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 June 11, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every claim objection and 112 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 11, 2026. Applicant’s amendments to the claims necessitate new grounds of rejection, as described in the Response to Arguments, 112, and 101 Rejections below.
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 1-5 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.
The terms “reliable” and “unreliable” in claims 1-4 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “reliable” and “unreliable” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claims, as written, do not define what is considered to be a “reliable” heart rate region or an “unreliable” heart rate region, creating confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Additionally, claim 2 recites “reliable parts of a PPG signal”, which does not define what makes a part of a PPG signal “reliable”. Further clarification is required.
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 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. Claims 1-5 are directed to a method for estimating and correcting heart rate using a computational algorithm, which is an abstract idea. Claims 1-5 do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons provided below which are in line with the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, p 74618, December 16, 2014), the July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 146, p. 45429, July 30, 2015), the May 2016 Subject Matter Eligibility Update (Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 88, p. 27381, May 6, 2016), and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, page 50, January 7, 2019).
The analysis of claim 1 is as follows:
Step 1: Claim 1 is drawn to a process.
Step 2A – Prong One: Claim 1 recites an abstract idea. In particular, claim 1 recites the following limitations:
[A1] – computing barometer intensity (BI(t)) as:
B
I
t
=
λ
*
B
I
t
-
1
+
1
-
λ
*
b
a
r
o
(
t
)
, where λ is a forgetting factor;
[B1] - computing workout intensity (WI(t)) as:
W
I
t
=
A
*
m
a
x
(
0
,
B
I
Δ
t
)
, where BIΔ is a derivative of BI(t) that identifies regions of the barometer signal where there is a difference in altitude, A is a factor to increase an amplitude of the workout intensity;
[C1] - for the reliable HR region, the method further comprises:
computing a mean absolute error (MAE) between a heart rate (HR) that is predicted by a model (ŷ) and the reliable HR (y) as follows:
M
A
E
y
,
ŷ
=
1
N
∑
i
=
0
N
-
1
|
y
i
-
ŷ
i
|
;
using gradient descent for adapting a set of parameter
θ
=
μ
,
τ
,
H
R
Δ
, such that:
∂
M
A
E
(
y
,
ŷ
)
∂
θ
=
1
N
∑
i
=
0
N
-
1
-
∂
ŷ
i
∂
θ
, where N is a number of epochs considered;
[D1] - for identifying the heart rate (HR(t+1)) in the unreliable HR region, the method further comprises:
feeding HRstable, WI(t) and the first HR to a recurrent model, wherein:
H
R
t
+
1
=
H
R
s
t
a
b
l
e
-
H
R
s
t
a
b
l
e
-
H
R
t
*
e
-
1
τ
;
H
R
s
t
a
b
l
e
=
H
R
Δ
+
μ
*
α
*
W
I
t
*
(
H
R
m
a
x
-
H
R
Δ
)
,
where τ determines how fast HR will rise or fall, μ is a parameter that controls a weight of (WI(t)), α is a learning parameter, HRΔ is an estimated rest HR of the workout session and HRmax is a maximum pre-set theoretical heart rate value.
[E1] – wherein the unreliable HR region is corrected with an estimate of the heart rate based on the model which considered barometer information to identify points of increase and decrease in theheart rate and estimates the workout intensity.
These elements [A1]-[D1] of claim 1 are drawn to an abstract idea since they involve mathematical concepts in the form of mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations. The element [E1] of claim 1 is drawn to an abstract idea since it involves a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and using pen and paper.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Claim 1 recites the following limitations that are beyond the judicial exception:
[A2] – “A method for estimating and correcting heart rate is exercises using barometer signal in a wearable device”;
[B2] – “receiving a barometer signal (baro(t))”;
[C2] – “receiving a reliable heart rate (HR) region and an unreliable HR region and a HR of a workout session”; and
[D2] – “storing the set of parameters
θ
=
μ
,
τ
,
H
R
Δ
with a lowest MAE”.
The elements [A2-D2] of claim 1 do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the element [A2] merely adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Also, the elements [B2-D2] is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering and storage at a higher level of generality - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. In particular, the limitation [A2] does not qualify as significantly more because this limitation merely describes the nature of the data and does not incorporate the wearable device as part of the claimed invention.
Also, the limitation [A2] is merely insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea that uses conventional, routine, and well-known elements. In particular, the wearable device is nothing more than a wearable device for collecting barometer signals. Such devices are conventional as evidenced by:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20190133537 A1 (Ghose et al.) discloses a wearable sensor with PPG sensors and a barometer [0041].
Claims 2-5 depend from claim 1, and recite the same abstract idea as claim 1. Furthermore, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the algorithm), with the following exceptions:
Claim 2: “a PPG signal of the wearable device”; and
Claim 5: “A method as in claim 1, wherein the wearable device comprises: a processor; a PPG sensor to measure a PPG signal; a barometer; and a memory to store non-transitory computer readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform the method as defined in claim 1.”
Each of these claim limitations does not integrate the exception into a practical application. In particular, the elements of claims 5 are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g). Also, each of these limitations does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself because they are merely insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea that uses conventional, routine, and well-known elements or simply displaying the results of the algorithm that uses conventional, routine, and well-known elements. In particular, the wearable electronic device is nothing more than a wearable device comprising a barometer, PPG sensors, and circuity. Such devices are conventional as evidenced by Ghose et al. (as described above in the rejection of claim 1).
Also, the limitations from claims 5 are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations of each claim as an ordered combination in conjunction with the claims from which they depend (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the 101 Rejections in the Non-Final Office Action (See Pages 4-6 of Applicant’s Response “REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101”), Applicant argues that the claimed method learns a model that relates the workout intensity of an exercise, computed using the barometer signal, with the reliable heart rate estimates, and the claims as a whole recite a practical application of improving estimating and correcting heart rate using a barometer signal in a wearable device. Applicant states that under Step 1, it is clear that the method is implemented by a computer through software and/or hardware. However, per MPEP 2106.05(b), a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Therefore, the implementation by a computer through software and/or hardware does not qualify as a particular machine.
Applicant also states that Step 2 involves determining whether a claim is recited to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea, and if an abstract idea is present, if the claim elements amount of “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. Applicant argues that claim 1, as amended, currently recites “wherein the unreliable HR region is corrected with an estimate of the heart rate based on the model which considered barometer information to identify points of increase and decrease in the heart rate and estimates the workout intensity”. Applicant states that the present invention enables adjustment of the heart rate estimation to replace the unreliable heart rate prediction and the model considers the barometer information to identify points of increase and decrease in heart rate and estimates the intensity of the workout. Applicant argues that according to Step 2A – Prong One, claim 1 does not recite any of the judicial exceptions such as mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations, and under Step 2A – Prong Two, the claimed invention improves performance of a wearable device in measurement related to workout sessions. As written, the claims describe a computational method of estimating and correcting heart rate, which is an abstract idea using calculations. Claim 1, as written, does not integrate the correction of heart rate into practical application. Additionally, Applicant’s stated technical improvement of correcting an unreliable heart rate is not a practical application, as it is not specified in the claim what makes the heart rate unreliable or what makes the corrected heart rate improved. As written, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims are merely directed toward performing a method involving calculations and mathematical relationships to correct a heart rate using generic computer components, and there is not a clear practical application in the claim limitations.
Claims 1-5 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as described in the 101 rejection above and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) described in the 112 rejection above.
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 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 EVELYN GRACE PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-0651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571)272-3672. 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.
/EVELYN GRACE PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /TSE CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights