DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This action is in reply to the filed on 1/30/2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 10-11, 13 and 19-20 have been amended.
Claim 1-20 currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
With the amendment of claims 1, 10-11, 13 and 19-20, applicant has successfully overcome the Examiner’s 35 USC 103 rejection and Examiner withdraws his 35 USC 103 rejection. Engebretsen et al. 864 and Engebretsen et al. 155 are not prior art.
The Applicant’s amendments, and cancellation, of the claims as currently submitted have been noted by the Examiner. Said amendments, and cancellation(s), are not sufficient to overcome the rejection previously set forth under 35 U.S.C. §101. As such, said rejection is herein maintained for reasons set forth below.
The Applicant’s amendments, and cancellation, of the claims as currently submitted have been noted by the Examiner. Said amendments, and cancellation(s), are not sufficient to overcome the claim objections and claim rejections previously set forth under 35 U.S.C. §132(a) and 35 U.S.C. §112. As such, said objections and rejections are herein maintained for reasons set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to reciting “A and/or B” limitations. The preferred verbiage should be “at least one of A and B.” (See Ex Parte Gross PTAB Appeal 2011-004811). Appropriate correction is suggested.
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.
Human Interactions Organized
Applicant discloses (Applicant’s Specification, [0003]) that monitoring devices for collecting biometric data are becoming increasingly common in diagnosing and treating medical conditions in patients. So a need exists to organize these human interactions by/through monitoring, identifying, and classifying cardiac events using the steps of “generating first sets of classification, generating second sets of classifications, generating new classifications, updating first or second sets of classifications,” etc. Applicant’s system is therefore a certain method of organizing the human activities as described and disclosed by Applicant.
Rejection
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 and 13 is/are directed to the abstract idea of “monitoring, identifying, and classifying cardiac events,” etc. (Applicant’s Specification, Abstract, paragraph(s) [0002]), etc., as explained in detail below, and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The Judicial Exception
The claim(s) recite(s) in part, system for performing the steps of “generating first sets of classification, generating second sets of classifications, generating new classifications, updating first or second sets of classifications,” etc., that is “monitoring, identifying, and classifying cardiac events,” etc. which is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (social activities, teaching, following rules, instructions) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. computing device, monitor, mobile device, server, remote computer, bus, processor, memory, I/O port, I/O components, power supply (Applicant’s Specification [0075]-[0076]), etc.) to perform steps of “generating first sets of classification, generating second sets of classifications, generating new classifications, updating first or second sets of classifications,” etc. do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and this is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Insignificant extra-solution activity
Claim(s) 1-20 recites storing data steps, retrieving data steps, providing data steps, output steps (Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-12 (2010), Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 771 F.Supp.2d 1054, 1066 (E.D. Mo. 2011), aff’d, 687 F.3d at 1266), and/or transmitting data step (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1299, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) that is/are insignificant extra-solution activity. Extra-solution activity limitations are insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application (MPEP §2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Search for an Inventive Concept/Significantly More
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements (i.e. computing device, monitor, mobile device, server, remote computer, bus, processor, memory, I/O port, I/O components, power supply, etc.) are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept (Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”)). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Individually and in Combination
The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to no more than generic computer components that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. computing device, monitor, mobile device, server, remote computer, bus, processor, memory, I/O port, I/O components, power supply, etc.). At paragraph(s) [0075]-[0076], Applicant’s specification describes generic computer hardware for implementing the above described functions including “computing device, monitor, mobile device, server, remote computer, bus, processor, memory, I/O port, I/O components, power supply,” etc. to perform the functions of “generating first sets of classification, generating second sets of classifications, generating new classifications, updating first or second sets of classifications,” etc. The recited “computing device, monitor, mobile device, server, remote computer, bus, processor, memory, I/O port, I/O components, power supply,” etc. does/do not add meaningful limitations to the idea of beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, or improves any other technology, or improves a technical field, or provides a technical improvement to a technical problem. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, claims 1-20 do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of “an idea of itself” (Alice).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim(s) 2-12 and 14-20 include(s) all the limitations of the parent claims and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Although dependent claims 2-12 and 14-20 add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-20 merely describe physical structures to implement the abstract idea. These information and physical characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human interactions, and when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as independent claim(s) 1 and 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/30/2026 with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and they are partially persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed 1/30/2026.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/30/2026 with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant argues that (A) Engebretsen et al. 864 and Engebretsen et al. 155 do not render obvious the present invention because Engebretsen et al. 864 and Engebretsen et al. 155 are not prior art., (B) the Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to statutory matter.
103 Responses
In response to Applicant’s argument (A), Applicant’s arguments with regard to the application of Engebretsen et al. 864 and Engebretsen et al. 155 to the amended limitations have been found persuasive. Engebretsen et al. 864 and Engebretsen et al. 155 are not prior art. Applicant has successfully overcome the Examiner’s 35 USC 103 rejection and Examiner withdraws his 35 USC 103 rejection.
101 Responses
As per Applicant’s argument (B), Applicant’s remarks with regard to the statutory nature of Applicant’s claimed invention are addressed above in the Office Action.
2019 PEG Neither Limiting nor Exhaustive
Further, the enumerated examples in the 2019 PEG are neither limiting nor exhaustive. They are exemplary. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Generate Machine Learning Models
Applicant has amended Applicant’s claimed invention to recite “generate, by one or more machine learning models, a first set of classifications for a first strip of electrocardiogram (ECG) data; generate, by the one or more machine learning models, a second set of classifications for a second strip of ECG data; generate, by the one or more machine learning models, one or more new classifications in response to inputting only a portion of the first strip of ECG data along with only a portion of the second strip of ECG data into the machine learning model…” As recited Applicant’s claims are merely instruction to apply an exception (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Applicant’s Specification does not provide support more than mere instructions to apply an exception. Applicant’s amendments do not move Applicant’s claimed invention into eligible subject matter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s Amendments
Applicant amended claims recite “generate, by one or more machine learning models, a first set of classifications for a first strip of electrocardiogram (ECG) data; generate, by the one or more machine learning models, a second set of classifications for a second strip of ECG data; generate, by the one or more machine learning models, one or more new classifications in response to inputting only a portion of the first strip of ECG data along with only a portion of the second strip of ECG data into the machine learning model; and update the first set of classifications or the second set of classifications with the one or more new classifications.” These are information processing step(s) that is/are part of Applicant’s abstract idea and do not move Applicant’s invention into eligible subject matter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Data Processing Step
Applicant’s amended steps of “generate, by one or more machine learning models, a first set of classifications for a first strip of electrocardiogram (ECG) data; generate, by the one or more machine learning models, a second set of classifications for a second strip of ECG data; generate, by the one or more machine learning models, one or more new classifications in response to inputting only a portion of the first strip of ECG data along with only a portion of the second strip of ECG data into the machine learning model; and update the first set of classifications or the second set of classifications with the one or more new classifications,” are abstract compurational step(s) that are part of Applicant’s abtract idea. In Electric Power Group the collection, manipulation and display of data has been found to be an abstract process. When claims, such as Applicant’s claims, are “directed to an abstract idea” and “merely requir[e] generic computer implementation,” they “do[] not move into [§] 101 eligibility territory.” buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Further, analysis of information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, is essentially a mental processes within the abstract-idea category (Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1354). Further, Applicant appears to be claiming generic computer implementation of a certain method of organsing human interaction. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Example 39
Appellant’s claims are not analogous to Example 39 as Appellant’s claims are not directed to a method for training a neural network for facial recognition. Appellant’s claims are directed to monitoring, identifying, and classifying cardiac events without more. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive.
Integration into a Practical Application
Integration into a practical application requires additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (e.g. Enfish, McRO and Vanda) (2019 PEG).
Applicant’s “computing device, monitor, mobile device, server, remote computer, bus, processor, memory, I/O port, I/O components, power supply” is/are not an additional element(s) that reflects in the an improvement in the functioning of a computer, is/are not an additional element(s) that applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis, is/are not an additional element(s) that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or things, and is/are not an additional element(s) that applies or uses the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment for the reasons explained in the 101 rejection above. Applicant’s “computing device, monitor, mobile device, server, remote computer, bus, processor, memory, I/O port, I/O components, power supply” is/are merely tools used by Applicant to implement data processing. Data processing is an abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The Examiner thanks the Applicant remarks regarding the advisory
August 4, 2025 Memorandum.
The Examiner notes that the August 4, 2025 Memorandum contained advisory remarks but the remarks did not change the nature of examination of Applications under 35 USC 101. The Examiner asserts that the Examiner’s analysis and rejection of the Applicant’s claims under 35 USC 101 is compliant with the Office’s examination procedures under the MPEP. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) for 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 for 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 extension free 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7788. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 7:30a - 5:00p.
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, ROBERT W. MORGAN can be reached on (571) 272-6773. 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.
/C. P. C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683