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
Claims 9-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 12th, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-8) in the reply filed on June 12th, 2026 is acknowledged.
Amendment Entered
In response to the amendment filed on June 12th, 2026, new claims 22-24 are entered. Claims 19-21 are canceled and claims 9-18 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-8 and 22-24 are currently under examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “to perform the steps of:” in line 3, but should read “to perform:”
Claim 1 recites “the latent space differentiating” in line 4, but should read “the latent space configured to differentiate”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 22-24 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.
Claim 1 recites “the cardiovascular age” in line 13. It is unclear as to whether this limitation is referring to the previously recited “cardiovascular age associated with each of the heart pulse samples” in lines 5-6, the previously recited “cardiovascular age for the user” in line 11, or a separate element. The future recitations of “cardiovascular age” inherit, but fail to remedy this indefiniteness.
Claim 1 recites “pulse of heart rate data” in line 9. It is unclear as to whether this limitation is referring to the previously recited “heart pulse samples” in line 5, or a separate element. The future recitations of “pulse of heart rate data” inherit, but fail to remedy this indefiniteness.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the cardiovascular age relative to a population of users" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites "the age" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear as to whether this limitation is referring to the previously recited “cardiovascular age”, or a separate element.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the step of evaluating" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the step of adjusting" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the "corresponding age data" in line 6. It is unclear as to whether this limitation is referring to the previously recited “cardiovascular age”, or a separate element.
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 1-8 and 22-24 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 significantly more.
Each of claims 1-8 and 22-24 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 1
Claims 1-8 and 22-24 recite a computer program product. Thus, the claims are directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of claims 1-8 and 22-24 recites at least one step or instruction for estimating cardiovascular age, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of claims 1-8 and 22-24 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of: “the latent space differentiating among heart pulse samples in the photoplethysmography data according to a cardiovascular age associated with each of the heart pulse samples” and “identifying a pulse of heart rate data in the photoplethysmography signal for the user; transforming the pulse of heart rate data into the latent space with an autoencoder; estimating the cardiovascular age for the user based on a location of the pulse of heart rate data in the latent space”.
The above claim limitations constitute an abstract idea that is part of the Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes group identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019.
“A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words ….” October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, II. A. i. “[T]here are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping.” Id. at II. A. ii. “[A] claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation.” Id. at II. A. iii. See for example, SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The claimed steps of differentiating, identifying, transforming, and estimating recite a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations). The step of “transforming the pulse of heart rate data into the latent space with an autoencoder” in independent claim 1 is a mathematical relationship, that is accomplished by training an autoencoder.
Furthermore, the claimed steps of differentiating, identifying, transforming, and estimating can be practically performed in the human mind using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas. “[T]he ‘mental processes’ abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. The pending claims merely recite steps for calculation that include observations, evaluations, and judgments.
The step of storing a latent space is pre-solution activity, the step of acquiring signals is considered data-gathering, and the step of presenting is considered data-outputting, which are all categorized as extra-solution activity and does not add significantly more to the abstract ideas identified, as they merely specify the nature of the data which is exploited in the steps encompassing a mental process. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The collected data is manipulated by the steps of differentiating, identifying, transforming, and estimating, which further recite a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), which is then outputted to present the results to the user. The Applicant’s Specification discloses that algorithms and thresholds are all utilized to compute mathematical relationships in order to estimate the cardiovascular age for the user, which all fall under mathematical concepts.
Further, dependent claims 2-8 and 22-24 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent claim 1 (and its dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: “computer program product comprising computer executable code embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium”, “one or more computing devices”, “a wearable physiological monitor”, and an “autoencoder” are generically recited computer elements in independent claim 1 (and its dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field or considered as data-gathering elements. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claim 1 (and its dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed machine merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., “computer program product comprising computer executable code embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium” and “one or more computing devices” as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claim 1 (and its dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent claim 1 (and its dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of claims 1-8 and 22-24 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of “computer program product comprising computer executable code embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium”, “one or more computing devices”, “a wearable physiological monitor”, and an “autoencoder”. The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks or considered as data-gathering elements. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
The Applicant’s specification discloses wherein the additional elements of “computer program product comprising computer executable code embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium” and “one or more computing devices” (according to paragraphs [0040] and [0182-0190]) comprise generic computer components that are configured to perform generic computer functions (e.g. storing, differentiating, identifying, transforming, and estimating); wherein the “autoencoder” (according to paragraphs [0152]) may be “any machine learning model that encodes pulse shapes to a latent space”; and wherein the “wearable physiological monitor” (according to paragraphs [0041], [0055-0066], [0153], [0181]) is used for generic data-gathering, which are all well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed terms “computer program product comprising computer executable code embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium” and “one or more computing devices” are reasonably construed as generic computing devices. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed steps.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the “computer program product comprising computer executable code embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium” and “one or more computing devices”. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts.
In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in claims 1-8 and 22-24 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.
Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the computer program product of claims 1-8 and 22-24 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of claims 1-8 and 22-24 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent claim 1 (and its dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations 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 itself. Thus, claims 1-8 and 22-24 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the claims 1-8 and 22-24 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claims 1-8 and 22-24 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ritscher et al (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0071487; cited by Applicant) teaches a probability-based usage of multiple estimators of a physiological signal, wherein a physiological signal such as a heart rate acquired from a monitoring device is processed to reduce interference, ambiguity, or artifacts arising during various activities (Abstract), and wherein the analytics system computes, stores and displays one or more indicators or scores relating to the user's body, health and physical training including, but not limited to, an intensity score, a recovery score, and/or a fitness score ([0080-0083]).
Xie et al (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0026655; cited by Applicant) teaches a machine learning system for patient similarity (Abstract), including a diversity-promoting distance metric learning (DPDML) model, wherein said PSM system is configured to perform PSM tasks by receiving inputs of the electronic health records (EHRs) of two patients, and generating an output of a score that indicates the similarity of the two patients; and further utilizing a latent space to compute the similarity of the representations ([0017-0019], [0024-0029]).
Banerjee et al (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0038044; cited by Applicant) teaches a method for measuring blood pressure of a subject (Abstract), the method including obtaining a plurality of photoplethysmogram (PPG) features associated with the subject. The method further includes ascertaining one or more latent parameters associated with the subject based on the plurality of PPG features and a reference model, wherein the reference model indicates a correlation between the plurality of PPG features and the one or more latent parameters. Further, blood pressure of the subject is determined based on the one or more latent parameters and the plurality of PPG features ([0027-0031], [0038-0042]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANEL J YOON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2695. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on 571-272-4233. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANEL J YOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights