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 preliminary amendments filed on 11/22/2023 are acknowledged. Claims 1-15 are pending for examination. Claim Objections Claim5 objected to because of the following informalities: In regard to claim 5, “(111)” 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception s of abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-15 recite a method and a n apparatus , which fall within one of statutory categories (i.e. process/ machine) ( Step 1: YES ). Step 2A Prong One analysis: Claims 1 and 9 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. ” The claims involve calculation , determination , analyzing, and evaluating of signals constitute an abstract idea of mathematical relationships/ calculations and/or me n tal 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 8 recite s “ a suitable computer or processor ”. Claim 9 recites “ a 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) ; O r 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 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 1-15 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-15 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 that depend directly or indirectly from claims 1 and 9 is/are also rejected due to said dependency. In regard to claims 1 and 9, “ the quality of the pulse wave signal” lacks of sufficient antecedent basis. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 /103 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. 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. Claim s 1- 3 , 5-1 1 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( FILLIN "Insert the appropriate paragraph letter(s) in parenthesis." \d "[ 2 ]" a)(1 ) as anticipated by Albadawi et al. (USPGPUB 2016/0360984 – applicant cited) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious. In regard to claims 1 and 8- 9, Albadawi discloses a computer-implemented method and an apparatus comprising a processor ([0017] and [0072]) for analyzing a pulse wave signal (PWS) (Figs. 1-4 and associated descriptions) , obtained from a subject (Figs. 1-4 and associated descriptions) , wherein the pulse wave signal (PWS) comprises pulse wave measurements for one or more cardiac cycles of the subject during a first time period (Figs. 1-4 and associated descriptions; [0018]) , the method comprising: ( i ) determining a first derivative (1PWS) with respect to time of the pulse wave signal (PWS) (Fig. 4 and associated descriptions; [0029]) ; (ii) determining a second derivative (2PWS) with respect to time of the pulse wave signal (PWS) (Fig. 4 and associated descriptions; second order derivative , [0066]) ; (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) (Fig. 4 and associated descriptions; “ comparing the plurality of representations of characteristics of portions of the time domain PPG signal to the predetermined quality criteria comprises comparing the second order derivative of the generated time domain PPG signal to the gradient range ” and “ The number of peaks can be determined by using a first order derivative of the generated time domain PPG signal. In particular, when the first order derivative is 0, a peak is detected ”, [0066-0068]; [0033-0034] ; it is noted that a first derivative 0 is reached at the point when the second derivative is at a maximum) ; (iv) determining a value of the first derivative (1PWS) at the first time point (steps 408 and 410, Fig. 4 and associated descriptions; [0065]) ; (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) ( it is implicit that normalization of values is done according to [0026], [0042] and [0052] ) ; (vi) evaluating the quality of the pulse wave signal (PWS) using the normalized value (Fig. 4 and associated descriptions; [00 63-007 1]) . If not inherent, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that normalization of data facilitate standardiz ation/ stabilization the data for comparison/ processing/ analysis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and the apparatus to incorporate normalization of the data in order to obtain standardiz ed/ stabilized data for analysis. In regard to claims 2 and 10, Albadawi or as modified discloses the first maximum value in the second derivative (2PWS) and/or the value of the first derivative (1PWS) at the first time point and/or the maximum value of the first derivative (1PWS) are determined from a plurality of sample values of the first derivative (2PWS) and/or first derivative (1PWS) ([0034-0037]; [0066-0070]). In regard to claims 3 and 11, Albadawi or as modified discloses determining the quality of the pulse wave signal (PWS) according to a difference between the normalized value and a target value, T (number of peaks…slope is equal to 0, [0029]; Number of peaks is different than an allowed number of peaks … then the particular shape feature of the PPG signal does not meet shape feature value quality criteria . [0039]; [0068] ; it is noted that the value of the number of peaks is based on / represents the normalized values at slope = 0 ). In regard to claims 5-7 and 13-15, Albadawi or as modified discloses performing at least one repetition of steps (iii)-(v) for at least a second time point corresponding to the occurrence of at least a second maximum value in the second derivative (2PWS); and wherein step (vi) comprises evaluating (111) the quality of the pulse wave signal (PWS) using the normalized values ; evaluating the quality of the pulse wave signal (PWS) using a function of the normalized values ; determining whether to compute a physiological characteristic for the subject from the pulse wave signal (PWS) according to the quality of the pulse wave signal (PWS) (Fig s . 1- 4 and associated descriptions; [0038]; [0058]; heart rate, blood oxygen levels, and glucose levels , [0065]; [0066-0067]) . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rosenthal (USPGPUB 2007/0149870) teaches analysis of pulse waves using first and second derivative and normalization of derivative (Figs. 6-17; [0105]). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHU CHUAN LIU whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5507 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jennifer Robertson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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