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 .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-15, 17-22 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 5, 9-14, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Although the claims fall within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection as judicial exceptions.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is directed to an apparatus and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites the “identify one or more candidate wellness routines configured to alleviate one or more health-related conditions of the user based at least in part on the weighted PPG data and a plurality of additional health-related conditions associated with a plurality of additional users and a plurality of additional wellness routines performed by the plurality of additional users” which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a step that can practically be performed in the mind or with the aid of pen/paper. The steps are therefore deemed to recite a mental process type abstract idea.
The claim recites additional elements “A system, comprising: a wearable device configured to acquire photoplethysmogram (PPG) data from a user using one or more light-emitting components and one or more light-receiving components; a user device communicatively coupled with the wearable device; one or more external devices configured to perform one or more user-perceptible actions associated with one or more wellness routines that are performable by the user; and one or more processors communicatively coupled with at least the wearable device and the user device, the one or more processors configured to...transmit a first instruction to cause a graphical user interface of the user device to display a set of instructions for performing a wellness routine selected from the one or more candidate wellness routines wherein the set of instructions comprise one or more instructions for using the one or more external devices in accordance with the wellness routine; receive additional PPG data acquired by the wearable device during a first time interval that the wellness routine is performed, during a second time interval subsequent to performance of the wellness routine, or both; and transmit a second instruction to cause the graphical user interface of the user device to display information associated with the wellness routine, wherein the information comprises one or more changes between the PPG data and the additional PPG data, information associated with a user input received in response to the wellness routine, or both", and “generate weighted PPG data that is based at least in part on the PPG data collected via the wearable device and a circadian rhythm adjustment model associated with the user” which are the steps of pre-solution data gathering and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and insignificant post-solution activity. Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, the claim’s additional elements do not confer an inventive concept that amount to significantly more. Claim 1 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is directed to an apparatus and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites the steps of the base claim, which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a step that can practically be performed in the mind or with the aid of pen/paper. The steps are therefore deemed to recite a mental process type abstract idea.
The claim recites additional elements “wherein the one or more instructions for using the one or more external devices comprise an indication of one or more operational settings associated with the one or more external devices”, which is mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, the claim’s additional elements do not confer an inventive concept that amount to significantly more. Claim 5 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is directed to an apparatus and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites the steps of the base claim, which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a step that can practically be performed in the mind or with the aid of pen/paper. The steps are therefore deemed to recite a mental process type abstract idea.
The claim recites additional elements “wherein the set of instructions comprise a frequency for performing the wellness routine, a duration for performing the wellness routine, instructions for an exercise routine, instructions for a diet, instructions for performing a meditation, instructions for a supplement routine, instructions for a stretching routine, instructions for a medication routine, instructions for performing cognitive behavioral therapy, or any combination thereof”, which is insignificant post-solution activity. Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, the claim’s additional elements do not confer an inventive concept that amount to significantly more. Claim 9 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is directed to an apparatus and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites the steps of the base claim, which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a step that can practically be performed in the mind or with the aid of pen/paper. The steps are therefore deemed to recite a mental process type abstract idea.
The claim recites additional elements “wherein the one or more external devices comprise a massage device, a percussive therapy device, a thermally-controlled device, a weighted blanket, blue light-blocking glasses, an electroshock therapy device, a sleep mask, a cryotherapy device, a red light therapy device, an infrared sauna, a compression device, an intravenous device, a device for administering an intramuscular shot, a hyperbaric oxygen therapy device, a device for administering a facial procedure, or any combination thereof”, which is a list of external devices of the claimed system, with all devices being well known, and therefore not contributing into the technology development. Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, the claim’s additional elements do not confer an inventive concept that amount to significantly more. Claim 10 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is directed to an apparatus and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites, with the steps of the base claim, “identify one or more health-related conditions associated with the user based at least in part on the PPG data collected via the wearable device, a user input received via the user device, or both; identify one or more candidate wellness routines configured to alleviate the one or more health-related conditions based at least in part on a plurality of additional health-related conditions associated with a plurality of additional users and a plurality of additional wellness routines performed by the plurality of additional users…wherein the one or more health-related conditions comprise muscle pain, body tension or tightness, circulation issues, issues associated with sleep, headaches, back aches, hypertension, one or more mental health-related conditions, one or more cardiovascular conditions, or any combination thereof”, which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a step that can practically be performed in the mind or with the aid of pen/paper. The steps are therefore deemed to recite a mental process type abstract idea.
The claim recites no additional elements. Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, the claim’s additional elements do not confer an inventive concept that amount to significantly more. Claim 11 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is directed to an apparatus and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites the steps of the base claim, which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a step that can practically be performed in the mind or with the aid of pen/paper. The steps are therefore deemed to recite a mental process type abstract idea.
The claim recites additional elements “wherein the wearable device comprises a wearable ring device”, which is mere pre-solution data gathering device that is recited at a high level of generality. Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, the claim’s additional elements do not confer an inventive concept that amount to significantly more. Claim 12 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is directed to a machine and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites the steps of the base claim, which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a step that can practically be performed in the mind or with the aid of pen/paper. The steps are therefore deemed to recite a mental process type abstract idea.
The claim recites additional elements “wherein the PPG data, the additional PPG data, or both, is acquired by the wearable device based on arterial blood flow, capillary blood flow, arteriole blood flow, or a combination thereof ", which is data to be gathered for the abstract idea. Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, the claim’s additional elements do not confer an inventive concept that amount to significantly more. Claim 13 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is directed to a method and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites the steps of “identifying one or more health-related conditions of the user associated with the user …; identifying one or more candidate wellness routines configured to alleviate the one or more health-related conditions of the user based at least in part on the weighted PPG data and a plurality of additional health-related conditions associated with a plurality of additional users and a plurality of additional wellness routines performed by the plurality of additional users” which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a step that can practically be performed in the mind or with the aid of pen/paper. The steps are therefore deemed to recite a mental process type abstract idea.
The claim recites additional elements “generating weighted PPG data that is based at least in part on photoplethysmogram (PPG) data collected from a user via a wearable device and a circadian rhythm adjustment model associated with the user; transmitting a first instruction to cause a graphical user interface of a user device to display a set of instructions for performing a wellness routine selected from the one or more candidate wellness routines, wherein the set of instructions comprise one or more instructions for using one or more external devices in accordance with the wellness routine; receiving additional PPG data acquired by the wearable device during a first time interval that the wellness routine is performed, during a second time interval subsequent to performance of the wellness routine, or both; and transmitting a second instruction to cause the graphical user interface of the user device to display information associated with the wellness routine, wherein the information comprises one or more changes between the PPG data and the additional PPG data, information associated with a user input received in response to the wellness routine, or both”, which are the steps of pre-solution data gathering and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and insignificant post-solution activity. Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, the claim’s additional elements do not confer an inventive concept that amount to significantly more. Claim 14 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is directed to a composition of matter and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites the “identify one or more candidate wellness routines configured to alleviate one or more health-related conditions of the user based at least in part on the weighted PPG data and a plurality of additional health-related conditions associated with a plurality of additional users and a plurality of additional wellness routines performed by the plurality of additional users” which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a step that can practically be performed in the mind or with the aid of pen/paper. The steps are therefore deemed to recite a mental process type abstract idea.
The claim recites additional elements “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code, the code comprising instructions executable by a processor to:... transmit a first instruction to cause a graphical user interface of a user device to display a set of instructions for performing a wellness routine selected from the one or more candidate wellness routines, wherein the set of instructions comprise one or more instructions for using one or more external devices in accordance with the wellness routine; receive additional PPG data acquired by the wearable device during a first time interval that the wellness routine is performed, during a second time interval subsequent to performance of the wellness routine, or both; and transmit a second instruction to cause the graphical user interface of the user device to display information associated with the wellness routine, wherein the information comprises one or more changes between the PPG data and the additional PPG data, information associated with a user input received in response to the wellness routine, or both” which are the steps of pre-solution data gathering, mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and insignificant post-solution activity. Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, the claim’s additional elements do not confer an inventive concept that amount to significantly more. Claim 20 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is directed to an apparatus and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites the steps of the base claim and “wherein identification of the one or more candidate wellness routines is based at least in part on one or more estimated efficacy metrics associated with the one or more candidate wellness routines”, which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a step that can practically be performed in the mind or with the aid of pen/paper. The steps are therefore deemed to recite a mental process type abstract idea.
The claim recites no additional elements. Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, the claim’s additional elements do not confer an inventive concept that amount to significantly more. Claim 21 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 22, the claim is directed to a method and therefore falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
However, the claim recites the steps of the base claim and “wherein identifying the one or more candidate wellness routines is based at least in part on one or more estimated efficacy metrics associated with the one or more candidate wellness routines”, which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a step that can practically be performed in the mind or with the aid of pen/paper. The steps are therefore deemed to recite a mental process type abstract idea.
The claim recites no additional elements. Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
For similar reasons set forth above with respect to integration, the claim’s additional elements do not confer an inventive concept that amount to significantly more. Claim 21 is therefore non-statutory and not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 6-8, 15, and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to claims 2, 4, 6-8, 15, and 17-19. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection arguments on pages 9-11 of the REMARKS.
Claims 1-2, 4-15, and 17-22
The Applicant argues that “Amended independent claims 1, 14, and 20 integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application for at least the reason that they include features that improve the accuracy and efficacy of personalized wellness routines by customizing and tailoring recommended wellness routines to the user.” (Page 10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the transmit steps merely state transmitting a set of instructions that would in turn display on a graphical user interface. This amounts to merely displaying data which is an insignificant post extra solution activity. The rejection has been withdrawn with respect to claims 2, 4, 6-8, 15, and 17-19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXEI BYKHOVSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-1556. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 8:30am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pascal Bui Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXEI BYKHOVSKI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights