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 .
Remarks
Claims 1-21, filed 09/20/2024, are currently pending and are under examination.
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: the “communication unit” in claim 21. The communication unit is being understood as any wired or wireless communication module, as explained in par. [0086] of the published application.
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 § 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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method and server for monitoring diseases of a user. To determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility, the claim is evaluated according to a stepwise process as described in MPEP 2106(III) and 2106.03-2106.04. The instant claims are evaluated according to such analysis.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claims 1 and 11 are directed towards a method, and claim 21 is directed towards a server, and thus meets the requirements for step 1.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Claims 1, 11, and 21 recite a method and server for monitoring diseases of a user based on heart rate information, comprising obtaining type information of a wearable device and heart rate information, generating disease monitoring information, generating standardized heart rate information, generating disease monitoring information using the standardized heart rate information, and outputting the disease monitoring information. The limitation of a method and server for monitoring diseases of a user based on heart rate information as drafted in claims 1, 11, and 21, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of a wearable device, communication unit, storage, a controller, and a processor.
For example, monitoring diseases of a user in the context of this claim encompasses a human obtaining type information of a wearable device and heart rate information, generating disease monitoring information, generating standardized heart rate information, generating disease monitoring information using the standardized heart rate information, and outputting the disease monitoring information. Nothing in the elements of the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or using generic computing components.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The additional elements of a wearable device, communication unit, storage, a controller, and a processor are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components to acquire, process, analyze, and display data; See MPEP 2106.05(h)) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The wearable device provides generic structure for the insignificant, extra-solution activity of data gathering.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements when considered individually and in combination are not enough to qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a wearable device, communication unit, storage, a controller, and a processor amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to more than generically linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 depend on claims 1 and 11 and recite the same abstract idea as claims 1 and 11 from which they depend. Further, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the mental process). For example, the additional limitations recited in claims 2-10 and 12-20 (i.e. providing additional details about the data analysis performed) is further describing the data analysis performed. The additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception explained above (the abstract idea). Looking at the 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 any technology or includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provides a conventional computer implementation, i.e. the computer (processor) is simply a tool to perform the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6, 10, 11, 16, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capodilupo et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0079530), hereinafter Capodilupo, further in view of Park (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0243154).
Regarding claim 1, Capodilupo discloses a method of monitoring diseases of a user on the basis of heart rate information obtained by a wearable device (e.g. Abstract), the method comprising: obtaining the heart rate information (e.g. Par. [0028]: monitoring heart rate); generating disease monitoring information using the heart rate information through a disease monitoring module (e.g. Par. [0075]: sensing conditions related to heart rate); generating heart rate information using the heart rate information through a heart rate information module and generating the disease monitoring information using the heart rate information through the disease monitoring module (e.g. Par. [0028]; Par. [0075]); and outputting the disease monitoring information (e.g. Par. [0029]: device includes a display).
However, Capodilupo fails to specifically disclose obtaining type information of the wearable device and generating standardized heart rate information. Park is directed towards exercise equipment. Park discloses obtaining type information of the device and generating a standardized heart rate information (e.g. Par. [0024]: heart beat measuring signals; Par. [0079]: model number of the device is used; Par. [0081]: heartbeat parameter standardizes).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Capodilupo to include obtaining the type information and generating standardized heart rate information as taught by Park because doing so would allow calibration of the data for clearer data analysis.
Regarding claim 11, Capodilupo discloses a method of monitoring diseases of a user on the basis of heart rate information obtained by a wearable device (e.g. Abstract), the method comprising: obtaining the heart rate information (e.g. Par. [0028]: monitoring heart rate); generating heart rate information using the heart rate information through a heart rate information module (e.g. Par. [0028]; Par. [0075]); generating disease monitoring information using the heart rate information through a disease monitoring module (e.g. Par. [0075]: sensing conditions related to heart rate); and outputting the disease monitoring information (e.g. Par. [0029]: device includes a display).
However, Capodilupo fails to specifically disclose obtaining type information of the wearable device and generating standardized heart rate information. Park is directed towards exercise equipment. Park discloses obtaining type information of the device and generating a standardized heart rate information (e.g. Par. [0024]: heart beat measuring signals; Par. [0079]: model number of the device is used; Par. [0081]: heartbeat parameter standardized).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Capodilupo to include obtaining the type information and generating standardized heart rate information as taught by Park because doing so would allow calibration of the data for clearer data analysis.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Capodilupo further discloses wherein the heart rate information includes a plurality of heart rates corresponding to different points in time (e.g. Par. [0081]: heart rate data is time series). However, However, Capodilupo fails to specifically disclose generating standardized heart rate information. Park is directed towards exercise equipment. Park discloses generating a standardized heart rate information (e.g. Par. [0024]: heart beat measuring signals; Par. [0081]: heartbeat parameter standardized).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Capodilupo in view of Park to include generating standardized heart rate information as taught by Park because doing so would allow calibration of the data for clearer data analysis.
Regarding claim 10, Capodilupo further discloses using a sleep model or a non-sleep model, the heart rate information is generated using heart rate information obtained in sleep and the sleep model when the heart rate information is the heart rate information obtained in sleep (e.g. Par. [0043]; Fig. 6: steps 602, 604, and 606; Par. [0107]; Par. [0112]), and the heart rate information is generated using heart rate information obtained in non-sleep and the non-sleep model when the heart rate information is the heart rate information obtained in non-sleep (e.g. Fig. 5: step 502; Par. [0103]).
However, However, Capodilupo fails to specifically disclose generating standardized heart rate information. Park is directed towards exercise equipment. Park discloses generating a standardized heart rate information (e.g. Par. [0024]: heart beat measuring signals; Par. [0081]: heartbeat parameter standardized).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Capodilupo in view of Park to include generating standardized heart rate information as taught by Park because doing so would allow calibration of the data for clearer data analysis.
Regarding claim 20, Capodilupo further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores one or more instructions, wherein when the one or more instructions are executed by one or more processors of a device/server, the one or more instructions make the device/server perform the method of claim 1 (e.g. Par. [0034]).
Regarding claim 21, Capodilupo discloses a server for monitoring diseases of a user on the basis of heart rate information obtained by a wearable device (e.g. Abstract), the server comprising: a communication unit (e.g. Par. [0031]); a storage configured to store one or more instructions (e.g. Par. [0034]); and a controller configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the storage, wherein the controller executes the one or more instructions (e.g. Par. [0034]), thereby obtaining the heart rate information (e.g. Par. [0028]: monitoring heart rate); generating disease monitoring information using the heart rate information through a disease monitoring module (e.g. Par. [0075]: sensing conditions related to heart rate); generating heart rate information using the heart rate information through a heart rate information module and generating the disease monitoring information using the heart rate information through the disease monitoring module (e.g. Par. [0028]; Par. [0075]); and outputting the disease monitoring information (e.g. Par. [0029]: device includes a display).
However, Capodilupo fails to specifically disclose obtaining type information of the wearable device and generating standardized heart rate information. Park is directed towards exercise equipment. Park discloses obtaining type information of the device and generating a standardized heart rate information (e.g. Par. [0024]: heart beat measuring signals; Par. [0079]: model number of the device is used; Par. [0081]: heartbeat parameter standardizes).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Capodilupo to include obtaining the type information and generating standardized heart rate information as taught by Park because doing so would allow calibration of the data for clearer data analysis.
Claims 2-5, 7-9, 12-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capodilupo et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0079530), hereinafter Capodilupo, further in view of Park (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0243154), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Saripalli et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0337648), hereinafter Saripalli.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Capodilupo further discloses the training heart rate information is heart rate information obtained by a wearable device for a first time (e.g. Par. [0028]: monitoring heart rate; Par. [0190]: training the machine learning model). However, Capodilupo fails to disclose the heart rate information standardization model is a model trained using training heart rate information and reference heart rate information corresponding to the training heart rate information.
Saripalli, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards medical data processing. Saripalli discloses a model trained using training heart rate information and reference heart rate information corresponding to the training heart rate information (e.g. Pars. [0164], [0168], [0174]: one or more models are used and trained on time series medical data such as heart rate).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Capodilupo in view of Park to include the trained models as taught by Saripalli because doing so would result in accurate data analysis.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Capodilupo fails to disclose wherein the disease monitoring module is implemented using a first disease monitoring model, the generating of the disease monitoring information using the heart rate information includes generating the disease monitoring information by inputting the heart rate information into the first disease monitoring model, and the generating of the disease monitoring information using the standardized heart rate information includes generating the disease monitoring information by inputting the standardized heart rate information into the first disease monitoring model.
Saripalli, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards medical data processing. Saripalli discloses wherein the disease monitoring module is implemented using a first disease monitoring model, the generating of the disease monitoring information using the heart rate information includes generating the disease monitoring information by inputting the heart rate information into the first disease monitoring model, and the generating of the disease monitoring information using the standardized heart rate information includes generating the disease monitoring information by inputting the standardized heart rate information into the first disease monitoring model (e.g. Pars. [0164], [0168], [0174]: one or more models are used and trained on time series medical data such as heart rate).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Capodilupo in view of Park to include the multiple trained models as taught by Saripalli because doing so would result in accurate data analysis.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Capodilupo further discloses wherein the disease monitoring module is implemented using a disease monitoring model (e.g. Par. [0075]), the generating of the disease monitoring information using the heart rate information includes: generating a first rest period heart rate from the heart rate information (e.g. Par. [0081]: resting heart rate); generating a second rest period heart rate from the heart rate information (e.g. Par. [0081]: resting heart rate). However, Capodilupo fails to disclose generating the disease monitoring information by inputting the first and second rest period heart rate into the second disease monitoring model.
Saripalli, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards medical data processing. Saripalli discloses generating the disease monitoring information by inputting the first and second heart rate into a disease monitoring model (e.g. Pars. [0164], [0168], [0174]: one or more models are used and trained on time series medical data such as heart rate; Par. [0169]: models are used to determine events).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Capodilupo in view of Park to include generating the disease monitoring information by inputting the first and second heart rate into a disease monitoring model as taught by Saripalli because doing so would result in the detection of medical events.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Capodilupo further discloses wherein the disease monitoring module is implemented further using a rest period heart rate generation model, and the first rest period heart rate and the second rest period heart rate are generated by inputting the heart rate information and the standardized heart rate information into the rest period heart rate generation model, respectively (e.g. Par. [0081]: resting heart rate is determined).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Capodilupo fails to disclose generating one or more heart rate missing value from the plurality of heart rates, thereby generating missing value estimation heart rate information including the plurality of heart rates and the heart rate missing value, wherein the standardized heart rate information is generated through the heart rate information standardization module using the missing value estimation heart rate information. Saripalli, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards medical data processing. Saripalli discloses extrapolating data to complete medical records (e.g. Par. [0034]: acquired medical data can be extrapolated to complete the data).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Capodilupo in view of Park to include generating the disease monitoring information by inputting the first and second heart rate into a disease monitoring model as taught by Saripalli because doing so would result in a complete data ser that can be used in the detection of medical events.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Capodilupo wherein the heart rate information standardization module is implemented using a heart rate information standardization model, and the standardized heart rate information is generated by inputting the heart rate information into the heart rate information standardization model. Saripalli, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards medical data processing. Saripalli discloses wherein the heart rate information standardization module is implemented using a heart rate information standardization model, and the standardized heart rate information is generated by inputting the heart rate information into the heart rate information standardization model (e.g. Pars. [0164], [0168], [0174]: one or more models are used and trained on time series medical data such as heart rate).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Capodilupo in view of Park to include wherein the heart rate information standardization module is implemented using a heart rate information standardization model, and the standardized heart rate information is generated by inputting the heart rate information into the heart rate information standardization model as taught by Saripalli because doing so would result in accurate data analysis.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Capodilupo in view of Park further discloses obtaining type information of the device and generating standardized heart rate information (e.g. Park, Par. [0024]: heart beat measuring signals; Par. [0079]: model number of the device is used; Par. [0081]: heartbeat parameter standardized). However, Capodilupo in view of Park fails to specifically disclose wherein the heart rate information standardization module is implemented using a first type model and a second type model, the standardized heart rate information is generated using the heart rate information and the first type model when the type information corresponds to a first type that is not the reference type, and the standardized heart rate information is generated using the heart rate information and the second type model when the type information corresponds to a second type that is not the reference type.
Saripalli, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards medical data processing. Saripalli discloses using multiple models to generate standardized heart rate information (e.g. Pars. [0164], [0168], [0174]: one or more models are used and trained on time series medical data such as heart rate).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Capodilupo in view of Park to include the multiple models as taught by Saripalli because doing so would result in accurate data analysis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eldardiry et al. (US 2017/0049374) is directed towards remote patient monitoring.
Lee (US 2020/0005944) is directed towards a health information prediction device.
Zhang et al. (US 2019/0178980) is directed towards vital signs monitoring.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHREYA P ANJARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-9083. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00 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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHREYA ANJARIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/ALLEN PORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights