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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 13 April 2026 has been entered.
This a response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 13 April 2026, wherein:
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 13-15 are amended.
Claims 3, 5, 7, and 10-12 are canceled.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 13-15 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, IN 202141053506, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
In particular, the disclosure of the prior-filed application fails to provide sufficient written description for “tracking an amount of time the user is mindful during a session of meditation”, “an accelerometer and a gyroscope configured to recognize a tap input from the user to select and register at least one form of meditation from a list consisting of breathing, relaxation, and focus meditation to establish the session for monitoring”, “a plurality of photoplethysmograph sensors measuring beat-by-beat heart rate of the user”, “a display displaying the registered form of meditation that will be tracked by the wearable smart device”, and “a processor, interfaced with a wireless communication unit, configured to: calculate time differences between consecutive heartbeats, convert the time differences into a frequency power spectrum using fast Fourier transform, and determine the amount of time the user is mindful during the session based on the selected at least one form of meditation and analysis of at least one of: the frequency power spectrum or time-domain variations between consecutive heartbeats” in claim 1, “wherein the processor measures other vital parameters of the user including oxygen saturation, galvanic skin response, skin temperature, and motion in 6-axes, and tracks user's sleep, exercise, and stress level” in claim 2, “selecting and registering, by the processor, the breathing form of meditation to be monitored, in response to the tap input from the user”, “tracking, by the processor, the beat-by-beat heart rate of the user through the plurality of photoplethysmograph (PPG) sensors and calculating the time differences between consecutive heartbeats”, “converting, by the processor, the time differences into the frequency power spectrum using fast Fourier transform”, “determining, by the processor, a frequency with a highest power in a range of 0.03 to 0.5 Hz from the frequency power spectrum”, “selecting, by the processor, a region between -0.05 Hz to +0.05 Hz of the frequency with the highest power”, “integrating, by the processor, a power within the region and a power outside the region in the frequency power spectrum”, “determining, by the processor, the amount of time the user is mindful based on the power within the region the power outside the region and a duration of the session”, and “displaying, by the processor, the amount of time the user has been mindful in the session upon the user tapping the wearable smart device to indicate an end of the session” in claim 13, “selecting and registering, by the processor, the relaxation form of meditation to be monitored, in response to the tap input from the user”, “tracking, by the processor, the beat-by-beat heart rate of the user through the plurality of photoplethysmograph (PPG) sensors and calculating the time differences between consecutive heartbeats”, “determining variations, by the processor, in the time differences”, “determining, by the processor, a number of the variations that are below a threshold and a number of the variations that exceed the threshold”, “determining, by the processor, the amount of time the user is mindful based on the number of variations that are below the threshold, the number of variations that exceed the threshold, and a duration of the session”, and “displaying, by the processor, the amount of time the user has been mindful in the session upon the user tapping the wearable smart device to indicate an end of the session” in claim 14, and “selecting and registering, by the processor, the focus form of meditation to be monitored, in response to the tap input from the user”, “tracking, by the processor, the beat-by-beat heart rate of the user through the plurality of photoplethysmograph (PPG) sensors and calculating the time differences between consecutive heartbeats”, “converting, by the processor, the time differences into the frequency power spectrum using fast Fourier transform”, “integrating, by the processor, a power in a range of 0.03-0.15 Hz to determine a low frequency (LF) power, and a power in a range of 0.15-0.5 Hz to determine a high frequency (HF) power”, “determining, by the processor, a ratio of the LF power and the HF power (LF:HF) for each minute of the session, and ana amount of time when the LF:HF is higher than a calculated baseline for the user”, “determining, by the processor, the amount of time the user is mindful based on the time when the LF:HF is higher than the calculated baseline for the user and a total duration of the session”, and “displaying, by the processor, the amount of time the user has been mindful in the session upon the user tapping the wearable smart device to indicate an end of the session” in claim 15 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). In particular, the specification of the prior-filed application, at best, merely recites similar language as the claims without providing any substantive description for the claimed limitations identified above for the same reasons that the instant specification also fails as identified in the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(a) below for the same claim limitations.
Thus, claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 13-15 do not gain benefit of priority to IN 202141053506. Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 13-15 have an effective filing date of 22 November 2022.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 8 is so blurry as to be illegible. In other words, it is so blurry that they do not illustrate the elements described in at least para. 64 of the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Reference character “103” has been used to designate both a 6-axis gyroscope and a built-in inertial measurement unit. See para. 26, 59, and 63 of the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
The amendment filed 13 April 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “LF:HF”. Both the Indian Provisional Application and the originally filed disclosure recite “LF/HF”. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 112(b) not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 13-15 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear which limitations are sub-limitations of limitation (d) and which are new limitations. This lack of clarity is caused by the lack of indenting of sub-limitations. In particular, all of the limitations of the claim are indented the same in contrast to conventional practice which is to further indent sub-limitations so that they are clearly linked to the appropriate limitation. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. For the purposes of compact prosecution, all of the limitations following limitation (d) are construed as sub-limitations of limitation (d). Dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 13-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "time-domain variations between consecutive heartbeats" at the end of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 13-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear how the processor measures other vital parameters of the user including galvanic skin response and skin temperature. Claim 2 and independent claim 1 are both silent regarding any means for collecting galvanic skin response data and skin temperature data. Thus, it is unclear how the process can measure such parameters when the claims are silent regarding the means for collecting the information to be measured. Furthermore, the term “vital parameters” is also unclear. In particular, the term “vital” has multiple interpretations. In the English language, when referring to physiological parameters, “vital” is “vital signs”, not “vital” by itself. However, “vital” also means “essential”. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the term “vital parameters” are construed as “physiological parameters”.
Regarding claim 13, it is unclear what constitutes “integrating, by the processor, a power within the region and a power outside the region in the frequency power spectrum”. In particular, this limitation is grammatically incorrect causing it to be unclear what constitutes “integrating” as well as what is being integrated and to what it is being integrated. Furthermore, it is unclear what “a power” is in reference to and where it comes from because it is recited in isolation. The disclosure does not aid understanding as the most description is found in para. 67 of the specification which recites the “processor then integrates all the power within that region, and integrates all the power that is outside the region in the power spectrum.” Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought.
Regarding claims 13-15, it is unclear how the displaying step is performed “by the processor”. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand a display to perform a displaying step like that claimed in limitation (b) of independent claim 1, not a processor. A processor may send data to a display to be displayed, but the display performs the displaying. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought.
Further regarding claims 13-15, each of these claims recite the limitations “tracking by the processor the beat-by-beat heart rate of the user through the plurality of photoplethysmograph (PPG) sensors and calculating the time differences between consecutive heartbeats”. However, independent claim 1 already recites “a plurality of photoplethysmography sensors measuring beat-by-beat heart rate of the user” and “a processor,…, configured to: calculate time differences between consecutive heartbeats”. The calculating step is nearly word-for-word repeated between the claims. While the tracking step in claims 13-15 is recited using different words than the measuring step in claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the tracking step recited in claims 13-15 to have the same meaning as the measuring step in claim 1. Thus, it is unclear if these limitations in claims 13-15 are new and different steps from the limitations in claim 1 or are redundant. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. For the purposes of compact prosecution, these limitations are construed as redundant. If Applicant agrees with this interpretation, it is recommended to remove these limitations from dependent claims 13-15 to aid clarity.
Regarding claim 15, it is unclear what constitutes “integrating, by the processor, a power in a range 0.03-0.15 Hz to determine a low frequency (LF) power, and a power in a range of 0.15-0.5 Hz to determine a high frequency (HF) power”. In particular, this limitation is grammatically incorrect causing it to be unclear what constitutes “integrating” as well as what is being integrated and to what it is being integrated. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 112(a) not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 13-15, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “tracking an amount of time the user is mindful during a session of meditation” and “determine the amount of time the user is mindful during the session based on the selected at least one form of meditation and analysis of at least one of: the frequency power spectrum or time-domain variations between consecutive heartbeats” in claim 1, “determining, by the processor, the amount of time the user is mindful based on the power within the region, the power outside the region, and a duration of the session” in claim 13, “determining, by the processor, the amount of time the user is mindful based on the number of variations that are below the threshold, the number of variations that exceed the threshold, and a duration of the session” in claim 14, “determining, by the processor, the amount of time the user is mindful based on the time when the LF:HF is higher than the calculated baseline for the user and a total duration of the session” in claim 15, and “displaying, by the processor, the amount of time the user been mindful in the session” in claims 13-15 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See, for example, at least para. 65-78 of the specification which merely recite similar language as the claims without any further meaningful detail. In particular, they recite calculating separate physiological measures during a breathing meditation session, a relaxation meditation session, and a focus meditation session. However, the disclosure is silent regarding any analysis of these physiological measures to identify mindfulness. For instance, the specification recites that LF:HF ratio is a measure of stress of the user and asserts that “[i]f the ratio begins to fall, it indicates that the user has been relaxing and not spending the time in concentration”. See, for example, at least para. 52 and 74-76 of the specification. Identifying that the LF:HF ratio is decreasing is not an indicator that the user has not been spending the time in concentration. It is only an indicator that the user is less stressed. Thus, this does not provide any meaningful description for correlating measures of stress to “focus meditation”. Furthermore, the disclosure is silent regarding any meaningful analysis for determining a percentage or amount of time that the user has been mindful as the disclosure as a whole conflates mindfulness with undisclosed aspects of breathing, relaxation, and focus meditation. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand “mindfulness” to be a quality while “meditation” comprises a multitude of techniques with the claims and disclosure as a whole focused on only three other forms – breathing, relaxation, and focus meditation. Additionally, while one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a category of meditative practices called “mindfulness meditation”, the disclosure is silent regarding this particular category of meditative practices. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that “being mindful” does not require meditation as it is a quality of living. Dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 13-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “an accelerometer and a gyroscope configured to recognize a tap input from the user to select and register at least one form of meditation from a list consisting of breathing, relaxation, and focus meditation to establish the session for monitoring” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3) states
“Possession may be shown in many ways. For example, possession may be shown by describing an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention. Possession may also be shown by a clear depiction of the invention in detailed drawings or in structural chemical formulas which permit a person skilled in the art to clearly recognize that inventor had possession of the claimed invention. An adequate written description of the invention may be shown by any description of sufficient, relevant, identifying characteristics so long as a person skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention… An applicant may also show that an invention is complete by disclosure of sufficiently detailed, relevant identifying characteristics which provide evidence that inventor was in possession of the claimed invention, i.e., complete or partial structure, other physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or some combination of such characteristics. Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 964, 63 USPQ2d at 1613 (quoting the Written Description Guidelines, 66 Fed. Reg. at 1106, n. 49, stating that "if the art has established a strong correlation between structure and function, one skilled in the art would be able to predict with a reasonable degree of confidence the structure of the claimed invention from a recitation of its function".). "Thus, the written description requirement may be satisfied through disclosure of function and minimal structure when there is a well-established correlation between structure and function."
In particular, para. 25 and 28 recite that a non-descript “input module” perform the function of selecting and registering at least one form of meditation, not an accelerometer and a gyroscope. Similarly, at least para. 63 recites that “a combination of the touch sensors (104) and the built-in inertial measurement unit (103) [] detect the user tapping the ring” and that the “touch sensors (104) are important here to negate any accidental taps on the ring (700), that can occur during an activity or by accident (refer to Figure 6).” However, while reference character “103” is used for both a built-in inertial measurement unit and a 6-axis gyroscope, the touch sensors 104 are distinct from an accelerometer. See, for example, at least para. 59 which explicitly identify them as separate elements. Furthermore, para. 63 also recites “When the user taps the ring (700), which would be recognized by the accelerometer and gyroscope, and with every tap, the ring cycles through the three forms of meditation”. Thus, the disclosure provides conflicting information on which elements detect a tap. However, in the event that this last illustrated sentence from para. 63 of the specification is support for an accelerometer and a gyroscope to be configured to recognize a tap input, it is not support for a tap input to select and register at least one form of meditation because it is, at best, merely a recognition that a tap occurred during activity, by accident, or otherwise. In other words, the accelerometer and gyroscope, at best, are configured to recognize that the wearable smart device was tapped, but they are not configured to recognize a tap input to select and register at least one form of meditation. Dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 13-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a display displaying the registered form of meditation that will be tracked by the wearable smart device” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3) states
“Possession may be shown in many ways. For example, possession may be shown by describing an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention. Possession may also be shown by a clear depiction of the invention in detailed drawings or in structural chemical formulas which permit a person skilled in the art to clearly recognize that inventor had possession of the claimed invention. An adequate written description of the invention may be shown by any description of sufficient, relevant, identifying characteristics so long as a person skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention… An applicant may also show that an invention is complete by disclosure of sufficiently detailed, relevant identifying characteristics which provide evidence that inventor was in possession of the claimed invention, i.e., complete or partial structure, other physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or some combination of such characteristics. Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 964, 63 USPQ2d at 1613 (quoting the Written Description Guidelines, 66 Fed. Reg. at 1106, n. 49, stating that "if the art has established a strong correlation between structure and function, one skilled in the art would be able to predict with a reasonable degree of confidence the structure of the claimed invention from a recitation of its function".). "Thus, the written description requirement may be satisfied through disclosure of function and minimal structure when there is a well-established correlation between structure and function."
In particular, Fig. 5 and 6 each have a reference character intended to mark a display (601 and 701, respectively) on a ring. However, these drawings do not actually illustrate any identifiable display. Furthermore, the specification merely recites similar language as the claim using the non-descript term “display” without any description of a display on the only disclosed embodiment of a ring beyond merely reciting that it is “small”. See, for example, at least para. 24, 54, 63, 68, 72, 73, and 78 of the specification. Thus, both the drawings and the specification are silent regarding any meaningful description of a display performing the function of displaying the registered type of meditation that will be tracked by the device, particularly on such a small device as a ring, which is the only disclosed embodiment of the wearable smart device. Dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 13-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a plurality of photoplethysmograph sensors”. MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3) states
“Possession may be shown in many ways. For example, possession may be shown by describing an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention. Possession may also be shown by a clear depiction of the invention in detailed drawings or in structural chemical formulas which permit a person skilled in the art to clearly recognize that inventor had possession of the claimed invention. An adequate written description of the invention may be shown by any description of sufficient, relevant, identifying characteristics so long as a person skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention… An applicant may also show that an invention is complete by disclosure of sufficiently detailed, relevant identifying characteristics which provide evidence that inventor was in possession of the claimed invention, i.e., complete or partial structure, other physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or some combination of such characteristics. Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 964, 63 USPQ2d at 1613 (quoting the Written Description Guidelines, 66 Fed. Reg. at 1106, n. 49, stating that "if the art has established a strong correlation between structure and function, one skilled in the art would be able to predict with a reasonable degree of confidence the structure of the claimed invention from a recitation of its function".). "Thus, the written description requirement may be satisfied through disclosure of function and minimal structure when there is a well-established correlation between structure and function."
While Indian Provisional Application IN 202141053506 recites “photo plethysmograph sensors in infrared and red lights” (see at least para. 26 and 59), one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this to be a single sensor using both infrared (IR) and red wavelengths. For instance, Park1 identifies that both IR wavelength (~880nm) and red wavelength (~660nm) are traditionally used together to measure blood oxygen saturation (deoxygenated hemoglobin absorbs more red wavelength, oxygenated hemoglobin absorbs more IR wavelength) and Patil2 identifies that these two wavelengths are also used together to determine volumetric distortion in the blood which is then used to determine heart rate. However, the drawings are silent regarding a plurality of PPG sensors. Fig. 1 illustrates only one PPG sensor. Furthermore, the disclosure provides only one embodiment of the wearable device – an embodiment as a ring. As a ring is worn on a single part of the body (a single finger), the disclosure is silent regarding any rationale, let alone a reduction to practice, for a ring to include multiple PPG sensors which substantively measure the same part of the body as well as silent regarding any structural or functional characteristics for a ring to include multiple PPG sensors. Dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 13-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Further regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “a processor, interfaced with a wireless communication unit, configured to: calculate time differences between consecutive heartbeats, convert the time differences into a frequency power spectrum using fast Fourier transform, and determine the amount of time the user is mindful during the session based on the selected at least one form of meditation and analysis of at least one of: the frequency power spectrum or time-domain variations between consecutive heartbeats” to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP 2161.01(I). The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, the originally filed disclosure is silent regarding a processor interfaced with a wireless communication unit. The closest language is found in para. 59 of the specification which recites “a processing module/processor with a built-in wireless communication module within” which is distinct from the new claim language “a processor interfaced with a wireless communication unit”. Thus, this is new matter. Additionally, while the disclosure provides for calculating the time difference between consecutive heartbeats and converting the time differences into a frequency power spectrum, it is silent regarding any meaningful description of the analysis of these measures to determining the mindfulness of the user, particularly given the issues regarding identifying mindfulness discussed in the first rejection under 35 USC 112(a) of related limitations above. As this is interpreted to be a computer-implemented claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed computer function. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 13-15 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims, and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 2, the originally filed disclosure is silent regarding the newly amended limitation which recites “wherein the processor measures other vital parameters of the user including oxygen saturation, galvanic skin response, skin temperature, and motion in 6-axes, and tracks user's sleep, exercise, and stress level”. There are two statutory provisions that prohibit the introduction of new matter. The first provision is 35 USC 132, which provides that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. If new matter is added to the claims, the examiner should reject the claims under 35 USC 112(a) – written description requirement. See MPEP 2163.06. In particular, while the original specification generically recites “ a device that measures key vital parameters of the user including Heart Rate variability, Oxygen Saturation, Galvanic Skin Response, Skin Temperature and motion in 6-axis” in para. 51, “the present invention also tracks the sleep, exercise and stress level of the user” in para. 30, and “a smart wearable device that tracks user's sleep, their daily lifestyle, such as exercise, commute and work, and is able to intelligently recognize when there are moments of high stress to the user” in para. 53, the disclosure is silent regarding a processor performing these functions. Therefore, this is new matter. It is further noted that the disclosure is silent regarding any means for measuring skin temperature.
Regarding claims 13-15, the originally filed disclosure is silent regarding “selecting and registering, by the processor, the breathing form of meditation to be monitored in response to the tap input from the user” in claim 13, “selecting and registering, by the processor, the relaxation form of meditation to be monitored in response to the tap input from the user” in claim 14, and “selecting and registering, by the processor, the focus form of meditation to be monitored in response to the tap input from the user” in claim 15. There are two statutory provisions that prohibit the introduction of new matter. The first provision is 35 USC 132, which provides that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. If new matter is added to the claims, the examiner should reject the claims under 35 USC 112(a) – written description requirement. See MPEP 2163.06. Para. 25 of the specification recites that the user selects and registers at least one form of meditation, not a processor. Para. 65 of the specification does recite that the processor registers the form of meditation according to the swipe/tap of the user. But, it is silent regarding the processor selecting the form of meditation. Thus, these limitations are new matter.
Further regarding claims 13-15, the disclosure fails to provide sufficient written description for “displaying, by the processor, the amount of time the user has been mindful in the session” in each of claims 13-15 to show one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The closest disclosure is found in para. 54 which merely recites that “a small display using a range of colours to communicate with the user”. However, the disclosure is silent regarding how the small display provides this range of colours and how this range is used to communicate with the user, let alone display the amount of time the user has been mindful.
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, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without including additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Step 1
The instant claims are directed to a method and products which fall under at least one of the four statutory categories (STEP 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2
Independent claim 1 recites:
A wearable smart device, with a built-in chargeable battery, in contact with a user for tracking an amount of time the user is mindful during a session of meditation, comprising:
a. an accelerometer and a gyroscope configured to recognize a tap input from the user to select and register at least one form of meditation from a list consisting of breathing, relaxation, and focus meditation to establish the session for monitoring;
b. a display displaying the registered form of meditation that will be tracked by the wearable smart device;
c. a plurality of photoplethysmograph sensors measuring beat-by-beat heart of the user;
d. a processor, interfaced with a wireless communication unit, configured to:
calculate time differences between consecutive heartbeats,
convert the time differences into a frequency power spectrum using fast Fourier transform, and
determine the amount of time the user is mindful during the session based on the selected at least one form of meditation and analysis of at least one of: the frequency power spectrum or time-domain variations between consecutive heartbeats.
All of the foregoing underlined elements identified above amount to the abstract idea grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity because they amount to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) by merely collecting information, analyzing the collected information, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis. These elements are also interpreted as a series of steps that could reasonably be performed by mental processes with the aid of pen and paper because the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) - A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process. Even if humans would use a physical aid to help them complete the recited steps, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of these limitations. Lastly, the determining steps amount to the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts because they recite mathematical calculations as defined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) which recites that a “claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the ‘mathematical concepts’ grouping” because a “mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word ‘calculating’ in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of ‘determining’ a variable or number using mathematical methods or ‘performing’ a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation."
The dependent claims, except for claims 8 and 9, amount to merely further defining the judicial exception.
Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception. (STEP 2A, PRONG 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d). The elements of the claims above that are not underlined constitute additional elements.
The following additional elements, both individually and as a whole, merely generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use: a wearable smart device with a built-in chargeable battery (claim 1); the wearable device comprising an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a display, a plurality of photoplethysmography sensors, and a processor interfaced with a wireless communication unit (claim 1); a vibrational motor (claim 4); a mobile phone (claim 6); reciting the wearable smart device is in a form of a ring that can be worn by the user (claim 8); a means of charging through a charging dock (claim 9). This is evidenced by the manner in which these elements are disclosed in the drawings and the instant specification. For example, Fig. 1-7 merely illustrate these elements as non-descript black boxes or stock images. Fig. 8 and 9 illustrate the charging dock, but the charging dock as claimed in claim 9 is ancillary to the claimed invention as it merely provides extra-solution storing and charging for the wearable smart device. Additionally, para. 25-28, 47, 50-64, and 79 merely provide stock descriptions of generic computer hardware and software components in any generic arrangement and illustrate that the claimed invention is merely using a software application to cause a computer to implement the judicial exception. For instance, para. 47 explicitly identifies that “[a]ny embodiment described herein is not necessarily to be construed as preferred or advantageous over other embodiments.” This amounts to evidence that the wearable smart device being in the form of a ring (claim 8) does not amount to a particular device because the ring is not preferred or advantageous over other embodiments of a wearable smart device that include all of these conventional elements. Thus, the computer components are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. The claims are silent regarding any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. None of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Again, this is evidenced by the manner in which these elements are disclosed in the drawings and specification as identified above. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the additional elements does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Additionally, the claims do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition nor do they apply or use a judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. For instance, the disclosure identifies that the claimed invention is for monitoring and tracking the mindfulness of a user. See, for example, at least para. 1 of the specification. This is neither a particular treatment for a disease or medical condition nor is it an application or use of a judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (STEP 2A, PRONG 2: YES).
Step 2B
The independent and dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under the considerations set forth in MPEP 2106.05. As identified in Step 2A, Prong 2, above, the claimed system and the process it performs does not require the use of a particular machine, nor does it result in the transformation of an article. Although the claims recite elements, identified above, for performing at least some of the recited functions, these elements are recited at a high level of generality in a conventional arrangement for performing their basic computer functions (i.e., collecting, processing, outputting data). This is evidenced by the manner in which these elements are disclosed in the instant specification. For example, Fig. 1-7 merely illustrate these elements as non-descript black boxes or stock images. Fig. 8 and 9 illustrate the charging dock, but the charging dock as claimed in claim 9 is ancillary to the claimed invention as it merely provides extra-solution storing and charging for the wearable smart device. Additionally, para. 25-28, 47, 50-64, and 79 merely provide stock descriptions of generic computer hardware and software components in any generic arrangement and illustrate that the claimed invention is merely using a software application to cause a computer to implement the judicial exception. For instance, para. 47 explicitly identifies that “[a]ny embodiment described herein is not necessarily to be construed as preferred or advantageous over other embodiments.” This amounts to evidence that the wearable smart device being in the form of a ring (claim 8) does not amount to a particular device because the ring is not preferred or advantageous over other embodiments of a wearable smart device that include all of these conventional elements. Thus, the computer components are merely an attempt to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but do not result in an improvement to the technology or computer functions employed. The claims do not recite any specific rules with specific characteristics that improve the functionality of the computer system. All of the steps are performing the functions of collecting information, analyzing the collected information, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis which is wholly encompassed in the judicial exception. Additionally, the accelerometer, gyroscope, and plurality of photoplethysmography sensors, as recited and organized, act to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere extra-solution data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea). Similarly, the display and vibrational motor, as recited and organized, act to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere extra-solution outputting in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea). None of the hardware offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the performance of the steps to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Again, this is evidenced by the manner in which these elements are disclosed in the instant specification as identified above. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of itself (STEP 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the denial of the benefit of priority have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant provides an additional copy of the Indian Provisional Application and asserts that the Indian provisional application provides description for the amended claims including reciting from that application.
Examiner is not persuaded. The additional copy of the Indian Provisional Application is considered. It is noted that the original copy was filed on 23 February 2024 as the Certified Copy of Foreign Priority Application. The citations provided by Applicant merely provide further evidence of the lack of sufficient written description as identified in the rejections of the claims for the associated claim limitations. For example, regarding the limitation “tracking the amount of time the user is mindful during a session of meditation”, merely reciting that the invention “effectively calculates the amount of time that the individual is meditating and mindful” without any meaningful description for identifying or evaluating when the individual is meditating and is mindful (which are separate determinations) does not reasonably provide sufficient written description for the limitation at issue. It is further noted the provisional application falls for the same reasons as the instant disclosure as identified in the denial of benefit of priority.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the drawings objections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the drawings have amended to overcome the objections.
Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant is directed to the objections which have been updated to address the amendments. For instance, Fig. 8 remains so blurry as to illegible.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the objections to the specification have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the specification have been amended to overcome the objections.
Examiner is not persuaded. While many of the amendments do obviate their associated objections, the amendments also at least introduce new matter. It is noted that MPEP 714 provides guidance when adding a single character as an amendment – “extra portions of text may be included before and after text being deleted, all in strike-through, followed by including and underlining the extra text with the desired change (e.g., number 14 as).”
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims objections have been fully considered. The amendments to the claims obviate the associated objections. Thus, these objections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claim interpretations under 35 USC 112(f) have been fully considered. The amending of the claims to either remove the language at issue or cancel the claim entirely render the interpretations moot. Thus, these interpretations are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In pg. 27-29, Applicant asserts that the claims have been amended to overcome the rejections.
Examiner is not persuaded. While many of the rejections are withdrawn due to the removal of language at issue and canceling of claims, the amendments necessitate updated rejections. Applicant is directed to the rejections of the claims which have been updated to address the claim amendments.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In pg. 23-27, Applicant asserts that the claims have been amended to overcome the rejections and that support can be found in the Indian Provisional Application and the instant specification.
Examiner is not persuaded. While many of the rejections are withdrawn due to the removal of language at issue and canceling of claims, the amendments necessitate updated rejections. Applicant is directed to the rejections of the claims which have been updated to address the claim amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:30 MT.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/DANIEL LANE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
1 Park, J., Seok, H. S., Kim, S.-S., & Shin, H. (2022). Photoplethysmogram analysis and applications: An integrative review. Frontiers in Physiology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.808451
2 Patil, A., & Hulwan, S. (2020). Heart-Rate Variability Estimation Using Photoplethysmography Signal. ISSN ABCD-PQRS Int. J. Adv. Res. Sci. Commun. Technol, 9(2).
Prosecution Insights