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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in combination with amendments, see remarks and claims, filed 06/08/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view the Kulach reference. See full detailed rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments in combination with amendments, see remarks and claims, filed 06/08/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the recited limitations provide an improvement. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. In order to have a technological improvement, the additional elements, either solely or in combination, need to reflect an improvement. Here, the alleged improvement is in the determination step (abstract idea combining two signals) and not the computer/display itself. Neither the claims nor the specification, provide any limitations that would improve the computer system to work faster, or more accurately. As written, the claims only require determining the first and second markers to be based on a determined cross-correlation of shared signals. Furthermore, the mentioned limitations is mere data processing and falls under extra-solution activity (of collecting and processing data). For at least the reasons cited above, the 101 rejection is maintained.
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 of the following analysis:
1 – statutory category: Claims 1-8 recite a system, and therefore, falls under the statutory category of being a thing or products. See MPEP 2106.03. Claim 9-15 recite a series of steps and therefore, falls under the statutory category of being a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
2A – Prong 1: The independent claims 1, 8 and 9 recite a judicial exception by reciting the limitations of “(a) obtain a first set of physiological signals from a first monitoring device and a second monitoring device , wherein the first set of physiological signals includes a first physiological signal from the first monitoring device covering a first time period and a second physiological signal from the second monitoring device covering at least a portion of the first time period; (b) analyze at least the first and second physiological signals of the first set of physiological signals to determine a cross-correlation of shared signals to determine a first time marker; (c) obtain a second set of physiological signals from the first monitoring device and the second monitoring device, wherein the second set of physiological signals includes a first physiological signal from the first monitoring device covering a second time period and a second physiological signal from the second monitoring device covering at least a portion of the second time period; (d) analyze at least the first and second physiological signals of the second set of physiological signals to determine a cross-correlation of shared signals to determine a second time marker; and (e) synchronize the first and second monitoring devices based on the first and second time markers.”. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind or by a person using a pen and paper. Therefore, an abstract idea is involved.
It is further noted that the above limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are mere data processing without providing any details that would prevent a person from performing the steps in mind, visually, or using a pen and paper.
2A – Prong 2: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The independent claims 1, 8 and 9 recite the additional limitations of “a computer-readable storage medium [] one or more processors”, etc. The mentioned limitations are recited at a high level of generality and are considered to be data gathering/processing which are mere extra-solution activity. The elements amount to 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 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, each of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
2B: The emphasized elements cited above do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these limitations are 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’I, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually 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 taken 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. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to 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 to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Claims 2-7, 10-15 depend on claims 1 and 9. The mentioned dependent claims recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims. Furthermore, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the mental process). For example, the dependent claim recites the limitations recited at a high level of generality and are mere extra-solution activity, and recited as performing generic computer functions. i.e., data processing. The elements amount to 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 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements individually 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 taken 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.
Thus, claims 1-15 are directed to an abstract idea and are therefore rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP4144288A1 to Roovers et al. (hereinafter “Roovers”) in view of US 20180317786A1 to Kulach et al. (hereinafter “Kulach”).
Regarding claims 1 and 8-9. Roovers disclose a health monitoring system configured to synchronize separate monitoring devices for accurate processing of shared signals (para 0026, 0029, etc.) , the system comprising: a computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon machine-readable instructions to be executed by one or more processors (para 0032 “control unit”); and one or more processors configured by the machine-readable instructions stored on the computer-readable storage medium to perform the following operations (fig. 2, para 0032, 0036, fig. 2): (a) obtain a first set of physiological signals from a first monitoring device and a second monitoring device, wherein the first set of physiological signals includes a first physiological signal from the first monitoring device covering a first time period and a second physiological signal from the second monitoring device covering at least a portion of the first time period (para 0032 “a first sensor 11 and a second sensor 12 [] Each sensor 11, 12 is configured for measurement of at least one physiological signal, [] transmit to the control unit 20”; para 0036); (b) analyze at least the first and second physiological signals of the first set of physiological signals to determine a first time marker (para 0036, fig. 2 “Each of the sensors 11, 12 comprises an independent clock 11a, 12a for associating the first and second output signals S1, S2 with a respective time domain”); (c) obtain a second set of physiological signals from the first monitoring device and the second monitoring device, wherein the second set of physiological signals includes a first physiological signal from the first monitoring device covering a second time period and a second physiological signal from the second monitoring device covering at least a portion of the second time period (para 0032 “a first sensor 11 and a second sensor 12 [] Each sensor 11, 12 is configured for measurement of at least one physiological signal, [] transmit to the control unit 20”; para 0036 – continuing the process would include continuously receiving data which is considered to be second set, third set, etc.); (d) analyze at least the first and second physiological signals of the second set of physiological signals to determine a second time marker (para 0036, fig. 2 “Each of the sensors 11, 12 comprises an independent clock 11a, 12a for associating the first and second output signals S1, S2 with a respective time domain”); and (e) synchronize the first and second monitoring devices based on the first and second time markers (para 0032, 0034, 0042, 0050-0058, etc.).
Roovers fails to disclose determine a cross-correlation of shared signals.
Kulach, from a similar field of endeavor teaches having a correlation unit that performs cross correlation on the two signals received to generate an output that includes the contents of the two correlated signals that are common in both inputted signals, that includes cardiac signal, while noise, content that are not common are not presented (i.e., noise) (0085). 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 disclosure of Roovers with the teachings of Kulach to provide the predictable result of generating a shared signal to perform data extraction since the shared signal would not commonly include noise from individual devices (para 0085).
Regarding claims 2 and 10. Roovers as modified by Kulach renders obvious the health monitoring system of claim 1 and method of claim 9, wherein the first time marker is determined by correlating one or more signal features of the first and second physiological signals of the first set of physiological signals, the first time marker being indicative of when a shared signal feature is observed in the first and second physiological signals of the first set of physiological signals, and wherein the second time marker is determined by correlating one or more signal features of the first and second physiological signals of the second set of physiological signals, the second time marker being indicative of when a shared signal feature is observed in the first and second physiological signals of the second set of physiological signals (see rejection of claim 1, paras 0032-0038, fig. 2).
Regarding claims 3 and 11. Roovers as modified by Kulach renders obvious the health monitoring system of claim 1 and method of claim 9, wherein the first and second physiological signals of the first set of physiological signals are electrocardiogram signals, and wherein the first and second physiological signals of the second set of physiological signals are electrocardiogram signals (para 0023, 0033).
Regarding claims 4 and 12. Roovers as modified by Kulach renders obvious the health monitoring system of claim 1 and method of claim 9, wherein synchronizing the first and second monitoring devices includes: setting a leading anchor point for at least one physiological signal collected by the second monitoring device and a leading anchor point for at least one physiological signal collected by the first monitoring device, wherein the leading anchor points are set based on the first time marker; setting a trailing anchor point for the at least one physiological signal collected by the second monitoring device and a trailing anchor point for the at least one physiological signal collected by the first monitoring device, wherein the trailing anchor points are set based on the second time marker; and generating a synchronized physiological signal by resampling the at least one physiological signal collected by first monitoring device based on a relationship between the leading and trailing anchor points (para 0050-0058, etc.).
Regarding claim 7. Roovers as modified by Kulach renders obvious the health monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the first monitoring device is configured to measure one or more physiological signals including at least a first signal type and the second monitoring device is configured to measure one or more physiological signals including at least the first signal type (para 0023, 0033).
Claim(s) 5, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roovers as modified by Kulach as applied to claims above, and in view of US Pat Pub No. 20190246966 A1 to Friedman et al. (hereafter “Friedman”).
Regarding claims 5 and 13. Roovers as modified by Kulach renders obvious the health monitoring system of claim 4 and method of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are further configured by the machine-readable instructions stored on the computer-readable storage medium to perform the following operations: but fails to disclose (i) obtain at least a third physiological signal from the second monitoring device; and (ii) analyze the third physiological signal and the synchronized physiological signal to determine a physiological measurement of interest.
Friedman, from a similar field of endeavor, teaches that it is known to synchronize signal from multiple independent ECG sensing devices (0041-0044, “2, 3, 4, 5, or more independent sensing devices may be coupled to a patient for concurrent data collection and processing”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Roovers as modified by Kulach with the teachings of Friedman to provide the predictable result of synchronize signal from additional devices.
Regarding claim 15. Roovers disclose the he computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein the health monitoring system configured to wirelessly receive one or more physiological signals from the first and second monitoring devices (para 0032), but fails to disclose the system to be a cloud-based system.
Friedman, from a similar field of endeavor, teaches one or more computer servers that provide a cloud-based service for processing ECG data and estimating analyte levels based on ECG data (para 0047). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Roovers as modified by Kulach with the teachings of Friedman to provide the predictable result of processing ECG data and estimating analyte levels based on ECG data remotely.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roovers as modified by Kulach and Friedman as applied to claim 5, 13 and 15 above, and further in view of US Pat Pub No. 20210000412 A1 to Mengden et al. (hereinafter “Mengden”).
Regarding claims 6 and 14. Roovers as modified by Kulach and Friedman renders obvious the health monitoring system of claim 5 method of claim 13, wherein the third physiological signal is a photoplethysmography signal, the synchronized physiological signal is either a photoplethysmography signal or an electrocardiogram signal (Roovers, para 0023), but fails to disclose the physiological measurement of interest is at least one physiological measurement of interest of a pulse arrival time and a pulse transit time.
Mengden, from a similar field of endeavor teaches determining the pulse transit time and pulse arrival time from an ECG signal to generate the biofeedback (0005, 0009). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Roovers as modified by Kulach and Friedman with the teachings of Mengden to provide the predictable result of generating biofeedback.
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 SANA SAHAND whose telephone number is (571)272-6842. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 am -5:30 pm; F 9 am-3 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 S McDonald can be reached at (571) 270- 3061. 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.
/SANA SAHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights