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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/09/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a health monitoring session” in line 11 should be amended to read –the health monitoring--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “calculating a performed” in line 16 should be amended to read –calculating is performed--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 42 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “calculating a performed” in line 16 should be amended to read –calculating is performed--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 26-43 are 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.
Claims 26 and 42 recite the limitation “cumulative difference” this limitation is not defined by the claims, which renders the claims indefinite. One with ordinary skill in the art would not be able to know the cumulative difference is referring to which parameter, and/or the difference between which parameters. The scope of the claim remains indeterminate because of the claimed “cumulative difference”.
Claims 26 and 42 recite limitations “arrange (D) the breathing pacer into the controlled mode” and “arrange (E) the breathing pacer into the variable mode”, these limitations are not defined by the claims, which renders the claims indefinite. One with ordinary skill in the art would not be able to know if the breathing pacer switch to controlled mode or variable mode based on the predetermined success threshold value, or the breathing pacer is arranged in both controlled and variable modes. As broadly as claimed the scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to the claimed “arrange (D) the breathing pacer into the controlled mode” and “arrange (E) the breathing pacer into the variable mode”.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the value" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the value" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the angular frequency" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the division" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 26-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because STEP 1: claim 26 recite an apparatus for monitoring health of a person, and claim 42 recite steps for monitoring health of a person. Thus, the claims are directed to a process and a product. which are ones of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: The claim(s) recite(s) specific limitations/method steps of: a heart rate sensor arranged to measure heart beats of the person for providing heart rate measurement data, a breathing pacer configured to indicate breathing information to the person, the breathing pacer arranged to operate in: a controlled mode comprising timing breathing events to the person, and a variable mode comprising indicating information related to a resonance score (RS) to the person; a data processing system arranged to provide a predetermined success threshold (ET), the data processing system configured, during a health monitoring session (s), to receive (A) the heart rate measurement data from the heart rate sensor, analyse (C) the heart rate measurement data such that in the analysis. This limitation recites a mental process, because the claimed limitation describes a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) recite the combination of additional elements/method steps of: calculate (C1) instantaneous heart rate data comprising heart rate of each measured heartbeat, provide (C2) a periodic biofeedback function comprising parameters and a cumulative difference (E) relative to the instantaneous heart rate data, fit (C3) the periodic biofeedback function into the instantaneous heart rate data within the time window (w); arrange (D) the breathing pacer into the controlled mode to time the breathing events to the person if the resonance score (RS) does not meet the predetermined success threshold (ET), and arrange (E) the breathing pacer into the variable mode if the resonance score (RS) meets the predetermined success threshold (ET). Accordingly, this additional element/step does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim limitations fail to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception.
STEP 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional structural elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements, such as, sensor, pacer and processing system, but do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these structural elements are generically claimed to enable the collection of data by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and providing/displaying data, and (ii) automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized these functions to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner. Merely adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activities’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (In re TLI Communications LLC). As such, the recitation of these additional limitations in claims 27-41 and 43 does not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and represent insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as a sensor and use of a processor does not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)). Thus, the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more than the Abstract Idea.
When viewed alone or in combination, the limitations of claims 26-43 merely instruct the practitioner to implement the concept of collecting data with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. The inventive concept cannot be furnished by the abstract idea; instead, the application must provide something inventive, beyond mere “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” (Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial L.L.C.). The additional elements of independent claims when viewed alone or as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In other words, this claim merely applies an abstract idea to a computer and does not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAY A ABOUELELA whose telephone number is (571)270-7917. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, JACQUELINE CHENG can be reached at 5712725596. 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.
/MAY A ABOUELELA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791