DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-14, 16-17, 21-23, 26 are pending.
This action is Non-Final.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 1/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the method and system are not independent or distinct inventions as the method must be performed by the system; the method and system overlap, and that there is no search burden as the claims sufficiently overlap. This is not found persuasive because the method claims do not contain the argued required structures, so that point is moot; the overlapping is not part of the analysis for independence or distinct analysis between products and methods as the correct analysis has been used and applicant does not argue against the actual analysis; lastly, search/examination burden exists due to the reasons cited in the requirement, which include differences in claim interpretation between products and method type claims. The MPEP sets forth procedure for rejoinder should the elected invention be found allowable; applicant should review and adhere to the rules for reconsideration of rejoinder at future time of an indicated allowance.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A2 subspecies A2a1, Species B1, and Species C1 in the reply filed on 1/22/2026 is acknowledged.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3-4, 8-9, 11, 13-14, 16-17, 21-23, 26 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figure 1 text in element 140 comingles with lines which is improper;
Figures 1-8 all have too small text for the “Fig #” which is improper
Figure 2-3, 5, 7-8 have improper underlining used where a lead line should be used, which is improper
Figure 6 has lead lines which pass through each other which is improper, Figure 6 will need to be redesigned to conform to the rules to better explain what is attempting to be shown.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 100. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "110" "112" and “120” have been used to designate processing device. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “120” has been used to designate both collection device and processing device. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “112” has been used to designate both processing device and processing engine. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “220” has been used to designate both storage and processor. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "210" and "220" have both been used to designate storage. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 530. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph 16 “photocapacitive pulse wave sensor” appears to be a translation error. The term has no common meaning in the art, and based on the machine translation of the parent documents, the term is supposed to be photoplethysmography pulse wave sensor. The drawing elements are not in agreement as discussed in the drawing objections above and specification amendments will be required to remedy the issues.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the terms Bluetooth and WiFi (Applicant should confirm no other marks are improperly represented in the lengthy disclosure as well), which each is trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without the processor and storage device, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). Applicant states on page 9 of 10 of the arguments submitted 1/22/2026:
PNG
media_image1.png
206
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As such, evidence is on record that the method claims, as claimed, are not enabled for the scope being claimed as essential features are lacking from the claims.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The issue is in “photocapacitive pulse wave sensor” as it appears to be a translation error. While applicant can be their own lexicographer, the term has no common meaning in the art, is not adequately defined in the disclosure as filed for meaning, and based on the machine translation of the parent documents, the term is supposed to be photoplethysmography pulse wave sensor. As such, one of skill in the art would not have recognized applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was effectively filed.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 12, the issue is in “photocapacitive pulse wave sensor” as it appears to be a translation error. While applicant can be their own lexicographer, the term has no common meaning in the art, is not adequately defined in the disclosure as filed for meaning, and based on the machine translation of the parent documents, the term is supposed to be photoplethysmography pulse wave sensor. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear which renders the claim indefinite. For examination purposes in view of art the term is interpreted as PPG pulse wave sensor.
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 1-2, 5-7, 10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 1
identifying a second signal with a target frequency from the first signal based on a motion frequency corresponding to the motion signal, the target frequency originating from a linear superposition of the motion frequency and a heart rate frequency corresponding to the target heart rate signal (mathematical concepts/mental processes); and
determining the target heart rate signal by processing, based on the motion signal and the second signal, the first signal (mathematical concepts/mental processes)
These claim limitations fall within the identified groupings of abstract ideas:
Mathematical Concepts:
mathematical relationships
mathematical formulas or equations
mathematical calculations
Mental Processes
concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Under the step 2A, analysis is conducted on the additional features of the claim. Under this analysis, the additional features beyond the judicial exception are:
obtaining a first signal, the first signal including a target heart rate signal in a motion state; obtaining a motion signal corresponding to the motion state; (limitations related to insignificant extra solution activities of data gathering)
These features in the claim do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception as the additional elements in the claim do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Limitation concepts that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using 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 is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitation concepts that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Under Step 2B, the claim limitations are evaluated for an inventive concept. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. Analyzing the additional claim limitations individually, the additional limitation that is not directed to the abstract idea are the same as those identified above in Step 2A related to obtaining signals. Such limitations related to the obtaining signals are recognized by the courts as routine data gathering in order to input data to the mathematical algorithm/mental process, and thus, do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as it would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the mathematical algorithm/mental processes. In addition, these limitations recite no structures, such that off the shelf conventional sensors including those known from Lee et al. (Lee, US 2003/0212336)could be used. The method does not contain any computing structure, such that the steps can all be analog/mental processing of the data from the data gathered which further supports that the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims are directed to further details of the processing of data (A more specific abstraction is still an abstraction), and further details of the data gathering using conventional sensors to generate conventional PPG data for use in the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Therefore, analyzing the claims as an ordered combination under the Mayo/Alice analysis the features claimed are directed to patent ineligible limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (Lee, US 2003/0212336).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a method for monitoring a heart rate (see at least Figures 3, 7), comprising:
obtaining a first signal, the first signal including a target heart rate signal in a motion state (see at least Figures 3, 7 S10);
obtaining a motion signal corresponding to the motion state (see at least Figures 3-4, 7 S30);
identifying a second signal with a target frequency from the first signal based on a motion frequency corresponding to the motion signal, the target frequency originating from a linear superposition of the motion frequency and a heart rate frequency corresponding to the target heart rate signal (“based on” is broad limitation, the signals acquired are based on the natural aggregate property of such signals in the data sampled as linear combination of such data being present in the sampled PPG signals in a linear additive manner, see at least Figures 3-4, 7 processes of S10 to S70 read on such details based on such details to then be used to identify motion greater than a threshold, [0086]-[0112]); and
determining the target heart rate signal by processing, based on the motion signal and the second signal, the first signal (“based on” is broad limitation, see at least Figures 3-4, 7 including step S90, optional step S110 and remaining steps S130-S210 where such determination is based on these features).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches wherein the obtaining a motion signal corresponding to the motion state includes: obtaining a filtered signal by performing a filtering operation on the first signal; and determining the motion signal based on the filtered signal (see at least Figures 3-4, 7, [0080]).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches wherein the second signal includes a superimposed signal between the motion signal and the target heart rate signal (see at least Figures 15a-b, [0088] “by performing the hard thresholding process of the smoothed PPG signal on the basis of a predetermined level suitable for the TEO output value within the interval where the normal heartbeat signal exists (S90)”).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches wherein the superimposed signal includes a non-linear superimposed signal (see at least Figures 15a-b).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches wherein the target frequency is equal to a sum of the motion frequency and the heart rate frequency (see at least [0088] “by performing the hard thresholding process of the smoothed PPG signal on the basis of a predetermined level suitable for the TEO output value within the interval where the normal heartbeat signal exists (S90)”).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches wherein the determining the target heart rate signal by processing, based on the motion signal and the second signal, the first signal further includes:
determining a signal amplitude of the motion signal (see at least [0086]-[0088]);
determining whether the signal amplitude is greater than an amplitude threshold (see at least Figure 7 S90 yes or no, [0088]); and
in response to determining that the signal amplitude is greater than the amplitude threshold, determining the target heart rate signal by processing, based on the motion signal and the second signal, the first signal (contingent limitations as “in response to” is a contingency clause and is not required to occur, such that the following “determining” bears no patentable weight in the claimed process/method, see MPEP 2111.04(II)).
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches wherein the target heart rate signal in the motion state included in the first signal is obtained using a photocapacitive pulse wave sensor (see at least Figures 3-4, 7 PPG).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R BLOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3252. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571)272-3672. 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 R BLOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791