation limiting the amount of time allowed to measure SpO2. Thus the the steps can be performed in the human mind with a pencil and paper when given enough time. As such Applicant’s argument is found to be unpersuasive.
Next, on pages 9-14, Applicant asserts that the claim provides an improvement in technology and thus that claims are subject matter eligible. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible because the claims present an improvement in technology is unpersuasive. As stated in MPEP 2106.05(a), in regards to an improvement in technology making a claim subject matter eligible, the MPEP explicitly states “it is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” Here the mental process is what provides the improvement, and as such Applicant’s argument is found to be unpersuasive.
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 ABID A MUSTANSIR whose telephone number is (408)918-7647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 am to 6 pm Pacific Time.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/ABID A MUSTANSIR/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights