DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This action is in reply to the filed on 9/23/2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claim 1-16 currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The Applicant’s amendments, and cancellation, of the claims as currently submitted have been noted by the Examiner. Said amendments, and cancellation(s), are not sufficient to overcome the rejections previously set forth under 35 U.S.C. §101 and 35 U.S.C. §103, respectively. As such, said rejections are herein maintained for reasons set forth below.
With the amendment of claims 1, applicant has successfully overcome the Examiner’s 35 USC 103 rejection and Examiner withdraws his 35 USC 103 rejection. Galgalikar, Hinojosa and Muhsin et al. do not teach “straps positioned about the bottom surface of the main body directly above the radial artery on a user's wrist and positioned wherein said user can engage the touch sensitive display screen,” etc.
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.
Human Interactions Organized
Applicant discloses (Applicant’s Specification, [0005]-[0006]) that outside of a hospital setting, users have little to no means for detecting and monitoring health information unless they have a known problem. So a need exists to organize these human interactions by/through providing unobtrusive medical monitoring and reporting using the steps of “capturing patient information for patients,” etc. Applicant’s apparatus is therefore a mental process and a certain method of organizing the human activities.
Rejection
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 is/are directed to the abstract idea of “providing unobtrusive medical monitoring and reporting,” etc. (Applicant’s Specification, Abstract, paragraph(s) [0005], [0006]), etc., as explained in detail below, and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-16 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The Judicial Exception
The claim(s) recite(s) in part, apparatus for performing the steps of “capturing patient information for patients,” etc., that is “providing unobtrusive medical monitoring and reporting,” etc. which is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (social activities, teaching, following rules, instructions) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, claims 1-16 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. devices, displays, sensor suites, controllers, pulse oximeters, ECG sensors, temperature sensors, gyroscope sensors, microphone sensors, user interfaces, power sources, processor, memory, wireless communication, networks, speakers, , cameras, processors (Applicant’s Specification [0029], [0035]-[0076]), etc.) to perform steps of “capturing patient information for patients,” etc. do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and this is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Insignificant extra-solution activity
Claim(s) 1-16 recites storing data steps, retrieving data steps, providing data steps, output steps (Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-12 (2010), Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 771 F.Supp.2d 1054, 1066 (E.D. Mo. 2011), aff’d, 687 F.3d at 1266), and/or transmitting data step (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1299, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) that is/are insignificant extra-solution activity. Extra-solution activity limitations are insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application (MPEP §2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Search for an Inventive Concept/Significantly More
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations (i.e. devices, displays, sensor suites, controllers, pulse oximeters, ECG sensors, temperature sensors, gyroscope sensors, microphone sensors, user interfaces, power sources, processor, memory, wireless communication, networks, speakers, , cameras, processors, etc.) only store and retrieve information and perform repetitive calculations, and these are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (Berkheimer- Court Decisions). These court decisions indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Individually and in Combination
The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to no more than generic computer components that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. devices, displays, sensor suites, controllers, pulse oximeters, ECG sensors, temperature sensors, gyroscope sensors, microphone sensors, user interfaces, power sources, processor, memory, wireless communication, networks, speakers, , cameras, processors, etc.). At paragraph(s) [0029], [0035]-[0076], Applicant’s specification describes conventional computer hardware for implementing the above described functions including “devices, displays, sensor suites, controllers, pulse oximeters, ECG sensors, temperature sensors, gyroscope sensors, microphone sensors, user interfaces, power sources, processor, memory, wireless communication, networks, speakers, , cameras, processors,” etc. to perform the functions of “capturing patient information for patients,” etc. The recited “devices, displays, sensor suites, controllers, pulse oximeters, ECG sensors, temperature sensors, gyroscope sensors, microphone sensors, user interfaces, power sources, processor, memory, wireless communication, networks, speakers, , cameras, processors,” etc. does/do not add meaningful limitations to the idea of beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination 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 or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claims 1-16 do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of “an idea of itself” (Alice).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim(s) 2-16 include(s) all the limitations of the parent claims and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Although dependent claims 2-16 add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. Dependent claims 2-16 merely describe physical structures to implement the abstract idea. These information and physical characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human interactions, and when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as independent claim(s) 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/23/2025 with respect to claims 1-16 have been fully considered and they are partially persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed 9/23/2025.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 9/23/2025 with respect to claims 1-16 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant argues that (A) Galgalikar, Hinojosa and Muhsin et al. do not render obvious the present invention because Galgalikar, Hinojosa and Muhsin et al. do not disclose “straps positioned about the bottom surface of the main body directly above the radial artery on a user's wrist and positioned wherein said user can engage the touch sensitive display screen,” etc. in the previously presented and/or presently amended claims, (B) the Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to statutory matter.
103 Responses
In response to Applicant’s argument (A), Applicant’s arguments with regard to the application of Galgalikar, Hinojosa and Muhsin et al. to the amended limitations have been found persuasive. Galgalikar, Hinojosa and Muhsin et al. do not teach “straps positioned about the bottom surface of the main body directly above the radial artery on a user's wrist and positioned wherein said user can engage the touch sensitive display screen.” Applicant has successfully overcome the Examiner’s 35 USC 103 rejection and Examiner withdraws his 35 USC 103 rejection.
101 Responses
As per Applicant’s argument (B), Applicant’s remarks with regard to the statutory nature of Applicant’s claimed invention are addressed above in the Office Action.
2019 PEG Neither Limiting nor Exhaustive
Further, the enumerated examples in the 2019 PEG are neither limiting nor exhaustive. They are exemplary. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Truncated Claims
The Examiner’s characterization of Appellant’s claims is fully consistent with Appellant’s Specification, including Appellant’s claim language. “An abstract idea can generally be descried at different levels of abstraction. (See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1299, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as a mental process and/or comparing/storing data. It could be described in other ways, including, articulating the abstract idea at a higher level of abstraction as indicated in the specification… Such difference need not and, in this case does not, “impact the patentability analysis.” See id. At 1241.)
Mental Process
Applicant’s claims are directed to the abstract idea of providing unobtrusive medical monitoring and reporting. The claimed method requires the steps of “capturing patient information for patients,” etc. This mental process of DIRECT demonstrates that Applicant’s claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea. (Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., “[W]e have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds . . . without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.”). “[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea…on a generic computer.” (See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225).
Data Processing Step
Applicant’s step of “capturing patient information for patients,” is an abstract computational step that are part of Applicant’s abstract idea. In Electric Power Group the collection, manipulation and display of data has been found to be an abstract process. When claims, such as Applicant’s claims, are “directed to an abstract idea” and “merely requir[e] generic computer implementation,” they “do[] not move into [§] 101 eligibility territory.” buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Further, analysis of information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, is essentially a mental processes within the abstract-idea category (Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1354). Further, Applicant appears to be claiming generic computer implementation of a certain method of organsing human interaction. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) for 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 for 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 free 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7788. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 7:30a - 5:00p.
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 W. MORGAN can be reached on (571) 272-6773. 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.
/C. P. C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683