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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/6/25 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The amendment filed 10/6/25 is acknowledged. Claims 1-4,6-20 and 23 are pending. Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1, 7, 11 are amended. Claim 5 is canceled.
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.
Claim 1-4, 6-12, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) estimating and monitoring a heart rate or peripheral blood volume pulse; performing facial age estimation; and estimating a maximum heart rate. The abstract idea is part of the Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Process group(s) identified in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer; data-gathering steps do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity; there is no improvement to a computer or other technology; does not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine. The additional elements are identified as follows: a processor, memory, an imaging/non-contact vital signs sensor and a display. The claim(s) does/do 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 a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional computer and data-gathering elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer and data-gathering functions that do not add meaningful limitations to practicing the abstract idea.
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by Lin et al. Estimation of vital signs from facial videos via video magnification and deep learning; 2023. Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The Federal Circuit has held that combining additional elements for data-gathering with abstract ideas does not make a claim patent-eligible. Looking at the claim limitations 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 or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Regarding the dependent claims, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data gathering that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry. Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known data-gathering equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 6, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Islam (US 2023/0277065 A1), in view of Clarke (US 2006/0228681 A1), further in view of Griffin (US 2010/0205431 A1), further in view of Levi et al. (Age and gender classification using convolutional neural networks; 2015; IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops), hereinafter Levi, further in view of Liu et al. (rPPG-Toolbox; https://github.com/ubicomplab/rPPG-Toolbox; 2023), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding Claim 1, Islam teaches: A system for remote monitoring of a workout (abstract), comprising: a device including: a processor (paragraph 0270); a non-transient memory (paragraph 0270 – computer/servers are known to have non-transient memory); and an imaging sensor or other non-contact vital signs sensor (paragraph 0427), the non-transient memory having computer-readable instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the processor, perform steps including: capturing imagery of at least a face of a subject (paragraph 0423), estimating and monitoring a heart rate or peripheral blood volume pulse (BVP) from the imagery using remote photoplethysmography (rPPG) (paragraph 0427), performing facial age estimation using computer vision to analyze the imagery of the face to estimate an age of the subject (paragraph 0442) and a display peripheral configured to display an indication of the calculated data (paragraph 0237).
Islam does not mention estimating a maximum heart rate using at least the age of the subject, calculating a Heart Rate Zone as a predetermined percentage of the maximum heart rate.
Clarke teaches that a maximum heart rate can be estimated based on the age of the subject which can then be used to form heart rate zones (paragraph 0032) and displayed (paragraph 0042-0047). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Islam to include estimating a maximum heart rate using at least the age of the subject, calculating a Heart Rate Zone as a predetermined percentage of the maximum heart rate in order to provide effective training zones to a subject.
Islam, in view of Clarke do not mention wherein the device further including or is in communication with wireless communications components and wherein the device is configured to send captured data of the user to a remote network and wherein facial data of the subject is not stored on the device and is hidden behind a hashed unique user identification (UUID) on the remote network.
Griffin teaches securely storing biometric data detected telemetry data of the user is sent to the remote network and wherein the user's facial data is hidden behind a hashed unique user identification (UUID) (paragraph 0004, 0024-0025) and not stored on the main device (figure 1; paragraph 0118). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Islam in view of Clarke wherein the device further including or is in communication with wireless communications components and wherein the device is configured to send captured data of the user to a remote network and wherein facial data of the subject is not stored on the device and is hidden behind a hashed unique user identification (UUID) on the remote network to securely store user data.
Islam in view of Clarke further in view of Griffin do not explicitly mention the use of supervised and unsupervised rPPG machine learning models to estimate and monitor heart rate or peripheral blood volume. Liu teaches the use of supervised and unsupervised rPPG machine learning models to estimate and monitor heart rate or peripheral blood volume (Liu readme.md section: Predicting BVP signal and calculate heart rate on UBFC with POS/CHROME/ICA/GREEN/PBV/LGI; see also Applicant’s Specification paragraph 9 lines 6-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Islam in view of Clarke further in view of Griffin to use supervised and unsupervised rPPG machine learning models to estimate and monitor heart rate or peripheral blood volume for a more accurate estimation.
Islam in view of Clarke further in view of Griffin, further in view of Liu do not explicitly mention the use of machine learning models to perform facial age estimation. Levi teaches the use of machine learning models to perform facial age estimation as well as gender determination (abstract; see also Applicant’s Specification page 8 line 24 - page 9 line 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system of Islam in view of Clarke further in view of Griffin in view of Liu to use machine learning models to perform facial age estimation for a more accurate estimation.
Regarding Claim 2, Islam in view of Clarke further in view of Griffin in view of Liu in view of Levi teach: The system of claim 1, further including a display (paragraph 0272). Islam does not mention displaying an indication of the calculated heart rate zone.
Clarke teaches displaying an indication of the calculated heart rate zone (figure 7; paragraph 0044). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Islam to include displaying an indication of the calculated heart rate zone rate in order to provide effective feedback to a subject.
Regarding Claim 3, Islam in view of Clarke further in view of Griffin in view of Liu in view of Levi teach: The system of claim 1, further including a display (paragraph 0272). Islam does not mention displaying an indication of a Training Goal based on the calculated heart rate zone.
Clarke teaches displaying an indication of a Training Goal based on the calculated heart rate zone (paragraph 0044-0048; displaying target zones for training and recovery – i.e. a training goal). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Islam to include displaying an indication of a Training Goal based on the calculated heart rate zone in order to provide effective feedback to a subject.
Regarding Claim 4, Islam in view of Clarke further in view of Griffin in view of Liu in view of Levi teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the device further includes wireless communications components and wherein the device is configured to send captured data to a central computer or a remote network or the central computer and remote network (Islam - paragraph 0012; 0235-0240; ).
Regarding Claim 6, Islam in view of Clarke further in view of Griffin in view of Liu in view of Levi teaches: The system of claim 4, wherein the central computer or remote network communicates data to a user device (paragraph 0044-0048) but Islam does not mention that the data communicated is including at least one of: a Training Goal, a heart rate zone, a comparison to one or more previous workouts, a number of reps, and a number of sets.
Clarke teaches transmitting data wirelessly to a user device – which includes training data including heart rate zones (paragraph 0021-0022; figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Islam to include that the data communicated is including at least one of: a Training Goal, a heart rate zone, a comparison to one or more previous workouts, a number of reps, and a number of sets for the convenience of the user.
Regarding Claim 12, Islam in view of Clarke further in view of Griffin in view of Liu in view of Levi teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is selected from the group including: a central processing unit (CPU), a Graphics processing unit (GPU), a combination CPU and GPU, a Tensor Processing Unit (TPU), a neural processing unit (NPU), and a combination of two or more thereof (Islam – paragraph 0235, 0236; 0513).
Regarding Claim 23, Islam in view of Clarke further in view of Griffin in view of Liu in view of Levi teach: The system of claim 4, wherein the central computer or the remote network or the central computer and remote network are configured to perform one or more of: estimating and monitoring a heart rate or BVP, performing the facial age estimation, estimating the maximum heart rate, calculating the Heart Rate Zone, Training Goal, a heart rate zone, a comparison to one or more previous workouts, a number of reps, and a number of sets ((Islam - paragraph 0012; 0235-0240; 0427; 0442; See also Clarke - paragraph 0021-0022; 0032; figure 1).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Islam, in view of Clarke, further in view of Griffin in view of Liu in view of Levi further in view of Nicolaescu et al. (US 2007/0239038 A1), hereinafter Nicolaescu.
Regarding Claim 7, Islam in view of Clarke further in view of Griffin in view of Liu in view of Levi teach: The system of claim 1, further detecting a gender of the subject based on computer vision analysis of the imagery of the face using machine learning models (Islam - paragraph 0442; Levi - abstract) but does not mention wherein the maximum heart rate is further estimated based on the gender of the subject.
Nicolaescu teaches that the max heart rate of a subject can be determined based on age as well as gender (paragraph 0066). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Islam in view of Clarke further in view of Griffin to include wherein the maximum heart rate is further estimated based on the gender of the subject for a more accurate determination of max heart rate.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Islam, in view of Clarke, further in view of Griffin further in view of Liu in view of Levi in view of Berrey et al. (US 2013/0109647 A1), hereinafter Berrey further in view of Stone et al. (US 2013/0307693 A1), hereinafter Stone.
Regarding Claim 8, Islam, in view of Clarke further in view of Griffin in view of Liu in view of Levi teach: The system of claim 1, but fail to mention wherein a weight of the subject is estimated based on the estimated height of the subject and artifacts of the imagery of a body of the subject, analyzed using computer vision.
Berrey teaches that a subject’s weight can be estimated based on a height of a subject (paragraph 0039; estimate a healthy body weight based on a person's height). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Islam in view of Clarke further in view of Griffin to include wherein a weight of the subject is estimated based on the estimated height of the subject for a more accurate determination of subject’s weight or goal weight.
Islam, in view of Clarke further in view of Griffin in view of Liu in view of Levi, further in view of Berrey fail to mention the use of image artifacts in estimating weight.
Stone teaches that weight estimation can also be based on comparison to known reference objects within the visual field (i.e. image artifacts as best understood by the Examiner; paragraph 0010). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Islam in view of Clarke further in view of Griffin in view of Liu in view of Levi in view of Berrey to include the use of image artifacts in estimating weight of a subject for a more accurate determination of subject’s weight.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Islam, in view of Clarke, further in view of Griffin in view of Liu in view of Levi further in view of Tsuda et al. (US 2012/0236126 A1), hereinafter Tsuda.
Regarding Claim 9, Islam, in view of Clarke further in view of Griffin in view of Liu in view of Levi teach: The system of claim 1, but do not mention wherein the computer-readable instructions executed by the processor are further configured to estimate a height of the subject using a predefined height of the imaging sensor above a surface on which the subject is standing and computer vision analysis of the captured imagery.
Tsuda teaches that a subject’s height can be determined based on the sensor size/height (paragraph 0133). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Islam, in view of Clarke further in view of Griffin in view of Liu in view of Levi wherein the computer-readable instructions executed by the processor are further configured to estimate a height of the subject using a predefined height of the imaging sensor above a surface on which the subject is standing and computer vision analysis of the captured imagery for a more accurate estimation of height.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Islam, in view of Clarke further in view of Griffin, in view of Liu in view of Levi further in view of Tsuda, further in view of Berrey, further in view of Stone.
Regarding Claim 10, Islam, in view of Clarke further in view of Griffin in view of Liu in view of Levi, further in view of Tsuda teach: The system of claim 9, but do not mention wherein a weight of the subject is estimated based on the estimated height of the subject and artifacts of the imagery of the face of the subject analyzed using computer vision.
Berrey teaches that a subject’s weight can be estimated based on a height of a subject (paragraph 0039; estimate a healthy body weight based on a person's height). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Islam in view of Clarke further in view of Griffin in view of Liu in view of Levi to include wherein a weight of the subject is estimated based on the estimated height of the subject for a more accurate determination of subject’s weight or goal weight.
Islam, in view of Clarke, further in view of Griffin further in view of Tsuda, in view of Berrey fail to mention the use of image artifacts in estimating weight.
Stone teaches that weight estimation can also be based on comparison to known reference objects within the visual field (i.e. image artifacts as best understood by the Examiner; paragraph 0010). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Islam in view of Clarke in view of Tsuda, in view of Berrey to include the use of image artifacts in estimating weight of a subject for a more accurate determination of subject’s weight.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Islam, in view of Clarke further in view of Griffin, in view of Liu in view of Levi further in view of Tsuda, further in view of Berrey, further in view of Stone, further in view of Keytel et al. (Prediction of energy expenditure from heart rate monitoring during submaximal exercise; 2005), hereinafter Keytel.
Regarding Claim 11, Islam, in view of Clarke, further in view of Griffin in view of Liu in view of Levi further in view of Tsuda, further in view of Berrey, further in view of Stone teach: The system of claim 10 but do not mention wherein a number of calories burned is estimated based on the heart rate zone and the weight.
Keytel teaches that energy expenditure (i.e. calories burned) can be estimated based on the heart rate and the weight of the subject (page 11; EE = gender x (-55.0969 + 0.6309 x heart rate + 0.1988 x weight + 0.2017 x age) + (1 - gender) x (-20.4022 + 0.4472 x heartrate - 0.1263 x weight + 0.074 x age) 0014). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Clarke further in view of Griffin, further in view of Tsuda, further in view of Berrey, further in view of Stone to include wherein a number of calories burned is estimated based on the heart rate zone and the weight for an accurate assessment of a user’s physical activity.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Regarding 101 Rejections, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a mathematical concept, rather the claimed invention merely involves mathematical equation but does not claim mathematical concepts in an abstract sense. Examiner disagrees. “Estimating and monitoring a heart rate or peripheral blood volume pulse; performing facial age estimation; and estimating a maximum heart rate” are explicit mathematical concepts.
Applicant further argues the claimed invention is akin to the use of algorithms for improving a computer. Examiner notes that “To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology.” MPEP 2106.05(a)II
Applicant further argues that calculating HRZ is a practical application. Examiner disagrees and notes that “calculating” is an abstract idea. The abstract idea cannot itself be the practical application.
Applicant further argues that the claims contain additional elements that are significantly more. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated previously, the additional elements are well known and conventional and do not amount to significantly more.
Regarding 103 Rejections, Applicant argues that Islam cannot be modified to teach the claimed limitations as doing so would results in the prior art reference becoming unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Islam is directed to determining physiological characteristics of a user which is directly analogous to the claimed invention. Therefore the rejection is maintained.
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 JAY B SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-0686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 Robertson can be reached at 571-272-5001. 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.
JAY SHAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/JAY B SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791