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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/18/2024 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 13-15, 17, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 13: –a– should be inserted before “healthy”;
Claim 1, line 16: –a– should be inserted before “health”;
Claim 1, line 20: –with– should be inserted before “either”;
Claim 4, line 1: the comma after “matrices” should be deleted;
Claim 4, line 3: “holds” should be replaced with –hold–;
Claims 13 and 14 should be included and labeled as “cancelled”;
Claim 15, line 15: –state– should be inserted before “associated”;
Claim 17, line 1: –the at least one– should be inserted before “interpretable”;
Claim 17, line 1: “features” should be replaced with –features–; and
Claim 19, line 1: “a low” should be replaced with –the low–.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Anomaly detection system” in claims 1 and 15 because it uses a generic placeholder (i.e., “system”) that is coupled with functional language (i.e., “anomaly detection”) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The limitation is being interpreted to correspond to “a convolution neural network trained on PPG signal data from other users” of ¶ [0010] of the Applicant’s specification, and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-12 and 15-20 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 “conventional analysis” in line 4, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “conventional” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, it is unclear when something starts/stops being considered conventional/unconventional. Claims 2, 9, 10, and 15 recite the same limitation, so they are rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 1 recites “features such as, but not limited to” in lines 5-6. The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the features following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination, the features (e.g., crest time, SEVR, etc.) will not be interpreted to be a part of the claimed invention. Claim 12 recites a similar limitation, so it is rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 1 recites “using an anomaly detection system, exemplified by a convolution neural network trained on pulse waveform data” in lines 8-9. The phrase "exemplified by" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination, the recitation will be interpreted to be “using an anomaly detection system comprising a convolution neural network trained on pulse waveform data”
Claim 1 recites “a low dimension representation” in line 10, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, it is unclear when something starts/stops being considered low/high. The Examiner suggests replacing the recitation with “a two-dimensional or three-dimensional representation”. Claims 5, 7-10, 15, and 19 recite the same limitation, so they are rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 1 recites “(two-dimensional or three-dimensional)” in lines 10-11. The parenthetical themselves render the claim indefinite since it is not clear if the parentheticals are part of the claimed invention or not. Parentheticals are used for reference numerals (which are not part of the claimed invention) and in equations (which are part of the claimed invention). The parentheticals of claim 1 fall into neither of these categories such that it is not clear what the intended meaning of these parentheticals are. Claim 5 also recites a parenthetical, so claim 5 is rejected on similar grounds. The Examiner suggests deleting the parentheticals.
Claim 1 recites “the two-dimensional/three-dimensional space” in line 12. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Second, it is unclear what “two-dimensional/three-dimensional” means. Does it mean two-dimensional and/or three dimensional? Or does it have some other meaning? The Examiner suggests clarifying how the space is related to the two-dimensional or three-dimensional representation of the feature vector.
Claim 1 recites “the class” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim does not previously recite a class.
Claim 1 recites “interpretable engineered one dimensional (1D) features” in line 5 and “interpretable engineered 1D features” in line 15. It is unclear how these features in lines 5 and 15 are related to each other. Are they the same as, related to, or different from each other? If they are the same, consistent terminology should be used. If they are different or related, the relationship between the two should be made clear (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, clear distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). Additionally, step (b) in lines 4-7 and step (f) in lines 15-16 include steps for the generation of the features, but it is unclear how there can be two different steps for generating the same features. For the purposes of examination, the recitation in line 5 will be interpreted to be “first interpretable engineered one dimensional (1D) features”, and the recitation in line 15 will be interpreted to be “second interpretable engineered 1D features”.
Claim 1 recites “the interpretable engineered features” in lines 17 and 19. It is unclear whether it refers to “interpretable engineered one dimensional (1D) features” in line 5 or “interpretable engineered 1D features” in line 15. The Examiner suggests clarifying how the recitation in line 17 is related to the recitation in line 5 or 15. Claims 2, 3, 9, and 10 recite similar limitations, so they are rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 1 recites “the healthy/disease/unknown output” in lines 17-18. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Second it is unclear how “healthy/disease/unknown” should be interpreted. Does it mean “heathy, disease, or unknown”? The Examiner suggests clarifying how “the healthy/disease/unknown output” of lines 17-18 and “healthy, specific condition or unknown” in line 13 are related.
Claim 1 recites “‘unknown’” in line 18. It is unclear how the single quotation marks should be interpreted. A single quotation mark generally either indicates a quote within a quotation or replaces standard double quotation marks in headlines. The recitation of “‘unknown’” falls into neither of these categories such that it is not clear what the intended meaning is. Clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites “resolve 'unknown' anomalies as being healthy or unhealthy based on whether the interpretable engineered features have 1D values associated either health or specific condition” in lines 18-20, which is so grammatically awkward that the meaning is unclear. How should “values associated either health or specific condition” be interpreted? What does it mean to “resolve ‘unknown’ anomalies as being healthy or unhealthy”? Clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites “the health states” in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim does not previously recite health states.
Claim 1 recites “providing feedback to the user, or to a third party, regarding the health states of the user where in the case of an unknown label output” in lines 21-22. It is unclear how “where in the case of an unknown label output” relates to the other parts of the limitation. The phrase also appears to be incomplete.
Claims 2-12 and 20 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claims 16-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 15.
Claim 2 recites “a conventional analysis” in line 1. Claim 1 recites “a conventional analysis” in line 4. It is unclear whether these recitations are the same as, related to, or different from each other. For the purposes of examination, the recitation in claim 2 will be interpreted to be “the conventional analysis”.
Claim 2 recites “(a) determine the critical points” in line 2. Claim 1 recites “extraction of critical points” in line 5. Both recitations seem to include steps which determine the critical points. However, it is unclear how the second step can be used for determining the critical points determined in the first step. The Examiner suggests clarifying how the determination in claim 2 is related to the extraction of claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “the PPG pulse waveform” in line 2, “the exhaustive set of features” in line 3, “the PPG, VPG, and APG signals” in line 4, “the health related… features” in line 6, “the exhaustive set of features calculated from a difference” in line 7. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “the critical point” in line 3. Claim 1 recites “critical points” in line 5. It is unclear which of the plurality of critical points is being referred to by “the critical point” in claim 2. For the purposes of examination, the recitation in claim 2 will be interpreted to be “the critical points”.
Claim 2 recites “two critical points” in line 7. Claim 1 recites “critical points” in line 5. It is unclear whether the recitations refer to the same, different, or related critical points. For the purposes of examination, the recitation in claim 2 will be interpreted to be “two of the critical points”.
Claim 2 recites “c) determine the health related and interpretable engineered one dimensional (1D) features from the exhaustive set of features calculated from a difference between any two critical points in the form of amplitude, timespan, subarea, and slope features” in lines 6-8. First, it is unclear how the recitation is related to the extraction of “interpretable engineered one dimensional (1D) features” of line 5 of claim 1. Are there two different steps for determining the features? Or does the recitation in claim 2 somehow further limit the recitation in claim 1? Second, it is unclear what is “in the form of amplitude, timespan, subarea, and slope features”. Is it the difference or the two critical points?
Claim 2 recites “small subset” in line 9, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear when something starts/stops being considered to be a small/large subset. The Examiner suggests deleting “small”.
Claim 3 recites “crest time, normalized crest time, SEVR, ejection duration, ejection duration index, large artery stiffness index, small artery resistance and features relating to hypertension” in lines 2-3. Claim 1 recites the same limitations in lines 6-7. It is unclear whether these recitations are the same as, related to, or different from each other. The Examiner suggests deleting the recitations of “such as, but not limited to, crest time, normalized crest time, SEVR, ejection duration, ejection duration index, large artery stiffness index, small artery resistance and features relating to hypertension”.
Claim 3 recites “are derived from…” in line 3. However, the recitation is grammatically awkward such that the meaning is unclear. Are all of the features or just the features relating to hypertension derived from the exhaustive set of features? For the purposes of examination, the recitation will be interpreted to be “, wherein the interpretable 1D features are derived from”.
Claim 3 recites “the exhaustive set of features calculated from the x- and y-coordinates of the critical points” in line 4. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim because the claim does not previously recite (A) the x- and y- coordinates and (B) an exhaustive set of features calculated from said coordinates.
Claim 5 recites “e.g. Fourier spectrum” in line 3. The phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The Examiner suggests deleting the parenthetical.
Claim 5 recites “the low dimensional representative manifold” in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim does not previously recite the manifold.
Claim 6 recites “the input data” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim does not previously recite input data.
Claim 6 recites “a one-dimensional representation of the PPG signal” in line 2. Claim 5 recites “a one dimensional… representation” in line 2. It is unclear how these features in claims 5 and 6 are related to each other. Are they the same as, related to, or different from each other? For the purposes of examination, the recitation in claim 6 will be interpreted to be “the one-dimensional representation of the PPG signal”.
Claim 6 recites “including Fourier spectrum, Lomb-Scargle periodogram or by cardiopulmonary coupling” in lines 3-4. Due to the grammatical structure, it is unclear how these limitations are related to the other features of claim 6. Does it mean that the representations comprise a Fourier spectrum or the periodogram? If so, how does a representation comprise a cardiopulmonary coupling?
Claim 7 recites “a one- or two-dimensional representation” in line 1. Claim 5 recites “a one dimensional or two-dimensional representation” in line 2. It is unclear how these features in claims 5 and 7 are related to each other. Are they the same as, related to, or different from each other? For the purposes of examination, the recitation in claim 7 will be interpreted to be “the one- or two-dimensional representation”.
Claim 7 recites “the PPG signal data” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim does not previously recite PPG signal data. The Examiner suggests deleting “data”.
Claim 7 recites “the output features set” in line 2 and “the low dimensional representative framework” in line 3. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “the feature set classes” in line 2 and “the health state regions” There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 9 recites “the low dimensional representative manifold” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim does not previously recite a low dimensional representative manifold.
Claim 9 recites “the health state” in line 4. Claim 1 recites “the health states” in line 21. It is unclear which of the plurality of health states is being referred to by the recitation in claim 9.
Claim 10 recites “the unknown regions” in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim does not previously recite unknown regions.
Claim 11 recites “interested third parties” in line 2, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, the determination of an interested party is subjective.
Claim 11 recites “displays including… phone calls, text messages, emails, or web-based dashboards”, which is unclear because phone calls, text messages, emails, or web-based dashboards are not understood to be displays.
Claim 12 recites “the computational aspects” in line 1 and “the invention” in line 1. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “the computational aspects of the invention are performed remotely on devices” in lines 1-2. It is unclear when the devices are considered to be remote because there is no frame of reference.
Claim 15 recites “a healthy state or a associated with another condition” in lines 15-16. First, the recitation appears to be incomplete. Second, it is unclear how this recitation is related to “a healthy state or a state associated with another condition” in lines 8-9 of claim 15. For the purposes of examination, the recitation in lines 15-16 will be interpreted to be “the healthy state or another state associated with another condition”.
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 1-12 and 15-20 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. Claims 1-12 and 15-20 do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons provided below which are in line with the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, p 74618, December 16, 2014), the July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 146, p. 45429, July 30, 2015), the May 2016 Subject Matter Eligibility Update (Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 88, p. 27381, May 6, 2016), the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, p. 50, January 7, 2019), and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 89, No. 137 p. 58128, July 17, 2024).
The analysis of claim 1 is as follows:
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is a statutory category.
Step 2A - Prong 1: Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea in the form of a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Additionally or alternatively, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea in the form of mathematical algorithms and/or formulas.
In particular, claim 1 recites the following limitations:
[A1]: preprocessing of the PPG signal for a conventional analysis of the PPG signal and extraction of critical points and interpretable engineered one dimensional (1D) features such as, but not limited to crest time, SEVR, ejection duration index, large artery stiffness index, small artery resistance and features relating to hypertension;
[B1]: using a dimension reduction method to construct a low dimensional representation (two- dimensional or three-dimensional) of the feature vector;
[C1]: labeling sections of the two-dimensional/three-dimensional space as corresponding to healthy, specific condition or unknown based on the class assigned to the PPG signal by the anomaly detection system;
[D1]: creating interpretable engineered 1D features that refer to specific physiological processes associated with health risk;
[E1]: using the interpretable engineered features together with the healthy/disease/unknown output of the anomaly detection system, to resolve 'unknown' anomalies as being healthy or unhealthy based on whether the interpretable engineered features have 1D values associated either health or specific condition.
These elements [A1]-[E1] of claim 1 are directed to an abstract idea because they are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are mere steps that are capable of being mentally performed with the aid of pen and paper. For example, a skilled artisan is capable of analyzing a PPG signal to determine the features, reducing dimensions of a feature vector, labeling sections of the feature vector, determining additional features, and analyzing unknown anomalies using other knowledge to determine the specific condition. Additionally or alternatively, the elements [A1], [B1], and [D1] are directed to an abstract idea because they are directed to mathematical algorithms and/or formulas.
Step 2A - Prong Two: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
[A2]: collecting a user’s PPG signal using a wearable device;
[B2]: using an anomaly detection system, exemplified by a convolution neural network trained on pulse waveform data, to produce a feature vector in a latent space;
[C2]: providing feedback to the user or to a third party, regarding the health states of the user where in the case of an unknown label output
The elements [A2]-[C2] do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
The elements [A2] and [C2] do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the elements amount to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - See MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g).
The element [B2] does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception because the element amounts to (A) mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or (B) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, - See MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, each of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
[A2]: collecting a user’s PPG signal using a wearable device;
[B2]: using an anomaly detection system, exemplified by a convolution neural network trained on pulse waveform data, to produce a feature vector in a latent space;
[C2]: providing feedback to the user or to a third party, regarding the health states of the user where in the case of an unknown label output
The elements [A2]-[C2] do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The element [A2] does not qualify as significantly more because the element amounts to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality in conjunction with the abstract idea that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements - see MPEP 2106.04(d); MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, the element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by ¶ [0022] of US 2018/0206733 A1 (Kasan).
The element [B2] does not qualify as significantly more because the element is simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Additionally or alternatively, the element generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). Additionally, the element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by ¶¶ [0086]-[0087] of US 2023/0148879 A1 (Wang).
The element [C2] does not qualify as significantly more because the element amounts to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display - see MPEP 2106.04(d); MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, the element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by ¶ [0117] of US 2013/0141233 A1 (Jacobs).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Independent claim 15 recite a similar method which is not patent eligible for substantially similar reasons.
Claims 2-12 and 20 depend from claim 1, and they recite the same abstract idea as claim 1. Claims 16-19 depend from claim 15, and they recite the same abstract idea as claim 15. Furthermore, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the mental process or mathematical algorithm) and/or append abstract ideas (that is, the claims only recite limitations that add further mental processes or mathematical algorithms) except for the following limitations.
Claim 4 recites “techniques for setting up covariance matrices, or principal component analysis”. However the above element does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or qualify as significantly more because the element amounts to merely (A) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality in conjunction with the abstract idea that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements - see MPEP 2106.04(d); MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or (B) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.04(d); MPEP 2106.05(h). Additionally, the element is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as is evidenced by ¶ [0027] of US 2009/0144022 A1 (Li).
Claim 5 recites “a convolutional neural network is constructed: (a) from a one dimensional or two-dimensional representation (via frequency domain methods, e.g. Fourier spectrum) of the PPG signal”. However the above element does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or qualify as significantly more because the element amounts to (A) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality in conjunction with the abstract idea that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements - see MPEP 2106.04(d); MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or (B) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.04(d); MPEP 2106.05(h). Additionally, the element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by ¶ [0076] of US 2023/0290511 A1 (Kallonen).
Claim 7 recites “a one- or two-dimensional representation of the PPG signal data is used as input data to train the CNN and to obtain the output feature set which is mapped onto the low dimensional representative framework using methods including t-SNE or PCA”. However the above element does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or qualify as significantly more because the element amounts to (A) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality in conjunction with the abstract idea that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements - see MPEP 2106.04(d); MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or (B) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.04(d); MPEP 2106.05(h). Additionally, the element is well-understood, routine, and conventional. US 2023/0290511 A1 (Kallonen) teaches the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of a one- or two-dimensional representation of the PPG signal data being used as input data to train the CNN and to obtain the output feature set in ¶ [0076]. US 2022/0157468 A1 (Li) teaches the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of mapping onto a low dimensional representative framework using methods including t-SNE or PCA in ¶ [0099]. Claim 19 recites similar elements that do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or qualify as significantly more for similar reasons.
Claim 11 recites “feedback is given to users and interested third parties using displays including desktop computer display, laptop display, smartphone display, wearable device display, phone calls, text messages, emails, or web-based dashboards”. However the above element does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or qualify as significantly more because the element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.04(d); MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, the element is well-understood, routine and convention as evidenced by ¶ [0007] of US 2012/0271554 A1 (Shelley).
Claim 12 recites “the computational aspects of the invention are performed remotely on devices”. However the above element does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or qualify as significantly more because the element is simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93).
Claims 16 and 20 recites “a convolutional neural network is constructed: (a) from a one dimensional or two-dimensional representation (via frequency domain methods, e.g. Fourier spectrum) of the PPG signal”. However the above element does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or qualify as significantly more because the element amounts to (A) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality in conjunction with the abstract idea that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements - see MPEP 2106.04(d); MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, the element is well-understood, routine and convention as evidenced by ¶ [0006] of US 2007/0244377 A1 (Cozad).
In view of the above, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
No Prior Art Rejections
There are no prior art rejections of claims 1-12 and 15-20.
With regards to claim 15, the prior art does not teach or suggest “(c) using an anomaly detection system on the PPG signal to produce a feature vector in a latent space and to produce a classification of the PPG signal corresponding to a healthy state or a state associated with another condition;” “(e) labeling the low dimensional representation of the PPG signal corresponding to the state classified by the anomaly detection system;” and “(g) resolving anomalies labeled as unknown as belonging to a healthy state or a associated with another condition” along with the other features of claim 15. Claim 1 recites similar features which are not taught or suggested by the prior art. Claims 2-12 and 20 are not rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1. Claims 16-19 are not rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 15.
The closest prior art is US 2021/0280322 A1 (Frank) which teaches a system for identifying a health status of a user (¶ [0010] discloses generating a health score by a wearable device can be used to provide a verified health status for the user), (a) collecting a user’s PPG signal using a wearable device (¶ [0011] discloses measuring a PPG using a wearable sensor), (b) preprocessing the PPG signal for a conventional analysis of the PPG signal to:(i) extract at least one interpretable engineered one dimensional (1D) feature from the PPG signal (¶¶ [0114]-[0121] depict extraction of 1D features from the PPG signal); (d) constructing a low dimensional representation of a feature vector (¶ [0202] discloses LDA-based dimensionality reduction. Although Frank further teaches differentiating between a sick/healthy patient (¶ [0149]), Frank does not teach or suggest “(c) using an anomaly detection system on the PPG signal to produce a feature vector in a latent space and to produce a classification of the PPG signal corresponding to a healthy state or a state associated with another condition;” “(e) labeling the low dimensional representation of the PPG signal corresponding to the state classified by the anomaly detection system;” and “(g) resolving anomalies labeled as unknown as belonging to a healthy state or a associated with another condition” along with the other features of claim 15.
US 2002/0049568 A1 (Erdogan) teaches a reduced-dimension class space which allows for unknown feature vectors to be appropriately associated with a specific class (Fig. 3 and ¶ [0043]; also see Fig. 6), but Erdogan does not teach or suggest the above features.
US 2020/0118691 A1 (Kiljanek) teaches resolving anomalies labeled as unknown as belonging to a specific condition (¶ [0090] discloses requesting input from one or more experts 105 regarding the previously-unknown features and/or feature values such that a machine learning engine 210 can be trained using these newly generated simulated patient population datasets with the previously-unknown features to learn to understand which outcomes are associated with which feature values of the previously-unknown features), but Erdogan does not teach or suggest “(c) using an anomaly detection system on the PPG signal to produce a feature vector in a latent space and to produce a classification of the PPG signal corresponding to a healthy state or a state associated with another condition” and “(e) labeling the low dimensional representation of the PPG signal corresponding to the state classified by the anomaly detection system”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL C KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8637. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571) 272-5596. 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.
/S.C.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
