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 6/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the 101 rejections, the Applicant argues claim 1 recites as a whole does not represent an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner considers the analysis of the heart rate data to be mentally performable. A cardiologist can identify the heart rate, and provide feedback based on said data. A cardiologist may further perform any of the algorithms cited as they represent mathematical operations on data. The Algorithms further contain no limitations on their execution -merely assigning a name to the algorithm, with no limitations on any of the various steps required to perform the algorithm(s) that remove the algorithm from the realm of mentally performable processes. The Applicant further argues that the various complexity assessments cannot be practically performed within the mind. Further, while it may be easier to use a computer to improve speed and efficiency of an existing process, simply adding a generic computer/processor and insignificant data gathering structure to perform the process has been considered by the courts to be insufficient for eligibility (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, as argued above, the claimed algorithms contain no limitations on their execution -merely assigning a name to the algorithm, with no limitations on any of the various steps required to perform the algorithm(s) that remove the algorithm from the realm of mentally performable processes.
The Applicant further argues that the system outputs a value and
therefore, it constitutes a tangible result. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as the
output is undefined as claimed is just an output. There is no device that provides visual, audio or haptic feedback. Providing a output is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic devices, a "computer-implemented method, performing generic computer functions like sending, receiving, and visually displaying data) is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., presenting data MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Regarding the 102 rejections the Applicant argues that Pande discloses using a frequency domain signal and therefore fails to determine a health information from extracted time segments. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the claims are written in an open-ended comprising fashion and therefore do not preclude the data from being further processed in a frequency domain as long as the data is sensed and the times are extracted in the time domain. Pande clearly discloses sensing the heart rate related signal and processing it in the time domain as claimed. Once the analysis is finished, the data (aggregated HR signal) is then converted to the frequency domain for determination of health information as disclosed in detail in the Pande Reference (e.g. Figure 6; “608”; ¶54). The claim is silent as to the features being extracted from a time domain signal, just that the features are extracted from an aggregated HR signal. Since Pande discloses each and every limitation the rejection stands.
Regarding the 103 rejections, the Applicant argues that Persen fails to cure the deficiencies in the Pande reference and therefore the rejections are invalid. As discussed in the detail above, Pande discloses each and every limitation and therefore the Applicant’s arguments are moot. Therefore, the 103 rejections stand.
The rejection below has been amended to reject the newly added claims 16-20.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1- Claim 1
Claim 1 and dependent claims 2-12 are drawn to a method and thus meet the requirements for step 1.
Step 2a (prong 1) - Claim 1
Claims 1 recites the step of “extracting one or more features from the aggregated HR response signal to determine the health information related to the cardiovascular system”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this step covers a concept capable of being performed in the human mind, and thus falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Other than reciting the method is “computer-implemented” in the preamble, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2a (prong 2) – Claim 1
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
A HR input is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering),
A event selection input is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering),
A processing unit is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic devices; performing generic computer functions, using computer elements as tools), and
An output is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic devices, a “computer-implemented” method, performing generic computer functions like sending, receiving, and visually displaying data) is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data output).
These steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are insignificant extra solution activity.
Step 2b- Claim 1
The additional elements when considered individually and in combination are not enough to qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, providing a (output) is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic devices, a “computer-implemented” method, performing generic computer functions like sending, receiving, and visually displaying data). Further, a HR input and an event selection input is considered data gathering.
The additional elements that were considered insignificant extra solution activity have been re-analyzed and do not amount to anything more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional when considered individually and in combination with evidence provided. Specifically:
A HR input configured to obtain a time-dependent heart rate is well understood, routine, and conventional (i.e., receiving data MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
An event selection input configured to obtain an event selection signal to detect a movement event is well understood, routine, and conventional (i.e., receiving data MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Detecting movement events, extracting time segments, combining time segments and extracting features is well-understood routine and conventional (i.e., gathering data/statistics MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
A processing unit is considered to use the computer elements as tools, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
An output is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (i.e., presenting data MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Claim 1 is thus consider to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2-12 depend from claim 1. The type of data analyzed as stated in claim 2-12 is considered extra solution activity. The processing unit as stated in claims 2-12 are stated at a high level of generality in applicant’s specification (“a generic processor”) and are merely used as a tool to carry out the data gathering and statistics. Thus, the dependent claim do not change the overall analysis that claims 2-12 are also directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 13
Independent claim 13 contains limitations similar to claim 1 and is similarly rejected as patent ineligible subject matter based on the same reasoning as above.
Claims 14-20
Independent claim 14 contains limitations similar to claim 1 and is similarly rejected as patent ineligible subject matter based on the same reasonings as above.
Dependent claims 15-20 are directed to a system containing limitations similar to that for claim 14 and further includes a computer. Analyzing the computer of claim 15 under step 2a, prong 1, the computer is recited at a high level of generality and merely use the computer elements (the processor and memory) as a tool. When analyzed under step 2a, prong 2, the computer performs generic computer functions like storing and processing data. Further, when the analysis is extended to step 2b, the computer is considered to use the computer elements as tools, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). The type of data analyzed as stated in claims 16-20 are considered extra solution activity. Thus, claims 15-20 are also considered to be patent ineligible subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9 and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pande et al. (U.S. Pub. 2017/0164847 hereinafter “Pande”).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Pande discloses a device and method for determining health information related to the cardiovascular system of a subject (e.g. 308), the device comprising: a HR input (e.g. PPG) configured to obtain a time-dependent heart rate, HR, related signal representing or allowing to derive the subject's heart rate over time (e.g. 600); an event selection input (e.g. ACC) configured to obtain an event selection signal allowing to detect a movement event of the subject (e.g. 602); a processing unit (e.g. MCC) configured to determine the health information related to the cardiovascular system of a subject from the obtained HR related signal and the obtained event selection signal (e.g. 604, 606); and an output (e.g. HR Tracker) configured to output the determined health information (e.g. 610), wherein the processing unit (e.g. MCC) is configured to; detect movement events of the subject based on the event selection signal (e.g. ¶17), extract time segments of the HR related signal, wherein each time segment covers a different period including a respective movement event of the detected movement events (e.g. ¶17), combine the extracted time segments to compute an aggregated HR response signal (e.g. ¶17), and extract one or more features from the aggregated HR response signal to determine the health information related to the cardiovascular system of the subject (e.g. ¶65).
Regarding claim 2, Pande further discloses wherein the processing unit is configured to align the extracted time segments before combining based on the event selection signal or an obtained alignment signal that indicates time information of a movement event within the respective time segment (e.g. see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, Pande further discloses wherein the processing unit is configured to detect a movement event by detecting a movement of the subject that affects the subject's HR, in particular a recurring movement of the subject, such as a change of posture of the subject or a turning movement of the subject (e.g. ¶41).
Regarding claim 4, Pande further discloses wherein the processing unit is configured to detect a movement event by detecting one or more movement features of movement of the subject, said movement features including movement intensity above an intensity threshold, movement pattern, movement speed, movement direction, and movement distance (e.g. ¶41).
Regarding claim 6, Pande further discloses wherein the processing unit is configured to extract a time segment of the HR related signal by determining the characteristic point in time, at which a particular characteristic of a detected event appears, and to select the time segment around said characteristic point in time to span a first time period before said characteristic point in time and a second time period after said characteristic point in time (e.g. ¶24).
Regarding claim 9, Pande further discloses wherein the processing unit is configured to determine the health information related to the cardiovascular system of the subject by use of a predetermined function, in particular a linear or non-linear approximation applying one or more predetermined scalar parameters (e.g. ¶¶20-21).
Regarding claim 11, Pande further discloses wherein the HR related signal is one of a contact or remote photoplethysmography, PPG, signal, a HR signal, an ECG signal, a ballistocardiogram, a tonometric signal, or a holographic laser Doppler imaging signal, (e.g. 304) and/or wherein the event selection signal is one of a movement signal indicating movement of the subject's body, an accelerometer signal, a muscle activity signal, a brain activity signal, a pressure sensor signal, a weight sensor signal, a CAN bus signal of a vehicle, and a camera signal (e.g. ACC).
Regarding claim 12, Pande further discloses wherein the processing unit is configured to combine the extracted time segments by i) first converting the extracted time segments to a signal representing frequency over time and then aggregating these signals into an aggregated HR response signal (e.g. 608).
Regarding claim 13, Pande discloses a system for determining health information related to the cardiovascular system of a subject, the system comprising: a HR sensor (e.g. PPG) configured to sense a time-dependent heart rate, HR, related signal representing or allowing to derive the subject's heart rate over time; a selection signal sensor (e.g. ACC) configured to sense an event selection signal allowing to detect a movement event of the subject; a device as claimed in any one of the preceding claims for determining the health information related to the cardiovascular system of a subject from the sensed HR related signal and the sensed event selection signal (e.g. 606); and an output interface configured to issue the determined health information (e.g. 610).
Regarding claim 15, Pande discloses a non-transitory storage medium comprising a computer program, the computer program configured to cause a computer to carry out the steps of the method as claimed in claim 14 when said computer program is carried out on the computer (e.g. MCU; ¶45).
Regarding claim 16, Pande discloses aligning the extracted time segments before combining based on the event selection signal or an obtained alignment signal that indicates time information of a movement event within the respective time segment (e.g. see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 17, Pande discloses wherein detecting a movement event comprises detecting a movement of the subject that affects the subject's HR (e.g. Fig. 6; “604”).
Regarding claim 18, Pande discloses wherein detecting a movement event comprises detecting one or more movement features of movement of the subject, said movement features including movement intensity above an intensity threshold, movement pattern, movement speed, movement direction, and movement distance (e.g. ¶41).
Regarding claim 19, Pande discloses wherein extracting a time segment comprises determining a point in time at which a particular characteristic of a detected event appears, and selecting the time segment around said point in time to span a first time period before said point in time and a second time period after said point in time (e.g. ¶24).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5, 7-8, 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pande as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 9 and 11-19 above, and further in view of Persen et al. (U.S. Pub. 2018/0290147 hereinafter “Persen”).
Regarding claims 5, 7 and 20, Pande discloses the claimed invention except for the system removing the motion artifacts from the data. However, Persen teaches that it is known to remove and disregard the motion artifacts as set forth in Paragraph 56 to provide a signal that utilizes the data before and after the artifacts and disregards the artifact data to provide for an improved and more accurate signal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Pande, with the removal of motion artifacts as taught by Persen, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing a signal that utilizes the data before and after the artifacts and disregards the artifact data to provide for an improved and more accurate signa.
Regarding claim 8, Pande discloses the claimed invention except for the system of detecting the Heart rate and beats. However, Persen teaches that it is known to use the maximum gradient of the aggregated signal as set forth in Paragraph 53 to provide the locations where gradient is at a maximum which corresponds to individual beats. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Pande, with the known analysis of PPG signals as taught by Persen, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing the locations where gradient is at a maximum which corresponds to individual beats.
Regarding claim 10, Pande discloses the claimed invention except for the system determining the scalar parameters from one or more relationships between age of the subject and the respective one or more features from the aggregated HR response signal. However, Persen teaches that it is known to use age as set forth in Paragraph 73 to provide scalar parameters in a mathematical model corresponding to the user and other data including age, so that the user's current stress level can be determined based on a comparison of the user's current heart rate, HRV, PRV, and/or respiration rate to the mathematical model. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Pande, with the known analysis of age as taught by Persen, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing scalar parameters in a mathematical model corresponding to the user and other data including age, so that the user's current stress level can be determined based on a comparison of the user's current heart rate, HRV, PRV, and/or respiration rate to the mathematical mode.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. BONOMI et al. (U.S. Pub. 2018/0249951) – teaches using motion to create a clean PPG signal.
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 REX R HOLMES whose telephone number is (571)272-8827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/REX R HOLMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights