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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 20-21, 23 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 contains the limitation “wherein the instructions further cause the device to providing…” and the examiner has understood this to be a typo and should be “…cause the device to provide”
Claim 21 contains the limitation “…in a process of standing up or a sitting up” and the examiner has understood this to be a typo and should be “…in a process of standing up or sitting up.”
Claim 23 contains the limitation “…cause the deice to:…” and the examiner has understood this to be a typo and should be “…cause the device to:…”
Claim 24 contains the limitation “…store the one or more orthostatic metrics form the monitoring device.” and the examiner has understood this to be a typo and should be“…store the one or more orthostatic metrics from the monitoring device.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention details a system and method (Step 1) directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 1-24 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of Claims 1-24 recites at least one step or instruction for determining one or more orthostatic metrics, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, each of Claims 1-24 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites
A method comprising:
during a stand-up or sit-up evaluation:
generating, by data processing hardware, photoplethysmogram (PPG) data and motion data continuously; (additional element)
in response to detecting, based on the motion data, that an angle associated with a user’s posture indicates that the user is in a supine position, associating, by the data processing hardware, the PPG data with a first phase; (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
in response to detecting, based on the motion data, that the angle associated with the user’s posture indicates that the user is in a standing up position or a sitting up position, associating, by the data processing hardware, the PPG data with a third phase; and (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
determining one or more orthostatic metrics based on the PPG data associated with the first phase and the PPG data associated with the third phase. (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and/or a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Additionally, Claim 15 recites
A device comprising:
one or more processors; and (additional element)
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the monitoring device to: (additional element)
obtain photoplethysmogram (PPG) data and motion data; (additional element)
in response to determination, based on the motion data, that an angle associated with a user’s posture indicates that the user is in a supine position, associate the PPG data with a first phase; (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
in response to determination, based on the motion data, that the angle associated with the user’s posture indicates that the user is in a standing up position or a sitting up position, associate the PPG data with a third phase; and (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
determine one or more orthostatic metrics based on the PPG data associated with the first phase and the PPG data associated with the third phase. (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and/or a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Furthermore, Claim 23 recites
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to:
generate photoplethysmogram (PPG) data and motion data continuously; (additional element)
in response to determination, based on the motion data, that an angle associated with a user’s posture indicates that the user is in a supine position, associate the PPG data with a first phase; (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
in response to determination, based on the motion data, that the angle associated with the user’s posture indicates that the user is in a standing up position or a sitting up position, associate the PPG data with a third phase; and (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
determine one or more orthostatic metrics based on the PPG data associated with the first phase and the PPG data associated with the third phase. (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and/or a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Lastly, Claim 24 recites
A system comprising:
a monitoring device comprising: (additional element)
one or more first processors; and (additional element)
first memory storing first instructions that, when executed by the one or more first processors, cause the monitoring device to: (additional element)
generate photoplethysmogram (PPG) data and motion data continuously; (additional element)
in response to determination, based on the motion data, that an angle associated with a user’s posture indicates that the user is in a supine position, associate the PPG data with a first phase; (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
in response to determination, based on the motion data, that the angle associated with the user’s posture indicates that the user is in a standing up position or a sitting up position, associate the PPG data with a third phase; (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
determine one or more orthostatic metrics based on the PPG data associated with the first phase and the PPG data associated with the third phase; and (Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and/or a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
providing the one or more orthostatic metrics to a computing device; and
the computing device comprising: (additional element)
one or more second processors; and (additional element)
second memory storing first instructions that, when executed by the one or more second processors, cause the computing device to: (additional element)
store the one or more orthostatic metrics form the monitoring device. (additional element)
Further, dependent Claims 2-14 and 16-22 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 claimed functions/steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 15 and 23-24 (and their respective dependent 2-14 and 16-22) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1, 15 and 23-24), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). More specifically, the additional elements of: processors (first and second), memory (first and second), PPG data, motion data, and computing device are generic and used for data gathering adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception in independent Claims 1, 15 and 23-24 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) 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 according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). 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 in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 15 and 23-24 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., external programming device or computer 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 according to MPEP 2106.05(f).
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 according to MPEP 2106.05(a). 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 Claims 1, 15 and 23-24 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 15 and 23-24 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of Claims 1-24 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: processors (first and second), memory (first and second), PPG data, motion data, and computing device. 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. 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, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with 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.
Per Applicant’s instant specification, [00230] and [00233] the processor can be embodied in a digital electronic and/or optical circuitry, specially designed ASICs, computer hardware, firmware and/or both general and special microprocessors which are generic computers that are commercially available. Additionally, [00224] details a memory which can be a computer-readable medium, a volatile memory, or non-volatile memory units which are all generic and commercially available. Furthermore, the instant specification details in [0056] a photoplethysmogram sensor that is capable of measuring blood volume and/or blood flow and/or blood oxygen level which are the basic functionalities of most PPG sensors which are generic sensors that are commercially available. The Instant Specification details [0029] that a motion sensor could be an accelerometer or configured to generate motion data such as acceleration (in X-, Y-, and Z- axis). Lastly in the instant specification, [0027], [0083], or [00227] details that computing device can be a computer or smart device such as smartphone which are both generic and commercially available.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term processor is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. 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 technology, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for computers. 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 MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies] previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1, 15 and 23-24 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 MPEP 2106.05(f) along with 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. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with 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, per MPEP 2106.05(a), 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 system of Claims 1-24 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 providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing 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 according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
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 Claims 1, 15 and 23-24 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). 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 according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, 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 according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 1-24 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-24are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 5 and 19 are duplicates of claims 4 and 18, respectively and therefore do not further limit the claims. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7, 13, and 15-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tzvieli (US 2019/0313915 A1) in view of Haas (US 2024/0260892 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 23, Tzvieli discloses a method (e.g. abstract) and non-transitory computer-readable medium (e.g. [0114];[0462]-[0463] Fig 35a:403) comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to: during a stand-up or sit-up evaluation (e.g. abstract; [0079]-[0084]): generating, by data processing hardware, photoplethysmogram (PPG) data (e.g. [0061]-[0062]) and motion data continuously (e.g. [0074]-[0075]); in response to detecting, based on the motion data, that a user’s posture indicates that the user is in a supine position, associating, by the data processing hardware, the PPG data with a first phase (e.g. [0074]-[0075]; [0079]-[0085]); in response to detecting, based on the motion data the user’s posture indicates that the user is in a standing up position or a sitting up position, associating, by the data processing hardware, the PPG data with a third phase (e.g. e.g. [0074]-[0075]; [0079]-[0085]); and determining one or more orthostatic metrics based on the PPG data associated with the first phase and the PPG data associated with the third phase (e.g. [0079]-[0084).
Tzvieli is silent regarding wherein the motion data utilizes an angle associated with the user’s posture to know whether it is in a supine, standing up or sitting up position.
However, Haas discloses a system and method for sensor-based, digital patient assessments regarding wherein the motion data utilizes an angle associated with the user’s posture to know whether it is in a supine, standing up or sitting up position (e.g. [0116]; [0127]; [0184]; [0199]-[0206]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Tzvieli to incorporate the teachings of Haas wherein the motion data utilizes an angle associated with the user’s posture to know whether it is in a supine, standing up or sitting up position in order to properly diagnose, prevent or treat various diseases (e.g. Haas [0116]).
Regarding claim 15, Tzvieli discloses a device comprising: one or more processors (e.g. [0114]; [0462] Fig 35a:401); and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (e.g. [0114];[0462]-[0463] Fig 35a:403), cause the monitoring device to: obtain photoplethysmogram (PPG) data (e.g. [0061]-[0062]) and motion data (e.g. [0074]-[0075]); in response to determination, based on the motion data, that a user’s posture indicates that the user is in a supine position, associate the PPG data with a first phase (e.g. [0074]-[0075]; [0079]-[0085]); in response to determination, based on the motion data that the user’s posture indicates that the user is in a standing up position or a sitting up position, associate the PPG data with a third phase (e.g. e.g. [0074]-[0075]; [0079]-[0085]); and determine one or more orthostatic metrics based on the PPG data associated with the first phase and the PPG data associated with the third phase (e.g. [0079]-[0084).
Tzvieli is silent regarding wherein the motion data utilizes an angle associated with the user’s posture to know whether it is in a supine, standing up or sitting up position.
However, Haas discloses a system and method for sensor-based, digital patient assessments regarding wherein the motion data utilizes an angle associated with the user’s posture to know whether it is in a supine, standing up or sitting up position (e.g. [0116]; [0127]; [0184]; [0199]-[0206]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Tzvieli to incorporate the teachings of Haas wherein the motion data utilizes an angle associated with the user’s posture to know whether it is in a supine, standing up or sitting up position in order to properly diagnose, prevent or treat various diseases (e.g. Haas [0116]).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, modified Tzvieli discloses further comprising: in response to detecting, based on the motion data, that the angle associated with the user’s posture indicates that the user is in a process of standing up or a sitting up, associating, by the data processing hardware, the PPG data with a second phase (e.g. Tzvieli [0079]-[0080]).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, modified Tzvieli is silent regarding wherein the instructions further cause the device to provide an indication or prompt for when to stand up or sit up during the first stand-up or sit-up evaluation.
Tzvieli does disclose that the system can send visual and/or auditory notifications to the user in order to get the user to change an action (e.g. [0200]).
However, Haas discloses a system and method for sensor-based, digital patient assessments regarding prompts or notifications to solicit a specific action or posture which can come in the form of vibration, sound light or display notification (e.g. [0185]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method and system of Tzvieli to incorporate the teachings of Haas to cause the device to provide an indication or prompt for a change in posture for the purpose of being able to have the user in the desired position at the desired time (e.g. Tzvieli [0200] Haas [0185]).
Regarding claims 4, 5, 18 and 19, modified Tzvieli discloses wherein in the instructions further cause the device to inform the user to complete transition to the stand-up position or sit-up position within a predetermined time and remain stationary thereafter (e.g. Tzvieli [0200] Haas [0185]).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, modified Tzvieli is silent regarding wherein the instruction further cause the device to provide the one or more orthostatic metrics to the user or healthcare provider associated with the user.
However, Haas discloses a system and method for sensor-based, digital patient assessments regarding wherein the instruction further cause the device to provide the data to the user or healthcare provider associated with the user (e.g. [0146]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified system and method of Tzvieli wherein the instruction further cause the device to provide the data to the user or healthcare provider associated with the user for the purpose of allowing the user to be updated on their data.
Regarding claims 7 and 21, modified Tzvieli discloses wherein the instruction further cause the device to associate the PPG data with a third phase, in response to determination, based on the motion data, that the angle associated with the user’s posture indicates that the user is in a process of standing up or sitting up (e.g. Tzvieli [0079]-[0084] Haas [0116]; [0127]; [0184]; [0199]-[0206]).
Regarding claims 13 and 22, modified Tzvieli discloses wherein the instructions further cause the device to determine a likelihood of the user having an orthostatic disorder based on the one or more orthostatic metrics (e.g. Tzvieli [0079]-[0080]).
Regarding claim 24, Tzvieli discloses a system comprising: a monitoring device (e.g. [0062]-[0065]) comprising: one or more processors (e.g. [0114]; [0462] Fig 35a:401); and first memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (e.g. [0114];[0462]-[0463] Fig 35a:403), cause the monitoring device to: generate photoplethysmogram (PPG) data (e.g. [0061]-[0062]) and motion data continuously (e.g. [0074]-[0075]); in response to determination, based on the motion data, that a user’s posture indicates that the user is in a supine position, associate the PPG data with a first phase (e.g. [0074]-[0075]; [0079]-[0085]); in response to determination, based on the motion data that the user’s posture indicates that the user is in a standing up position or a sitting up position, associate the PPG data with a third phase (e.g. e.g. [0074]-[0075]; [0079]-[0085]); and determine one or more orthostatic metrics based on the PPG data associated with the first phase and the PPG data associated with the third phase (e.g. [0079]-[0084); and providing the one or more orthostatic metrics to a computing device (e.g. [0461]-[0462] Fig 35b:410); and the computing device comprising: one or more second processors (e.g. [0461]-[0462] Fig 35b:411); and second memory storing first instructions that, when executing by the one or more second processors (e.g. [0461]-[0465] Fig 35b:412), cause the computing device to: store the one or more orthostatic metrics from the monitoring device (e.g. [0461]-[0465]).
However, Haas discloses a system and method for sensor-based, digital patient assessments regarding wherein the motion data utilizes an angle associated with the user’s posture to know whether it is in a supine, standing up or sitting up position (e.g. [0116]; [0127]; [0184]; [0199]-[0206]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Tzvieli to incorporate the teachings of Haas wherein the motion data utilizes an angle associated with the user’s posture to know whether it is in a supine, standing up or sitting up position in order to properly diagnose, prevent or treat various diseases (e.g. Haas [0116]).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tzvieli in view of Haas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pantelopoulos (US 2017/0209053 A1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Tzvieli is silent regarding wherein the PPG data is normalized based on a temperature.
However, Pantelopoulos discloses a system and method for calibrating physiological wherein the PPG data is normalized based on a temperature (e.g. [0168]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified method of Tzvieli wherein the PPG data is normalized based on a temperature for the purpose of proper pulse wave analysis (e.g. Pantelopoulos [0196]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Goodman (US 2023/0284963 A1) discloses a system and method for performing assessments based on orthostatic measurements including identifying peaks, first and second derivatives, minimums, averages, maximums, and ratios of the data based on the orthostatic responses at different time period based on if the individual is in a sitting position or standing position.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSANDRA F HOUGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7902. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 am - 4 pm.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)270-5625. 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.
Jessandra Hough August 13, 2026
/J.F.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights