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 Amendment
The amendment filed 09/18/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 8-11, and 17-22 remain pending in the application.
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 11 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Although the claims fall within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection as judicial exceptions.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is directed to a method and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites the steps of “comparing phases of at least two specified optical signals among the plurality of optical signals by comparing a phase of at least one of a first optical signal and a second optical signal among the at least two specified optical signals with a phase of a reference signal until a time shifted to earlier or delayed by a specified time interval based on the reference signal among the at least two specified optical signals; obtaining similarity information by identifying a similarity having a maximum value among similarity values obtained by comparing the phase of at least one of the first optical signal or the second optical signal with the phase of the reference signal; and identifying whether a venous pulsation is detected from the at least two specified optical signals based on the similarity information; in response to identifying that the venous pulsation is detected in the specified section based on the similarity information, identifying the specified section as an abnormal section;” and “in response to identifying that the venous pulsation is not detected in the specified section based on the similarity information, identifying the specified section as a normal section” which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a step that can practically be performed in the mind or with the aid of pen/paper. The steps are therefore deemed to recite a mental process type abstract idea.
The claim recites additional elements “a wearable electronic device implemented as a watch”, “radiating light onto a user's body part and receiving at least some of light reflected from the user's body part in a specified section, wherein the specified section comprises a first time for turning on at least one optical sensor and a second time for turning off the by at least one optical sensor of the wearable electronic device; obtaining a plurality of optical signals having different wavelengths from the received light in the specified section;” and “skipping obtaining biometric information using the plurality of optical signals in the specified section; ….and obtaining the biometric information in the specified section, wherein the biometric information comprises blood oxygen saturation information, blood pressure, blood sugar, a heart rate, and a blood volume, wherein the at least one optical sensor includes a light emitting unit configured to emit light of at least two different wavelengths toward the user's body part, and a light receiving unit configured to receive reflected light from the user's body part, and wherein the first time and the second time are controlled by at least one processor according to a sampling interval", which are the steps of data gathering and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and insignificant post-solution activity. Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, the claim’s additional elements do not confer an inventive concept that amount to significantly more. Claim 11 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is directed to a method and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites the steps of the base claim, which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a step that can practically be performed in the mind or with the aid of pen/paper. The steps are therefore deemed to recite a mental process type abstract idea.
The claim recites additional elements “wherein the first optical signal is a reflective photoplethysmography signal having an infrared radiation (IR) wavelength, wherein the second optical signal is a reflective photoplethysmography signal having a red wavelength, and wherein the reference signal is a reflective photoplethysmography signal having a blue wavelength or green wavelength, reflected from a shallow region of a user's skin”, which is pre-solution data gathering. Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, the claim’s additional elements do not confer an inventive concept that amount to significantly more. Claim 17 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is directed to a method and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites the steps of the base claim, which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a step that can practically be performed in the mind or with the aid of pen/paper. The steps are therefore deemed to recite a mental process type abstract idea.
The claim recites additional elements “displaying the biometric information on a display of the wearable electronic device; and transmitting the biometric information to an external electronic device through a communication circuit of the wearable electronic device”, which is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and insignificant post-solution activity. Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, the claim’s additional elements do not confer an inventive concept that amount to significantly more. Claim 18 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is directed to a method and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites the steps of the base claim, which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a step that can practically be performed in the mind or with the aid of pen/paper. The steps are therefore deemed to recite a mental process type abstract idea.
The claim recites additional elements “obtaining the plurality of optical signals in the specified section by the at least one optical sensor based on a motion of the user detected by at least one motion sensor of the wearable electronic device being greater than or equal to a threshold value; and not obtaining the plurality of optical signals in the specified section by the at least one optical sensor based on the motion of the user detected by the at least one motion sensor being less than the threshold value”, which is pre-solution data gathering. Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, the claim’s additional elements do not confer an inventive concept that amount to significantly more. Claim 19 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is directed to an apparatus and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites the steps of “compare phases of at least two specified optical signals among the plurality of optical signals by comparing a phase of at least one of a first optical signal and a second optical signal among the at least two specified optical signals with a phase of a reference signal until a time shifted to earlier or delayed by a specified time interval based on the reference signal among the at least two specified optical signals, obtain similarity information by identifying a similarity having a maximum value among similarity values obtained by comparing the phase of at least one of the first optical signal or the second optical signal with the phase of the reference signal, identify whether a venous pulsation is detected from the at least two specified optical signals based on the similarity information, in response to identifying that the venous pulsation is detected in the specified section based on the similarity information, identify the specified section as an abnormal section and skip obtaining biometric information using the plurality of optical signals in the specified section, and in response to identifying that the venous pulsation is not detected in the specified section based on the similarity information, identify the specified section as a normal section” which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a step that can practically be performed in the mind or with the aid of pen/paper. The steps are therefore deemed to recite a mental process type abstract idea.
The claim recites additional elements “A non-transitory storage medium storing a program comprising executable instructions configured to, when executed by a processor of a wearable electronic device, implemented as a watch, cause the wearable electronic device to: radiate light onto a user's body part and receive at least some of light reflected from the user's body part in a specified section, wherein the specified section comprises a first time for turning on at least one optical sensor and a second time for turning off the at least one optical sensor of the wearable electronic device; obtain a plurality of optical signals having different wavelengths from the received light in the specified section and obtain the biometric information in the specified section, wherein the biometric information comprises blood oxygen saturation information, blood pressure, blood sugar, a heart rate, and a blood volume, wherein the at least one optical sensor includes a light emitting unit configured to emit light of at least two different wavelengths toward the user's body part, and a light receiving unit configured to receive reflected light from the user's body part, and wherein the first time and the second time are controlled by at least one processor according to a sampling interval", which are the steps of data gathering and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and insignificant post-solution activity. Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, the claim’s additional elements do not confer an inventive concept that amount to significantly more. Claim 20 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is directed to an apparatus and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites the steps of the base claim, which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a step that can practically be performed in the mind or with the aid of pen/paper. The steps are therefore deemed to recite a mental process type abstract idea.
The claim recites additional elements “wherein the venous pulsation includes significant blood flow in a venous bed under a user's skin”, which is pre-solution data gathering. Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, the claim’s additional elements do not confer an inventive concept that amount to significantly more. Claim 21 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 22, the claim is directed to an apparatus and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites the steps of the base claim, which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a step that can practically be performed in the mind or with the aid of pen/paper. The steps are therefore deemed to recite a mental process type abstract idea.
The claim recites additional elements “the abnormal section includes a section in which an arterial pulsation and the venous pulsation are detected in the plurality of optical signals”, which is pre-solution data gathering. Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, the claim’s additional elements do not confer an inventive concept that amount to significantly more. Claim 22 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 8-10 are allowed over prior art.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 1 is allowed because prior art fails to anticipate and/or render obvious, either solely or in combination a wearable electronic device, as recited in these claims.
Claims 8-10 are allowed at least by virtue of their dependency upon an allowable base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/18/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to claims 1 and 8-10. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection arguments on pages 8-12 of the REMARKS.
Claims 1, 8-11, and 17-22
The Applicant argues that “Through these features, the invention achieves significant effects such as improving the measurement accuracy in normal sections, preventing erroneous data output by excluding biometric information measurements in abnormal sections, reducing unnecessary power consumption, and greatly improving the accuracy of biometric information.” (Page 11). The Examiner agrees and therefore the rejection of claims 1 and 8-10 has been withdrawn. The Applicant argues that “Amended claims 11 and 20 can be supported by the same reasoning as amended claim 1 for providing an inventive concept.” (Page 11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that while claim 1 recites controlling the at least one optical sensor to skip obtaining biometric information or to obtain the biometric information, and therefore recites a practical application of the abstract idea, amended claims 11 and 20 do not recite the same controlling steps.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 ALEXEI BYKHOVSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-1556. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 8:30am - 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, Pascal Bui Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ALEXEI BYKHOVSKI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798