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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 10, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 are objected to because the claims document has poor resolution, making the claims, specifically claim 1, difficult to read. Substitute claims with higher resolution text are required. See 37 CFR 1.52(b).
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 the amplitude of the workout intensity;
[C2] - for the reliable HR region, the method further comprises:
computing the mean absolute error (MAE) between the HR predicted by the 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 the number of epochs considered;
[D2] - 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 the weight of (WI(t)), α is the learning parameter, HRΔ is the estimated rest HR of the workout session and HRmax is a maximum pre-set theoretical heart rate value.
These elements [A1]-[E1] 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.
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 the first HR region of a workout session”; and
[D2] – “storing the set of parameters
θ
=
μ
,
τ
,
H
R
Δ
with the 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 wearable electronic device comprising: a processor; a PPG sensor to measure a PPG signal; a barometer; and a memory to store 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim limitation “a memory to store computer readable instructions” in line 5 encompasses non-patent eligible subject matter. Transitory forms of signal transmission are not patent eligible under MPEP 2106.03. In order to overcome this rejection, the claim limitation should be amended to recite “a memory to store non-transitory computer readable instructions” in line 5.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the amplitude" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first HR" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the mean absolute error" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the HR" in lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the model" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the number of epochs" in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the lowest MAE” in lines 25-26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the weight" in line 34. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the learning parameter" in lines 34-35. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the estimated rest HR" in line 35. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “A wearable electronic device” in line 1. It is unclear if this is meant to be the same device as the “wearable device” recited in line 2 of claim 1, or if these are difference devices. Further clarification is required.
Conclusion
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 W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791