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 amendments filed 14 JANUARY 2026 have been entered. Claims 1 – 3, and 5 - 9 are pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection to the drawings previously applied in the office action dated 17 OCTOBER 2025.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 14 JANUARY 2026. These drawings are accepted
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: The dependency of the claim is not updated relative to the cancellation of Claim 4, such that the term “The biometric information detection system according to claim 4” is likely intended to be “The biometric…according to claim 1”. Appropriate correction 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 – 3, and 5 - 9 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.
As previously-applied, Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recites a “an information storage medium storing a program”, which can be considered either software per se or signals per se, which are not one of the statutory categories of invention. The claim should be amended to recite “non-transitory computer readable medium”, and the forthcoming 101 analysis regarding Claim 9 is provided assuming that this amendment is made.
Regarding Claims 1 and 9, the claims each recite an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1). The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1).
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites "an act or step, or series of acts or steps" and is therefore a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1). The claims are then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1).
Each of Claims 1 – 3, and 5 - 9 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1 – 3, and 5 - 9 recites at least one step or instruction for observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, which are grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG. The claimed invention involves making observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, which are concepts performed in the human mind under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, each of Claims 1 – 3, and 5 - 9 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Independent Claims 1, 8, and 9 recite (underlined are observations, judgements, evaluations, or opinions, which are grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG) (additional elements bolded, see Step 2A, prong 2);
Claim
A biometric information detection system, comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory device storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform operations including:
acquiring a time waveform indicating a change in phase of a Doppler signal acquired by receiving a wave reflected from a person to be measured;
acquiring a plurality of unit waveforms from the time waveform;
wherein each of the plurality of unit waveforms comprises an interval of the time waveform between either two consecutive local minimum values or two consecutive local maximum values;
generating a reference waveform by averaging the plurality of unit waveforms;
correcting the time waveform based on the reference waveform; and
acquiring biometric information based on the corrected time waveform.
Claim 8
A biometric information detection method, comprising:
acquiring a time waveform indicating a change in phase of a Doppler signal acquired by receiving a wave reflected from a person to be measured;
acquiring a plurality of unit waveforms from the time waveform;
wherein each of the plurality of unit waveforms comprises an interval of the time waveform between either two consecutive local minimum values or two consecutive local maximum values;
generating a reference waveform by averaging the plurality of unit waveforms;
correcting the time waveform based on the reference waveform; and
acquiring biometric information based on the corrected time waveform.
Claim 9
An information storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute:
acquiring a time waveform indicating a change in phase of a Doppler signal acquired by receiving a wave reflected from a person to be measured;
acquiring a plurality of unit waveforms from the time waveform;
wherein each of the plurality of unit waveforms comprises an interval of the time waveform between either two consecutive local minimum values or two consecutive local maximum values;
generating a reference waveform by averaging the plurality of unit waveforms;
correcting the time waveform based on the reference waveform; and
acquiring biometric information based on the corrected time waveform.
(observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
These underlined limitations describe a mathematical calculation and/or a mental process, as a skilled practitioner is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner notes that nothing from the claims suggests that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or by using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps in real time. Examiner additionally notes that nothing from the claims suggests and undue level of complexity that the mathematical calculations and/or the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps. For example, in Independent Claims 1, 8, and 9, these limitations include:
Observation and judgment to select a plurality of unit waveforms from the time waveform;
Observation and judgment to generate a reference waveform by averaging the plurality of unit waveforms;
Observation and judgment to correct the time waveform based on the reference waveform;
Observation and judgment of biometric information based on the corrected time waveform.
Similarly, the Dependent Claims include the following abstract limitations, in addition the aforementioned limitations in Independent Claims 1 8, and 9 (underlined observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG):
the plurality of unit waveforms is acquired based on a time that gives one of a local maximum value or a local minimum value of the time waveform.
Observation and judgment to select the plurality of unit waveforms based on a time that gives one of a local maximum value or a local minimum value of the time waveform.
the time waveform is corrected by convolution integration which uses the time waveform and the reference waveform.
Observation and judgment to evaluate and correct the time waveform by convolution integration which uses the time waveform and the reference waveform.
excluding some of the plurality of unit waveforms based on a time width of each of the plurality of unit waveforms; and
Observation and judgment exclude some of the plurality of unit waveforms based on a time width of each of the plurality of unit waveforms; and
the reference waveform is generated based on remaining unit waveforms among the plurality of unit waveforms.
Observation and judgment to generate the reference waveform based on remaining unit waveforms among the plurality of unit waveforms.
the operations further comprise outputting an alert depending on a ratio of a number of unit waveforms that are excluded to a number of acquired unit waveforms.
Observation and judgment to communicate an alert depending Observation and judgment of a ratio of a number of unit waveforms that are excluded to a number of acquired unit waveforms.
all of which are grouped as mental processes or mathematical algorithms under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract ideas in each of Independent Claims 1, 8, and 9 (and their respective Dependent Claims) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified in Claims 1 – 3, and 5 - 9), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of:
“at least one processor”
“at least one memory”
“computer”
“information storage medium”
“program”
Additional elements recited include “at least one processor”, “at least one memory”, “computer”, “information storage medium”, and ”program” in Independent Claims 1, 8, and 9 (and their respective Dependent Claims). These components are recited at a high level of generality, , i.e., as a processor performing a generic function of processing data (the acquiring, generating, and correcting); a memory performing a generic function of storing data (the storing). These generic hardware component limitations for “at least one processor”, “at least one memory”, “information storage medium”, and “program” are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and hardware components. As such, these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further additional elements from Independent Claims 1, 8, and 9 includes pre-solution activity limitations, such as:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory device storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform operations including:
acquiring a time waveform indicating a change in phase of a Doppler signal acquired by receiving a wave reflected from a person to be measured;
An information storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute
These pre-solution measurement elements are insignificant extra-solution activity, setting up the parameters of the system, and serve as data-gathering for the subsequent steps.
The “at least one processor”, “at least one memory”, “computer”, “information storage medium”, and ”program” as recited in Independent Claims 1, 8, and 9 (and their respective Dependent Claims) are generically recited computer and hardware elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract ideas identified above in Independent Claims 1, 8, and 9 (and their dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer processor as claimed. In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in Independent Claims 1, 8, and 9 (and their dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, Independent Claims 1, 8, and 9 (and their dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B –
None of Claims 1 – 3, and 5 - 9 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: “at least one processor”, “at least one memory”, “computer”, “information storage medium”, and ”program” as recited in Independent Claims 1, 8, and 9 (and their dependent claims).
The additional elements of the “at least one processor”, “at least one memory”, “computer”, “information storage medium”, and ”program” in Independent Claims 1, 8, and 9 (and their dependent claims), as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and hardware components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “at least one processor” is described generically on [Page 7, Line 5 – 6] “…only required that the signal processing device 3 be formed of a publicly-known computer including, for example, a CPU…” The “at least one processor” is shown as generic box element “signal processing device 3” in Figure 1.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “at least one memory” is described generically on [Page 7, Line 5 – 6] “…only required that the signal processing device 3 be formed of a publicly-known computer including, for example…a memory…” The “at least one memory” is shown as part of generic box element “signal processing device 3” in Figure 1.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “computer” is described generically [Page 7, Line 5 – 6] “…only required that the signal processing device 3 be formed of a publicly-known computer including, for example, a CPU…” The “computer” is shown as generic box element “signal processing device 3” in Figure 1.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “information storage medium” is described generically on [Page 7, Line 5 – 6] “…only required that the signal processing device 3 be formed of a publicly-known computer including, for example…a memory…” and [Page 7, Lines 19 – 20] “program may be stored in one of various computer0readable information storage media such as a semiconductor memory…” The “information storage medium” is shown as part of generic box element “signal processing device 3” in Figure 1.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “program” is described generically on [Page 7, Lines 11 – 25] as the functional block diagram of Fig 2 and “functional blocks are implemented when a signal processing program is executed by the signal processing device 3”. The “program” is likely shown as the modules of the generic box elements of Figure 2.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed terms “at least one processor”, “at least one memory”, “computer”, “information storage medium”, and ”program” are reasonably construed as a generic computing and hardware devices. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the “at least one processor”, “at least one memory”, “computer”, “information storage medium”, and ”program” . This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Independent Claims 1, 8, and 9 (and their dependent claims) amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatuses and method of Claims 1 – 3, and 5 - 9 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general-purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 1 - 9 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements for Step 2A Prong 2 in Independent Claims 1, 8, and 9 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1 – 3, and 5 - 9 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1 – 3, and 5 - 9 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1 – 3, and 5 - 9 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 2, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et. al., “Wavelet-Transform-Based Datta-Length-Variation Technique for Fast Heart Rate Detection Using 5.8-GHz CW Doppler Radar”, hereinafter Li, in view of Rissacher, et. al., (United States Patent Application Publication US 2015/0157239 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 9, Li discloses
Claim 1: A biometric information detection system ([Abstract]; Fig 7), comprising:
at least one processor (Fig 7, LabView)(Examiner notes that LabView software runs on a computer, which includes at least one processor); and
at least one memory device storing instructions (Fig 7, LabView)(Examiner notes that LabView software runs on a computer, which includes at least one memory device storing instruction to run the LabView software); which, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform operations (Fig 7, LabView)(Examiner notes that LabView software runs on a computer, which includes at least one processor to run the LabView software); including:
Claim 8: A biometric information detection method ([Abstract]; Fig 7), comprising
Claim 9: An information storage medium storing a program (Fig 7, LabView)(Examiner notes that LabView software runs on a computer, which includes at least one medium storing instruction to run the LabView software program) for causing a computer (Fig 7, LabView on a computer) to execute:
For the remainder of Claims 1, 8, and 9, Li discloses
acquiring a time waveform indicating a change in phase of a Doppler signal acquired by receiving a wave reflected from a person to be measured ([Page 569, “II. Methods A. Doppler Radar” section, Left column bottom to Right column top] “CW Doppler radar…After being reflected off a target positioned at a distance d0 with time-varying displacements (chest-wall movements) given by x(t), the received signal can be expressed as follows:…where Θ=
(
4
π
d
0
λ
)
)
is the constant phase shift…”)(Examiner notes that the waveform x(t) is a function of time.);
acquiring a plurality of unit waveforms ([Page 572, Left Column, 2nd Paragraph]-[Page 572, Right Column, 1st Paragraph] “…cycles of heartbeat signal”) from the time waveform ([Page 572, Left Column, 2nd Paragraph]-[Page 572, Right Column, 1st Paragraph] “…selection of a section of data with M samples. A length of data M/ fs around 3–5 s... It contains less than four cycles of respiration signal and more than four cycles of heartbeat signal considering typical respiratory rate and HR…number of data length n can be adjusted around 10 based on the experience from the simulation and experimental data analysis”)
wherein each of the plurality of unit waveforms comprise an interval of the time waveform between either two consecutive local minimum values or two consecutive local maximum values ([Page 572, Left Column, 2nd Paragraph]-[Page 572, Right Column, 1st Paragraph] “…selection of a section of data with M samples. A length of data M/ fs around 3–5 s... It contains less than four cycles of respiration signal and more than four cycles of heartbeat signal considering typical respiratory rate and HR…number of data length n can be adjusted around 10 based on the experience from the simulation and experimental data analysis”)(Examiner notes that reciting comprising is open-ended, and the plurality of unit waveforms disclosed by the data length in Li has at least the an interval of the time waveform between either two consecutive local minimum values or two consecutive local maximum values, as shown as the inclusion of an area between two consecutive local minimum values or two consecutive local minimum value in Figures 2 and 3.);
generating a reference waveform ([Page 569, Left Column, Top, Item 1] “basis function (mother wavelet)”; [Page 570, Left Column, “C. Data-Length-Variation Technique” Section, Paragraph 2] “In the proposed technique, the Morlet wavelet… is chosen as the mother wavelet”) based on the plurality of unit waveforms ([Page 570, Left Column, -“C. Data-Length-Variation Technique” Section, Paragraph 2] “mother wavelet and should be selected based on the properties of signal being processed…In the proposed technique, the Morlet wavelet… is chosen as the mother wavelet for three reasons…shape resembles the heartbeat signal from a Doppler radar”)(Examiner notes that the appropriate “basis function (mother wavelet)” is generated for an appropriate wavelet shape, based on the signal that is being processed -- in Li’s disclosure: a doppler signal which includes the a plurality of unit waveforms or “cycles” of heartbeats in the signal. The unit waveforms in this instances are beats in a heartbeat signal.)
correcting the time waveform based on the reference waveform ([Page 570,Equation 7, Equation 8, Equation 9]; [Page 569, Right Column, “B. Wavelet Transform” section including “A general WT is calculated using the following equation (Eq 5), where f(t) is the time-series signal being processed…”; [Page 570, Left Column, Bottom] “the single frequency component of the Morlet wavelet ensures the accuracy of extracted HR by translating scale a to pseudofrequency by (( fc ∗ fs )/(a), where fc is the center frequency”; Fig 2, Fig 3)(Examiner notes that the original acquired time waveform is being corrected to a form that can be used to determine cardiac function-associated characteristics.); and
acquiring biometric information ([Page 570, Left Column, “C. Data-Length-Variation Technique” Section, Paragraph 1] “to find HR”)(Examiner notes that “HR” stands for “heart rate”) based on the corrected time waveform ([Page 569, Left Column, 5th Paragraph] “a WT-based technique to solve the harmonic issue and to realize the fast acquisition of HR using CW Doppler radar”; [Page 570, Left Column, “C. Data-Length-Variation Technique” Section, Paragraph 1] “proposed data-length-variation technique for fast extraction of HR from the Doppler radar baseband signal utilizes…peak WT coefficient to find HR and changeable frequency of peak WT coefficient…while varying a 3–5-s data length”.)
Li does not specifically disclose by averaging the plurality of unit waveforms.
Rissacher teaches methods and systems for radar detection and monitoring of cardiac signals, including averaging heartbeat over many cardiac cycles. Rissacher teaches averaging the plurality of unit waveforms ([0008] “produce a time-locked average radar signal, producing an average heartbeat over many cardiac cycles. A time-locked average signal is also known as an ensemble average or Spike Triggered Average (STA)….”)
Li and Rissacher both use doppler systems to obtain cardiac cycle heartbeat data. Rissacher provides a motivation to combine to average that data at [0008] with “The averaging technique allows optimization of cardiac radar signal-to noise ratio.” A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention would recognize that obtaining an ensemble average, or Spike Triggered Average, of the cardiac signal over many cardiac cycles would be useful for obtaining a favorable signal-to-noise ratio. It would have been predictable to use the time averaging technique prior to wavelet analysis, as it would continue to operate with the function of increasing the SNR of the doppler cardiac signal, while maintaining an approximate waveform shape that can still subsequently be approximated by a reference signal basis function “mother wavelet” (Morlet) for wavelet analysis disclosed in Li in further signal processing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the wavelet-transform-based data-length-variation technique for heart rate detection using doppler radar d-isclosed in Li with the obtaining an ensemble average, or Spike Triggered Average, of the cardiac signal over many cardiac cycles taught by Rissacher, creating a single wavelet-based heart rate detection system using doppler radar with favorable SNR.
Regarding Claim 2, Li in view of Rissacher discloses as described above, The biometric information detection system according to claim 1. For the remainder of Claim 2, Li discloses wherein the plurality of unit waveforms is acquired based on a time that gives one of a local maximum value ([Page 569, Left Column, Paragraph 5] “peaks”) or a local minimum value of the time waveform ([Page 569, Left Column, Paragraph 5] “It combines the spectrums of a set of 3–5-s data with a length varied in the range of ±0.5 s….peaks in the spectrum, harmonics can be distinguished from the heartbeat signal…with this technique, the peaks with invariant frequency represent HR, and those with changeable frequency represent harmonics.”; [Page 572, Left Column, 1st Full Paragraph]-[Page 572, Right Column, Top] “…selection of a section of data with M samples. A length of data M/ fs around 3–5 s... It contains less than four cycles of respiration signal and more than four cycles of heartbeat signal considering typical respiratory rate and HR”)(Examiner notes that a “peak” is a local maximum in data. The time range chosen for the unit waveforms (“cycle of heartbeat signal”) gives (includes) peaks, and is acquired based on it potentially containing these heartbeat-associated peaks (to be used for HR determination).)
Regarding Claim 6, Li in view of Rissacher discloses as described above, The biometric information detection system according to claim 1. For the remainder of Claim 6, Li discloses wherein
the operations further comprise excluding some of the plurality of unit waveforms based on a time width of each of the plurality of unit waveforms ([Page 570, Right Column, 2nd Paragraph] “Long-data-length scenario…data contains more than four cycles of signal…WT follows (8). Short-data-length scenario…data contains less than four cycles of signal…WT follows (9).”; Fig 3 (short data length) vs Fig 2 (long data length), [Page 571, Left Column, Top, “5-s data contains only three cycles of the signal and is shorter than the effective support of the daughter wavelet…”; [Page 570; Left Column, “C. Data-Length-Variation Technique” Section, Paragraph 1] “…while varying a 3–5-s data length”)(Examiner notes that “short-data-length scenario” excludes some of the unit waveforms (cycles) that would have been in the “long-data-length scenario”. Some of the waves are excluded based on desire for a narrower time width for the “short-data-length scenario” of 3 - 5 seconds.) ; and
the reference waveform ([Page 569, Left Column, Top, Item 1] “basis function (mother wavelet)”; [Page 570, Left Column, “C. Data-Length-Variation Technique” Section, Paragraph 2] “In the proposed technique, the Morlet wavelet… is chosen as the mother wavelet”) is generated based on remaining unit waveforms among the plurality of unit waveforms ([Page 570], WT eq (9), wavelet equation; [Page 570, Right Column, 2nd Paragraph] “Short-data-length scenario…data contains less than four cycles of signal…WT follows (9).”; [Page 570, Left Column, -“C. Data-Length-Variation Technique” Section, Paragraph 2] “mother wavelet and should be selected based on the properties of signal being processed… the Morlet wavelet…shape resembles the heartbeat signal from a Doppler radar”)(Examiner notes that the appropriate “basis function (mother wavelet)” is generated for an appropriate wavelet shape, based on the signal that is being processed -- in Li’s disclosure: a doppler signal which includes the a plurality of unit waveforms or “cycles” of heartbeats in the signal. Examiner notes that the remaining are the heartbeat waveforms (“cycles”) that are used in the analysis, which indicates that they remain in consideration for analysis.).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Rissacher, as evidenced by Torrence et. al., “A Practical Guide to Wavelet Analysis”.
Regarding Claims 3 and 5, Li in view of Rissacher discloses as described above, The biometric information detection system according to claim 2 and The biometric information detection system according to claim 1 (See claim objection above for changing the dependency from cancelled claim 4), respectively. For the remainder of Claims 3 and 5, Li discloses wherein the time waveform is corrected by convolution integration which uses the time waveform and the reference waveform (([Page 570, Equation 8, Equation 9, wavelet transform equations with integral]; [Page 569, Right Column, “B. Wavelet Transform” section including “A general WT is calculated using the following equation (Eq 5), where f(t) is the time-series signal being processed…”)(Examiner notes that the original acquired time waveform is being corrected using wavelet transform to a form that is used to analyze particular heartbeat characteristics, using the basis function “mother wavelet” and the time-series signal. Examiner further notes that Torrence, University of Colorado, evidentiarily teaches at [Page 64, Left Column, including under Eq (3)] “By the convolution theorem, the wavelet transform is the inverse Fourier transform of the product: [Eq (4)]”), such that wavelet transform analysis is an application of convolution integration using a reference waveform (the wavelet) and the time waveform (the measured waveform).)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Rissacher, further in view of Lian et. al., (United States Patent Application Publication US 2013/0116533 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Li in view of Rissacher discloses as described above, The biometric information detection system according to claim 6. For the remainder of Claim 7, Li does not disclose wherein the operations further comprise outputting an alert depending on a ratio of a number of unit waveforms that are excluded to a number of acquired unit waveforms.
Lian teaches a system for long-term non-invasive heart monitoring that includes an alert system that notifies the user when the ratio of usable data has become low relative to unusable noise data (indicating a need to realign the sensor relative to the patient). Specifically for Claim 7, Lian teaches wherein the operations further comprise outputting an alert ([0025] “The electronic controller can alert the patient…”; [0053] - [0054] “automatically generated alert of…low SNR”) depending on a ratio of a number of unit waveforms that are excluded ([0028] “a feedthrough circuitry for noise reduction”)(Examiner notes that the unit waveforms are cardiac cycle signals that are lost within the noise parts of the signal that need to be filtered out.) to a number of acquired unit waveforms ([0054] “…automatically generated alert…low SNR”; [0053] “signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the EGC signal has significantly degraded…”)(Examiner notes when there is a low SNR, then the quality or number of recognizable cardiac cycle unit waveforms that are acquired is low relative to the cardiac cycle unit waveforms that are not obtained, since those waveforms are buried within the time periods of noisy signal.)
Li and Lian both disclose and teach systems for measuring cardiac signals and for determining which signal portions to analyze, Li with a doppler radar system gathering cardiac signals over time with accommodating noise reduction within variable time sampling wavelets and using ([Page 573, Right Column, Top]) a “low noise amplifier”, and Lian with an electrode-based system gathering cardiac signals over time with noise filtering and sampling based on acceptable signal-to-noise ratio. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention would recognize that including an alert to indicate that the quality of data is inappropriate, as with having a low SNR, would be helpful both for allowing prompt recalibration of the system and for knowing the reliability of the analytic results of the signal for diagnostic purposes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the wavelet-transform-based data-length-variation technique for heart rate detection that selects particular subsets of the acquired waveform for analysis d-isclosed in Li with Lian’s taught alert for low SNR of the data set that has been selected for analysis, creating a single wavelet-based heart rate detection system using doppler radar and an alert system to ensure that the data that has been selected for analysis has favorable SNR.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 JANUARY 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C 101 Rejections:
Applicant argues at [Page 6, Bottom] – [Page 7, Paragraph 3] that the claimed features cannot be practically performed in the human mind because a combination of processor and memory generate a reference waveform based on the plurality of unit waveforms and correct the time waveform based on the reference waveform. The reference waveform is broadly “generated”, which can merely mean drawn, and “based on” can broadly be interpreted as making a judgment call of applicability, such as, observation and judgment that the plurality of unit waveforms is a heart signal, so a reference waveform for heart signals is appropriate to be generated (such as a Morlet reference waveform being drawn in graphical form or in equation form to be used to ”correct the time waveform”). A person could draw a reference waveform (or write an equation for a reference waveform) that appears to be appropriate for the dataset of interest, based on their education, background, experience, equations, time, and paper. The use of a processor and memory are not necessary to perform the abstract ideas, and their inclusion is merely using well-understood, routine, or conventional components as tools to perform their routine functions of gathering, storing, and processing data. The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at [Page 7 - 8, “Argument 2” Section] that Claim 1 reflects an improvement to the technical field of determining a respiratory rate and heart rate from a change in phase of a Doppler signal, since it can be difficult to discriminate where a small peak in a time waveform is a peak to be counted. There is nothing particular recited in the claims that indicates that the magnitude of the peaks is being discriminated as whether to be counted or not. Further, from MPEP 2106.05(a): It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at [Page 8, “Argument 3” Section] that the recent appeal decision authored by USPTO Director Squires indicates that the appeal panel too broadly interpreted the claims, and that the present claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application: determining a respiratory rate from a change in phase of a doppler signal. Looking to the claims in the appeal decision, Ex parte Guillaume Desjardins, the claims recite particular elements that improve a machine learning training. The recited training strategy directly addresses the machine learning technology problem of “catastrophic forgetting” with a series of particular, detailed steps including “computing…an approximation of a posterior distribution over possible values of the plurality of parameters” and “adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task…”. This improves the functioning of the computer itself, including by improving the machine learning in a way to [Page 9 of Decision, top] “use less of their storage capacity.” This “constitutes an improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates, and not, for example, the identified mathematical calculation”. This is a level of detail and device improvement that is not reflected in the instant, broadly-recited claims. In the instant claims, merely including the abstract ideas of generating a reference waveform by averaging unit waveforms, broadly correcting the time waveform based on the reference waveform, and acquiring non-specific biometric information based on the corrected time waveform in the context of Doppler signal processing does not improve the performance of the processor or memory device. The claims recite limitations that encompass an abstract idea of manipulating variables obtained from electronic components used in a usual way, and that variable manipulation can be accomplished with the aid of time, equations, and paper. The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant summarily argues at [Page 9, Top] that claims 2 – 9 either depend from or recite features similar to those in claim 1, therefore are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Based on the 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection and discussion of arguments above, Claims 1 – 9 are not patent eligible. The argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 Rejections:
Applicant argues at [Page 9, “Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 & 103” Section] – [Page 10, Paragraph 2] that Li does not recite “wherein each of the plurality of unit waveforms comprises an interval of the time waveform between either two consecutive local minimum values or two consecutive local maximum values”, since the M samples in Li include a plurality of respiratory actions and therefore multiple local minimum values and local maximum values. As recited, with “comprising”, a waveform that encompasses more than one set of local maximum and minimum values does comprise “an interval of the time waveform…”, since it includes at least one such interval (with additional such intervals also included). Li selects the Morlet waveform based on the time waveform for three reasons disclosed in Li, including observation and judgment that that the waveform “shape resembles the heartbeat signal from a Doppler radar”, and that it has effective support for at least a cycle of the data (peaks and troughs) by including 3 – 6 cycles (Figures 2 and 3), with a “cycle” being an interval of the time waveform between either two consecutive local minimum values or two consecutive local maximum values. It is further noted that the claim does not actively recite segmenting the time signal to identify each unit waveform, merely that a plurality of unit waveforms are acquired (which could be the entire time waveform), and that the plurality of unit waveforms has an interval between either two consecutive local minimum values or two consecutive local maximum values (the entire waveform, which is made up of peaks and troughs or local minima and maxima). The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at [Page 10, Paragraph 3] – [Page 10, Paragraph 4] that the cited references do not disclose “generating a reference waveform by averaging the plurality of unit waveforms” because the selection of a mother wavelet is not generating a reference waveform based on the plurality of unit waveforms. As recited, “generating” can be broadly interpreted as drawing or writing out the equation of a reference waveform, which can be triggered by choosing an appropriate reference for a Doppler heart rate signal. There is nothing particular in “generating” that indicates that it is not as a result of a template selection. Based on the discussion above, with the “comprising” recited language, the plurality of unit waveforms includes a waveform that has peaks and troughs, including at least one set of local minima and local maxima, which is encompassed by the Morlet wavelet as a mother wavelet. The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at [Page 10, Paragraph 5] that Li does not discuss generating the Morlet wavelet (or any waveform) by averaging the plurality of unit waveforms as amended. Li is not used to disclose averaging the plurality of unit waveforms. Li is combined with Rissacher to teach the averaging portion, such that averaging is performed on the waveform to achieve a favorable SNR (signal-to-noise) ratio. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at [Page 11, Paragraph 1] – [Page 11, Paragraph 4] that the correction is not based on the reference waveform (the average of the unit waveforms), and the transform are to the identified M samples data and not the time waveform. Based on the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection detailed above, the correction performed by Li in view of Rissacher uses the reference waveform (Morlet) that is applied to the averaged signal (averaging from Rissacher for SNR). The transform correction is disclosed at (Li: [Page 569, Right Column, “B. Wavelet Transform” Section] “f(t) is the time-series signal being processed…”; and [Page 570], Equation 8, Equation 9). F(t) is the time waveform, and it is involved in the transform correction equations. A length or truncation of the time waveform used for the correction is not positively recited in the claim. The argument is not persuasive.
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 MELISSA J MONTGOMERY whose telephone number is (571)272-2305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:00 ET.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272 - 4233. 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.
/MELISSA JO MONTGOMERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights