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 .
Prosecution History Summary
Claims 1, 8, 15, and 19-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 1-14), machine (claims 15-20). Accordingly, claims 1-20 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 15 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 15 recites:
A system comprising:
-a wearable device that generates a data stream comprising recurring measurements of an observed variable related to a user of the wearable device; and
-a host server in communication with the wearable device, the host server configured to:
-generate a composite time-series, representing a baseline measurement of the observed variable for a recurring time interval, by computationally aligning two or more time-series measurements of the observed variable corresponding to past instances of the recurring time interval within an observation window, and aggregating together the computationally aligned two or more time-series measurements of the observed variable;
-compute a measure of similarity between the composite time-series representation and another time-series representation comprising measurements of the observed variable within a current instance of the recurring time interval;
-transform the measure of similarity into a regularity score for the user representing a normalized characterization of the observed variable in the current instance of the time interval in relation to the determined baseline measurement; and
-advance the observation window to maintain a computationally bounded set of historical measurements of the observed variable by removing an oldest dataset from the observation window and adding a new dataset corresponding to a subsequent instance of the recurring time interval.
Examiner states submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: “mathematical concepts” because gathering measurements and then generating a composite-time series, using the information to compute a measure of similarity, and then transforming the measure of similarity into a score are all mathematical calculations.
Furthermore, the foregoing underlined limitation constitute: a “mental process” because gathering measurements and then generating a composite-time series, using the information to compute a measure of similarity, and then transforming the measure of similarity into a score can all be performed in the human mind.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether
the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP
§$2106.04(1D(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond
the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements
merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution
activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment
or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP
§2106.05(1(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract
idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional
limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A system (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); figure 1) comprising:
-a wearable device that generates a data stream comprising recurring measurements of an observed variable related to a user of the wearable device (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 17); and
-a host server in communication with the wearable device, the host server (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); para. 29) configured to:
-generate a composite time-series, representing a baseline measurement of the observed variable for a recurring time interval, by computationally aligning two or more time-series measurements of the observed variable corresponding to past instances of the recurring time interval within an observation window, and aggregating together the computationally aligned two or more time-series measurements of the observed variable;
-compute a measure of similarity between the composite time-series representation and another time-series representation comprising measurements of the observed variable within a current instance of the recurring time interval;
-transform the measure of similarity into a regularity score for the user representing a normalized characterization of the observed variable in the current instance of the time interval in relation to the determined baseline measurement; and
-advance the observation window to maintain a computationally bounded set of historical measurements of the observed variable by removing an oldest dataset from the observation window and adding a new dataset corresponding to a subsequent instance of the recurring time interval.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(IID(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claims 1 and 8 and analogous independent claim 15 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application. Accordingly, representative independent claim 1 and 8 and analogous independent claim 15 are directed to at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claim 2, 9: The claim specifies composite time-series generated by DTW barycenter averaging, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 3, 10: The claim specifies measure of similarity computation, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 4, 11, 16: The claim specifies regularity score computation, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 5, 12, 17: The claim specifies the regularity score, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 6, 13: The claim specifies recommending an action to the user, which is a mental process.
Claim 7, 14: The claim specifies the action recommended, which further narrows the abstract idea.
Claim 18: The claim specifies a mobile device coupled to the wearable device and in communication with a host server, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 19: The claim specifies the application recommending actions, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 20: The claim specifies the actions recommended by the application, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, when the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as generate a composite time-series, compute a measure of similarity, transform the measure of similarity into a regularity score, advance the observation window, e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2-4, 6, 9-10, 11, 13, 18-19, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, claims 6, 13 (recommending an action), 18 (communication with host server to receive score), 19 (recommend actions), e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); claims 2, 9 (DTW barycenter averaging of datasets), 3, 10 (measure of similarity computed as a DTW distance), 4, 11 (transforming using a sigmoid function), e.g., performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii)). 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, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-20
are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gwak (KR 20230148070 A).
As per claim 1, Gwak teaches a method comprising:
-receiving a data stream originated from a wearable device worn by a user (Gwak: pg. 4; Smart devices may be wearable devices worn on the body of the user.), the data stream comprising recurring measurements of an observed variable related to the user of the wearable device (Gwak: pg. 4; Smart device detects physiological signals of a person being managed.) over an advancing observation window that maintains a computationally bounded set of historical measurements of the observed variable (Gwak: pg. 6; Compare past data (any range) to determine whether that section is abnormal or not.);
-segmenting the data stream into a plurality of datasets, each dataset comprising time-series measurements of the observed variable corresponding to a different instance of a recurring time interval within the observation window (Gwak: pg. 5; Signal pre-processing unit synchronizes the multiple signals according to time and reduces the noise.);
-aggregating two or more of the plurality of datasets into a composite time-series representing a baseline measurement of the observed variable over past instances of the recurring time interval (Gwak: pg. 6; Aggregate past data from any amount of time to create a baseline for comparison.);
-computing a measure of similarity between the composite time-series representation and a further time-series representation comprising measurements of the observed variable within a current instance of the recurring time interval (Gwak: pg. 6; Calculate and integrate similarities.);
-based on the measure of similarity, computing a regularity score for the user representing a normalized characterization of the observed variable in the current instance of the time interval in relation to the determined baseline measurement (Gwak: pg. 6; Calculate and integrate similarities between the specific section of your measured bio signals and past history to derive a regularity score.); and
-transmitting the computed regularity score to the user (Gwak: pg. 6; Input/output devices of server is connected to a user interface to receive and transmit information.).
Claims 8 and 15 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 1, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
As per claim 18, the system of claim 15 is as described. Gwak further teaches a mobile device coupled to the wearable device and in communication with the host server, the mobile device configured to receive the regularity score transmitted from the host server and display the regularity score to the user within an application executing on the mobile device (Gwak: pg. 5-6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gwak (KR 20230148070 A) in view of Ravishankar et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0181082).
As per claim 2, the method of claim 1 is as described. Gwak does not teach the following, however, Ravishankar teaches wherein the composite time-series representing the baseline measurement of the observed variable is generated using dynamic time warping (DTW) barycenter averaging of the plurality of datasets (Ravishankar: para. 60; Average the DTW distance thresholds of similar beats.).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Ravishankar would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Ravishankar to the teachings of Gwak would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features into similar systems. Further, applying DTW barycenter averaging to Gwak teaching abnormality detection technique in bio signals would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would provide a system that accelerated interpretation of patient information (para. 4).
As per claim 3, the method of claim 2 is as described. Gwak further teaches wherein the measure of similarity is computed as a DTW distance between the further time-series representation of the observed variable and the composite time-series representation (Gwak: pg. 6; Determine the distance between abnormal score and estimated average.).
Claims 9-10 and 16-17 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claims 2-3, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claims 4-5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gwak (KR 20230148070 A) in view of JP 2019521422.
As per claim 4, the method of claim 1 is as described. Gwak does not teach the following, however, JP2019 teaches wherein the regularity score is computed by transforming the measure of similarity using a sigmoid function (JP2019521422: pg. 9; Normalizing with a sigmoid function.).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of JP2019 would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of JP2019 to the teachings of Gwak would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features into similar systems. Further, applying sigmoid function transformation to Gwak teaching abnormality detection technique in bio signals would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would provide a system that simplified complex data in order to determine anomaly in signals (pg. 6).
As per claim 5, the method of claim 4 is as described. Gwak does not teach the following, however, JP2019 teaches wherein the regularity score has a non-zero lower bound (JP2019521422: pg. 9).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 4.
Claims 11-12 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claims 4-5, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gwak (KR 20230148070 A) in view of Jain et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0258637).
As per claim 6, the method of claim 1 is as described. Gwak does not teach the following, however, Jain teaches further comprising recommending an action to the user based on the computed regularity score (Jain: para. 105-106; Provide insights.).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Ravishankar would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Ravishankar to the teachings of Gwak would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features into similar systems. Further, applying action recommendation to Gwak teaching abnormality detection technique in bio signals would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would provide a system that improves patient health (para. 5).
As per claim 7, the method of claim 6 is as described. Gwak does not teach the following, however, Jain teaches wherein the action is recommended as part of a health-related program in which the user is enrolled (Jain: para. 297; enrolled in a care program).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 6.
Claims 13-14 and 19-20 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claims 6-7, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed for 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Applicant’s claim recite a specific improvement to computer technology in the field of content delivery; process stream of biometric device from a wearable device in a computationally efficient and scalable manner. Examiner states that this is not solving the problem in the field of wearable technology, but using the wearable technology to gather information using it in its generic manner. Applicant states that it manages high-frequency data streams over indeterminate time periods given constrained processing and storage capabilities of computer systems and mobile devices. Examiner states that there is no objective evidence in the specification stating that the mobile device improves the processing or storage capabilities, but using the mobile device in its generic manner to process information.
Applicant argues that “removing an oldest dataset from the observation window and adding a new dataset” used in advancing the observation window is a specific performance-enhancing technique for managing datasets that provide efficiencies against a baseline of reprocessing historical data log. Examiner states that Applicant provides conclusory opinion regarding the improvement and asks for objective evidence regarding the performance-enhancing technique.
Applicant's arguments filed for claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Gwak’s method for using historical data teaches comparing a current “query” signal against past data points referred to as “history.” Examiner states that the claim recites “advancing observation window that maintains a computationally bounded set of historical measurements of the observed variable.” Gwak teaches any range of past data, i.e. observation window maintaining bounded set of historical measurements; therefore, Gwak still teaches the amended feature.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pauley et al. – U.S. Publication No. 2021/0104173 – Teaches a coaching system for risk stratification.
Hancock et al. – U.S. Publication No. 2024/0387058 – Teaches a system for managing skin disease based on information from werables.
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 SHEETAL R. PAULSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1368. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Peter Choi can be reached on 4692959171. 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.
/SHEETAL R PAULSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681