DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/9/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On p. 2 of the remarks filed 3/9/2026, Applicant alleges that the pending claims do not recite any mental steps, stating that “the claimed method processes physiological signals received from a patient-attached sensor during monitoring” and characterizes the signals as “continuous, time-varying, and may include thousands of samples per second,” concluding “(t)he practical evaluation of such signals using frequency-domain analysis cannot be performed mentally or with pen and paper in the context of real-time physiological monitoring.”
The first note is that Applicant has not claimed any of these elements: continuous, time-varying signals comprising thousands of samples per second” or “real-time.” Applicant’s argument appears to rely on the inherency of these elements in the “context” of real-time physiological monitoring, however, they are not inherent qualities of the claimed method. The method as claimed requires a single signal of no particular length, at no particular sampling frequency but we can infer at least two data points in that a signal is claimed rather than simply one set single datum. Regardless, this argument still relies upon elements which are not claimed, and not interpreted as limitations in the claimed invention.
As stated previously, there is zero evidence of record that PHOSITA is not capable of performing a frequency transform of a time-varying signal using linear algebra, binning the resultant amplitudes into low frequency bins by observation and hand plotting, and comparing the amplitude of a low-frequency bin to a threshold by observation. All of these claimed functions, alone and in combination, are within the skill of PHOSITA to perform and “conceptually simulate” (this is a quotation from Applicant’s remarks dated 10/29/2025) mentally or with the aid of pen and paper.
With respect to limitations drawn to “real time” calculation and analysis, Applicant’s attention is drawn to the Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) court decision, which includes consideration of “real time” performance of “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind. The Examiner, as noted above, considers the steps claimed to be at a high level of generality (for example, no specific transform is used, only an upper boundary for “low frequency”, and no particular granularity of the claimed threshold), and could be practically performed in the human mind. As in Electric Power Group, the instant claims in this application “do not include any requirement for performing the claimed functions of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real time by use of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology. The claims therefore do not state an arguably inventive concept in the realm of application of the information-based abstract ideas.”
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 26-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
This analysis in view of 35 U.S.C. § 101 is based on MPEP § 2106, please see this section of the MPEP for additional information.
First, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim as a whole is established:
Claims 26 and 32 are directed to a method/system for automating detection of proper sensor attachment to a patient, including receiving sensor data, transforming the sensor data to a frequency domain, extracting the low frequency component energy, and determining that the sensor is likely to be attached properly if the low frequency component energy exceeds a threshold, and outputting an indication of proper attachment.
Claims 27-29, 31, 33-35, and 37 specify details of the transform, frequency band, and of interest.
Claims 30 and 36 limits the output to an alarm.
Step 1 of the analysis is the question: “Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?” and the answer is determined to be yes, as the claims as a whole are directed to a system.
For Step 2, the preliminary question is whether the eligibility of the claim is self- evident. The answer is determined to be no, as the claim is not immediately self-evident as statutory.
Step 2A Prong One: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea?
A claim is directed to a judicial exception when a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim. While the terms “set forth” and “describe” are thus both equated with “recite”, their different language is intended to indicate that there are different ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr set forth a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, the claims in Mayo set forth laws of nature in the wherein clause, meaning that the claims in those cases contained discrete claim language that was identifiable as a judicial exception. The claims in Alice Corp., however, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words “intermediated” or “settlement.”
Claim 26 (and similarly in Claim 32) recites the following limitations:
transforming the physiological signal into a frequency domain
extracting energy of low frequency components in the frequency transformed physiological signal, wherein the low frequency components comprise frequencies of 3Hz or lower
determining a likelihood of a good quality connection of the sensor only from the low frequency components, wherein the determination of the likelihood comprises determining that the extracted energy exceeds a threshold
This claim language is identified as an abstract idea, because in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) III B. this language is similar to concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or are analogous to human mental work. For example, Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Synopsys, the patentee claimed methods of logic circuit design, comprising converting a functional description of a level sensitive latch into a hardware component description of the latch. 839 F.3d at 1140; 120 SPQ2d at 1475. Although the patentee argued that the claims were intended to be used in conjunction with computer-based design tools, the claims did not include any limitations requiring computer implementation of the methods and thus do not involve the use of a computer in any way. 839 F.3d at 1145; 120 USPQ2d at 1478-79. The court therefore concluded that the claims “read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper,” and were directed to a mental process of “translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit.” 839 F.3d at 1149-50; 120 USPQ2d at 1482-83.
In the instant case, the identified abstract idea(s) is similar to Synopsys because the language reads on an individual performing the claimed sensor attachment evaluation mentally. They do not require any computer implementation beyond the recitation of a general purpose computer, or using the computer as a tool to perform the function and therefore are directed to a mental process and/or individual judgment of determining the quality of a sensor connection on a patient by determining a magnitude of component signal in the frequency domain, and comparing the magnitude to a threshold.
Yes. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
First, the additional elements are identified:
Claim 26 : sensor, receiving a physiological signal, outputting an indication
Claims 30 and 36: alarm
Claim 26 : processor, sensor, receiving a physiological signal, outputting an indication
In the case of the processor, receiving, and output, these elements appear to describe a general purpose computer, added post-hoc to an abstract idea rather than an improvement to computer functionality and does not qualify as a particular machine.
In the case of the claimed outputting of an indication and alarm, this appears to describe mere output or display as the feedback is only described at the highest level of generality and linked onto to a basic threshold comparison. The indication do not require the user to actually comply the with any instruction, recommendation, or adjustment and cannot be considered any particular positively recited treatment.
In the case of the sensor, the obtaining of signal is considered insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Because they are recited so broadly, they appear to only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or device. The sensors are therefore not tied to any particular function or integrated into the abstract idea in any fashion to render the abstract idea an improvement to a technology or integrated into a practical application.
The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements are identified above in Step 2A, Prong 2.
In the case of the processor, receiving, and output, these elements appear to describe a general purpose computer, added post-hoc to an abstract idea rather than an improvement to computer functionality and does not qualify as a particular machine.
In the case of the claimed outputting of an indication and alarm, this appears to describe mere output or display as the feedback is only described at the highest level of generality and linked onto to a basic threshold comparison. The indication do not require the user to actually comply the with any instruction, recommendation, or adjustment and cannot be considered any particular positively recited treatment.
In the case of the sensor, the obtaining of signal is considered insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Because they are recited so broadly, they appear to only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use or device. The sensors are therefore not tied to any particular function or integrated into the abstract idea in any fashion to render the abstract idea an improvement to a technology or integrated into a practical application.
The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Therefore, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and the claimed subject matter appears to be ineligible under 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA L STEINBERG whose telephone number is (303)297-4783. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-4.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/AMANDA L STEINBERG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3792