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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1 – 9 and 13 – 20) in the reply filed on 21 July 2026 is acknowledged.
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 – 9 and 13 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method of collecting data, processing data, and sending it to a cloud service (claims 1 – 9) and generic sensors, a generic processor, and a cloud service (claims 13 – 20). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Step 1
Claims 1 – 9 are a process. Claims 13 – 20 are a machine. Statutory categories are met.
Step 2A, Prong One
The claims recite an abstract idea in the mental process and mathematical concept groupings.
Independent claim 1 recites receiving first and second physiological data sets from two wearable devices, generating one or more overall values of one or more physiological metrics from those sets, and sending the overall values to a cloud service.
Independent claim 13 recites a mobile computer system configured to perform the same steps as listed in claim 1.
These limitations evaluate two observations, compute a combined value, and transmit the data. The observation and computing steps can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. The transmitting data step is a generic step. “Generating an overall value” is a mathematical calculation.
The dependents do not add significantly more.
Claims 2 and 14
Determining whether the two data sets are consistent (abstract idea)
Claims 3 and 15
Limit the metric to heart rate, respiratory rate, or temperature (all well known and taken with generic sensors)
Claims 4 – 6 and 16 – 18
Specify types of sensors. All are known and don’t add significantly more
Claims 7 and 19
Receiving known data and comparing (abstract idea)
Claims 8 – 9 and 20
Introduce AI to identify the correlations among the parameters. The use of AI does not take the limitation out of the abstract idea grouping when no particular model or process is claimed
Step 2A, Prong Two
The exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements are a computer system with processors and storage, wearable devices, conventional sensors (ECG, PPG, thermometer, accelerometer), a cloud service, and an AI model. Collecting physiological parameters from wearables and forwarding data to a cloud service is extra-solution data gathering and data output. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The additional elements do not amount to significantly more for the reasons listed above. Processors, memory, wearable devices, sensors, and cloud services are well known, routine, and conventional components. Combining physiological data is a routine and conventional mathematical calculation. The use of an AI model without further specificity does not supply an inventive concept.
Considered individually or in combination, the claims are merely conventional computer and sensor hardware used in an abstract idea. Please see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meftah et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0000347 – in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Meftah discloses a method, implemented at a computer system (e.g. ¶ 42; computer implemented method of monitoring patient vital signs), for using a plurality of wearable devices to monitor physiological data (e.g. ¶ 24, 25, 50), comprising:
receiving one or more first sets of physiological data from a first wearable device that is placed at a first location of a wearer body (e.g. ¶ 24, 50);
receiving one or more second sets of physiological data using a second wearable device that is placed at a second location of the wearer body (e.g. ¶ 24, 50);
generating one or more overall values of one or more physiological metrics based on the one or more first sets of physiological data and the one or more second sets of physiological data (e.g. ¶ 50; the first set of temperature data from the first set of temperature sensors are compared to determine if they are reliably coupled and a second set of temperature data from a second set of temperature sensors are compared to determine if they are reliably coupled, wherein a reliable temperature value - overall value - is determined based on whether the first and second set of temperature data are reliably coupled); and
sending the one or more overall values of the one or more physiological metrics to a cloud service (e.g. ¶ 40, 50)
Regarding claim 2, Meftah discloses determining whether the one or more first sets of physiological data and the one or more second sets of physiological data are consistent with each other (e.g. ¶ 50);
in response to determining that the one or more first sets of physiological data and the one or more second sets of physiological data are consistent with each other, sending one or more overall values of the one or more physiological metrics to the cloud service (e.g. ¶ 40, 45 – 47, 50); and
in response to determining that the one or more first sets of physiological data and the one or more second sets of physiological data are inconsistent with each other, refraining from sending data to the cloud service (e.g. ¶ 30, 40, 45 – 47, 50).
Regarding claim 3, Meftah discloses the physiological metric is at least one of (1) a heart rate of the wearer, (2) a respiratory rate of the wearer, or (3) a temperature of the wearer (e.g. ¶ 50).
Regarding claim 4, Meftah discloses the plurality of wearable devices include a plurality of types of sensors; receiving a first set of physiological data from a first type of sensor; and receiving a second set of physiological data from a second type of sensor (e.g. ¶ 50).
Regarding claim 5, Meftah discloses each of the plurality of wearable devices include a plurality of types of sensors (e.g. ¶ 50).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6, 7, and 13 – 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meftah et al. in view of McCombie et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0163393 – in IDS).
Regarding claim 6, Meftah discloses the method as previously described. Meftah fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of types of sensors comprises two of more of the following: (1) an electrocardiography (ECG) heart rate sensor, (2) a photoplethysmogram (PPG) heart rate sensor, (3) a thermometer, and (4) an accelerometer.
However, McCombie teaches that it is known to monitor vital signs (e.g. ¶ 3) and further teaches (1) an electrocardiography (ECG) heart rate sensor, (2) an photoplethysmogram (PPG) heart rate sensor, (3) a thermometer, and (4) an accelerometer (e.g. ¶ 57 and 66 – 68).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the vital sign monitoring system of Meftah by incorporating a plurality of sensors including ECG, PPG, accelerometers and thermometers, as suggested by McCombie, for the purpose of enhancing reliability in monitoring a range of patient data for quickly assessing and treating a variety of health risks and conditions.
Regarding claim 7, Meftah further discloses receiving the first set of physiological data and the second set of physiological data includes: receiving a first heart rate generated by the heart rate sensor; receiving a second heart rate generated by the heart rate sensor; and computing an overall heart rate based on the first heart rate and the second heart rate (e.g. ¶ 20, 24, 50, 60, 67). Meftah fails to explicitly disclose an ECG and PPG sensor.
However, McCombie teaches an ECG and PPG sensor (e.g. ¶ 57 and 66 – 68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the vital sign monitoring system of Meftah by incorporating a plurality of sensors including ECG, PPG, accelerometers and thermometers, as suggested by McCombie, for the purpose of enhancing reliability in monitoring a range of patient data for quickly assessing and treating a variety of health risks and conditions.
Regarding claims 13 – 19, Meftah discloses a computer system comprising for performing the method as described above. Meftah fails to disclose a mobile computing system. However, McCombie teaches monitoring vital signs (e.g. ¶ 3) and further teaches a mobile computing system (e.g. ¶ 17, 57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the vital sign monitoring system of Meftah by incorporating a mobile computing system, as suggested by McCombie, for the purpose of enhancing flexibility in assessing patient health data while the patients are engaged in everyday activity such as walking and running.
Claim(s) 8, 9, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meftah et al. in view of McCombie et al. as applied to claims 6 and 19 above, and further in view of Balajadia et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0353137 – in IDS).
Regarding claims 8, 9, and 20, Meftah in view of McCombie discloses the method and system as described above, but fails to disclose using a machine-trained artificial intelligence (AI) model to identify correlations among the heart rate, the body temperature, or the respiratory rate.
However, Balajadia teaches monitoring vital signs (e.g. ¶ 21) and further teaches using a machine-trained artificial intelligence (AI) model to identify correlations among the heart rate, the body temperature, or the respiratory rate (e.g. ¶ 4 – 6, 8 – 11, and 32 – 33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the vital sign monitoring system of Meftah in view of McCombie by incorporating a machine learning model to identify correlations of desired vital signs, as suggested by Balajadia, for the purpose of accurately identifying and assessing critical health conditions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M DIETRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1895. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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 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.
/JOSEPH M DIETRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights