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 .
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 07/06/2026 have been fully considered.
Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regard to claim 9, “a processing unit” should be set forth “a processor” according to the preliminary amendments filed on 11/22/2023.
In regard to claim 20, the second appearance of “computer” in line 2 should be deleted.
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 1-7 and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exceptions of abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-7 and 9-21 recite a method, an apparatus and a mom-transitory computer medium, which fall within one of statutory categories (i.e. process/ machine) (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One analysis: Claims 1, 9 and 16 recite “determining a first derivative (1PWS) with respect to time of the pulse wave signal (PWS); (ii) determining a second derivative (2PWS) with respect to time of the pulse wave signal (PWS); (iii) analyzing the second derivative (2PWS) to identify a first time point corresponding to the occurrence of a first maximum value in the second derivative (2PWS); (iv) determining a value of the first derivative (1PWS) at the first time point; (v) normalizing the value of the first derivative (1PWS) at the first time point with respect to a maximum value of the first derivative (1PWS); (vi) evaluating the quality of the pulse wave signal (PWS) using the normalized value; and (vii) using the evaluated quality of the pulse wave signal (PWS) to control whether the pulse wave signal (PWS), or a portion thereof to which the normalized value relates, is used to compute a physiological characteristic for the subject.” The claims involve calculation, determination, analyzing, and evaluating of signals constitute an abstract idea of mathematical relationships/ calculations and/or mental process, which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Mathematical Concepts) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two analysis: Claim 9 recites “a processor”. Claim 16 recites “a computer or processor”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since there is no improvement or change in the function of the device (see at least MPEP 2106.05(a), (f) and (g)). And/ or the abstract idea (mental process) is directed as “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.B); Or the abstract idea (mental process) is directed as being performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C). “(Step 2A Prong Two: YES).
Step 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s), when considered separately and in combination, are associated with 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)) and do not improve the functioning of a computer, e.g. an improvement in the application of the mathematical relationship in determining the parameter(s), which is, itself, an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). The claims merely cover mathematical processing of data (Step 2B: No). Dependent claims 2-7, 10-15 and 17-21 do not recite additional elements/ features and do not add significantly more (i.e. an “inventive concept”) to the exception.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claims, and thus claims 11-7 and 9-21 are ineligible.
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 18-21 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. In regard to claims 18-21, the claims recite “when executed by a computer or processor”. However, claim 16 which the claims directly or indirectly depend on, recites “when executed by a computer or processor”. It is unclear whether “a computer or processor” recited in claims 18-21 is/are the same or different computer(s) or processor(s) as recited in claim 16. Clarification is requested by amendments. If they are the same, it is suggested that “the computer or processor” or similar language should be set forth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 of Remarks, filed on 07/06/2026, with respect to claims 1-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1-15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 16-23 of Remarks, filed on 07/06/2026, with respect to claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 102/103 rejections of claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13-15 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regard to the 35 USC 101 rejection, applicant alleged that “the claims 1, 9 and 16 integrate those operations into a practical application. The claimed mathematical operations are not claimed in isolation and are not merely used to generate a number for its own sake. Instead, the evaluated PWS quality is used to control a downstream physiological-monitoring operation-whether the PWS or a portion thereof is used to compute a physiological characteristic”; and “the amended claims do not end with a mathematical quality value; they use the evaluated quality to control whether physiological-characteristic computation uses the PWS or a portion of the PWS. The asserted practical application is not a field-of-use label or insignificant extra-solution activity; it is the operative use of the quality determination to control whether unreliable physiological signal data is used in downstream physiological- characteristic computation”. In response, the amended claims are considered as judicial exceptions of abstract idea without significantly more. The amended claims are directed to “an abstract idea of mathematical relationships/ calculations and/or mental process” (see the 35 USC 101 rejection above). The amended claims are merely directed to data selection for an intended computation process/ function. In regard to the improvements to the technology or technical, applicant alleged that “the claim applies the signal- quality determination in the technological field of physiological monitoring to improve reliability of physiological-characteristic computation”. In response, the improvement cannot be within the judicial exception by itself (an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology, see MPEP 2106.05(a).II). “Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). In addition, no sensor(s) with particular structure(s) or additional elements is/are recited in the claims to be considered sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained for the reasons of record.
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 CHU CHUAN LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5507. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-6pm).
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/CHU CHUAN LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights