Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/567,105

Thermoregulatory Stress Detection from Skin Temperature Complexity

Non-Final OA §101§112
Filed
Dec 05, 2023
Examiner
JANG, ELINA SOHYUN
Art Unit
3791
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
The Secretary of State for Defence
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
58 granted / 85 resolved
-1.8% vs TC avg
Strong +42% interview lift
Without
With
+42.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
108
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.0%
-29.0% vs TC avg
§103
36.8%
-3.2% vs TC avg
§102
17.3%
-22.7% vs TC avg
§112
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 85 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §112
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 . Claims 16-20, 25, 30-31, 40-42, 48-52, 54, and 57-59 are hereby under examination. 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 16-20, 25, 30-31, 40-42, 48-52, 54, and 57-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03). Claims 31, and 40-42 are directed to a “device”, which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a machine. Claims 16-20, 25, 30, 48-52, 54, 57-59 are directed to a “method”, which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a process. Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04) Prong one: Claims 16-20, 25, 30-31, 40-42, 48-52, 54, and 57-59 recite abstract idea, as follows: “generating a thermoregulatory strain index (TSI) for an individual, the method comprising… receiving the time series of heart rates and the time series of skin temperatures with a processor in electrical communication with the at least one temperature sensor and the at least one heart rate sensor; determining a heart rate complexity by the processor from the heart rate time series; determining a skin temperature complexity by the processor from the skin temperature time series; calculating a TSI score by the processor based on the skin temperature complexity and the heart rate complexity; producing an output signal for the TSI score…; and optionally performing an intervention for the individual by the individual, another person, and/or an automated system, and wherein the heart rate time series and the skin temperature time series are over identical measurement windows.” (claim 16) “receive a time series of temperature readings from a temperature sensor attached to a skin of the individual, receive a time series of heart rates or a heart rate signal from a heart rate sensor attached to the individual, and produce a TSI score for the individual using the time series of heart rates or the heart rate signal from the heart rate sensor and the time series of skin temperatures from the temperature sensor by determining a heart rate complexity or a mean heart rate from the heart rate time series or the heart rate signal, determining a skin temperature complexity from the skin temperature time series, calculating a TSI score based on either the skin temperature complexity and the heart rate complexity, or the skin temperature complexity and the mean heart rate, and producing an output signal for the TSI score” (claim 31) “receiving a time series of heart rates or a heart rate signal with a processor in electrical communication with a heart rate sensor; receiving a time series of skin temperatures with the processor in electrical communication with a temperature sensor; determining a heart rate complexity or a mean heart rate by the processor from the heart rate time series or the heart rate signal; determining a skin temperature complexity by the processor from the skin temperature time series; calculating a TSI score… based on either the skin temperature complexity and the heart rate complexity, or the skin temperature complexity and the mean heart rate; producing an output signal for the TSI score…; and performing an intervention for the individual by the individual, another person, and/or an automated system” (claim 48) Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, receiving a time series of heart rate and skin temperature, determining a heart rate and skin temperature complexity, calculating TSI score, producing output signal, and performing an intervention can be done mentally with the aid of a pen and paper. A person can receive a time series of heart rate and skin temperature on paper, either in a table or graph, and the person can mathematically determine the heart rate and skin temperature complexity from calculating it from the table or graph, and calculate the TSI score mathematically, and produce output signal by writing it down or verbalizing it. The person can perform an intervention also by writing down some instructions or verbalizing it. Prong two: Claims 16-20, 25, 30-31, 40-42, 48-52, 54, and 57-59 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract into a practical application. The additional elements are as follows: Processor temperature sensor heart rate sensor display Reciting a computer or computer components (processor) simply amounts to reciting a general processor to perform general functions of a computer as above to perform the mental processes of receiving a time series of heart rate and skin temperature, determining a heart rate and skin temperature complexity, calculating TSI score, producing output signal, and performing an intervention are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception to general technology. Such elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application since they are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f). Reciting the interface display do not integrate the exception into a practical application since it is merely insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., simply outputting the results of the algorithm in a high-level implementation. Reciting temperature sensor or heart rate sensor do not integrate the exception into a practical application since it is merely insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality. Therefore, claims 16-20, 25, 30-31, 40-42, 48-52, 54, and 57-59 are ineligible at step 2A, prong two. Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05) Reciting a computer or computer components (processor) simply amounts to reciting a general processor to perform general functions of a computer as above to perform the mental processes of receiving a time series of heart rate and skin temperature, determining a heart rate and skin temperature complexity, calculating TSI score, producing output signal, and performing an intervention are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception to general technology. Such elements do not qualify as significantly more because this limitation is simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)). Reciting the interface display do not integrate the exception into a practical application since it is merely insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., simply outputting the results of the algorithm in a high-level implementation. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20100094112 A1 discloses that the interface displays are conventional: [0336], “Touch screen displays are well known” Reciting temperature sensor or heart rate sensor do not integrate the exception into a practical application since it is merely insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20140155708 A1 discloses that temperature sensors are conventional: [0002] “Conventional thermometers” U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20150223748 A1 discloses that temperature sensors are conventional: [0082], “Fetal heart rate sensors are well known” In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process. Therefore, claims 16-20, 25, 30-31, 40-42, 48-52, 54, and 57-59 are ineligible at step 2B. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 16-20, 25, 30-31, 40-42, 48-52, 54, and 57-59 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, and additionally overcome the 101 rejections. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Davey et al., "The physiological strain index does not reliably identify individuals at risk of reaching a thermal tolerance limit," European Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 121, March 7 2021, pp. 1701-1713., cited by Applicant and hereto referred as Davey. As to claims 16, 31, and 48, Davey teaches a method for evaluating physiological strain index for an individual (Davey, title), the method comprising: generating a time series of heart rates with at least one heart rate sensor configured to be attached to or placed on the individual; generating a time series of skin temperatures with at least one temperature sensor configured to detect a skin temperature of the individual; receiving the time series of heart rates and the time series of skin temperatures with a processor in electrical communication with the at least one temperature sensor and the at least one heart rate sensor, wherein the heart rate time series and the skin temperature time series are over identical measurement windows; (Davey, pg. 1701, “Heart rate (HR), skin temperature (Tsk), rectal temperature (Tre), temperature sensation (TS) and thermal comfort (TC) were measured throughout.”; pg. 1703, “two 40- to 60-min periods of walking on a treadmill”); However, Davey does not teach determining a heart rate complexity by the processor from the heart rate time series; determining a skin temperature complexity by the processor from the skin temperature time series; calculating a TSI score by the processor based on the skin temperature complexity and the heart rate complexity, in combination with other claimed steps or elements. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELINA S JANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 6:00 pm. 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. /ELINA SOHYUN JANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 05, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593998
DEVICE, APPARATUS AND METHOD OF DETERMINING SKIN PERFUSION PRESSURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12575792
DENOISING SENSED SIGNALS FROM ARTIFACTS FROM CARDIAC SIGNALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12564339
AUTOREGULATION MONITORING USING DEEP LEARNING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12525330
METHOD OF DETERMINING A BOLUS TO BE ADMINISTERED BY AN INSULIN DELIVERING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12521040
WEARABLE ACTIVITY PARAMETER COLLECTING DEVICE AND MOUNTING UNIT THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+42.0%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 85 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month