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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 2/2/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 10925502, 11375935, and 11903714 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant amended the claims to recite a fluxgate magnetometer and a neural network to overcome 101 rejection. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The collection of fluxgate magnetometer data is considered an extrasolution activity of necessary data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is conventional in the art in view of Bender (US 2013/0201316 A1), Kawabata (US 2007/0120563 A1), and Shahinpoor (US 6433543 B1) for biometric measuring apparatuses. With regards to applying a neural network, the neural network with weights is essentially a trained physician that analyzes data and prioritizes certain characteristics/information over others, which can be done in the mind. Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The Examiner recommends adding in claim language that improves the neural network algorithm and cite the technological improvement to the neural network in the Applicant’s specification.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the following analysis:
Step 1: Do the claims recite one of the statutory categories of matter (i.e. method, apparatus, etc.)? YES, Claims 1-21 recite apparatuses.
Step 2A Prong 1: Is there an abstract idea involved? YES, the claim language recites determining whether an abnormality is present in an individual. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind or by a person using a pen and paper.
Step 2a Prong 2: Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application? NO, the claims recite electromagnetic field sensors, a processor, and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which are recited at a high level of generality and is recited as performing generic computer functions. i.e., data processing and display. The elements amount to mere 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 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, each of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The electromagnetic field sensors are recited at a generic structural level that would amount to an extrasolution activity of necessary data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The collection of fluxgate magnetometer data is considered an extrasolution activity of necessary data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The dependent claims contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the mental process).
Step 2B: Do the additional elements amount to “Significantly More” than the judicial exception? NO, The emphasized elements cited above do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’I, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)). In addition, the use of fluxgate magnetometers is conventional in the art in view of Bender (US 2013/0201316 A1), Kawabata (US 2007/0120563 A1), and Shahinpoor (US 6433543 B1) for biometric measuring apparatuses.
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (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. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of 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 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 MICHAEL J LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-2317. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 PM.
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, Carl Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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.
/MICHAEL J LAU/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights