DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment submitted April 5, 2026. Claims 1 and 6 are amended. Claims 2, 4 – 5, 7, and 9 are cancelled. Claims 10 – 25 are new. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 10 – 25 are pending.
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 .
Drawings
The objection to the drawings are withdrawn based upon the amendment submitted April 5, 2026.
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, 3, 6, 8, and 10 – 25 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.
Step One
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 10 – 25 are drawn to a method and device, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One
Independent claims 1 and 6 recite receiving information about a person’s vital signs; generating displayable information that includes the person’s vital signs; wherein the displayable information is shown in real-time; and displaying the information.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity, as reflected in the specification, which states that system and methods described in the invention provides a non-invasive remote healthcare monitoring system collects information about a person’s vital signs, including heart rate and a breathing rate. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims cover certain methods of organizing human activity because they address a need which “provides for a secure, efficient solution for vital signs monitoring by improving patient outcomes and reducing healthcare costs through accessible and effective monitoring technology” (see: specification page 23). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).”
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including:
Claim 1: “computing device”, “electronic”, “router”, “the electronic information is received wirelessly …..transmitting router’, “the electronic information includes Wi-Fi Channel State Information (CSI)”, “display”, “encrypted”
Claim 3: “a presentation layer, an application layer, and a data layer”
Claim 6: “device”, “one or more processors”, “electronic”, “router”, “the electronic information is received wirelessly …..transmitting router’, “the electronic information includes Wi-Fi Channel State Information (CSI)”, “displayable”, “encrypted”
Claim 8: “device”, “a presentation layer, an application layer, and a data layer”
Claims 10, 12, 16 – 17: “electronic”
Claim 14: “carriers”, “Wi-Fi channel bandwidth”
Claims 15, 22 – 23: “carriers”
Claims 18 – 19, 21: “device”
Claim 20: “device”, “window sizes”, “electronic”, “signal”
Claims 24 – 25: “device”, “electronic”
These features are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these 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.
Hence, 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. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The published specification supports this conclusion as follows:
[0065] User device 2902 and/or 2904 may include any computation or communications device that is capable of communicating with a network (e.g., network 2901). For example, user device 2902 and/or user device 2904 may include a radiotelephone, a personal communications system (PCS) terminal (e.g., that may combine a cellular radiotelephone with data processing and data communications capabilities), a personal digital assistant (PDA) (e.g., that can include a radiotelephone, a pager, Internet/intranet access, etc.), a smart phone, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a camera, a personal gaming system, a television, a set top box, a digital video recorder (DVR), a digital audio recorder (DUR), a digital watch, a digital glass, or another type of computation or communications device.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 3, 8, and 10 – 25when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 4 – 6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darrah et al., herein after Darrah (U.S. Publication Number 2010/0305412 A1) in view of Thiagarajan (U.S. Publication Number 2022/0218256 A1) based upon the amendment submitted April 5, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the order in which they were presented.
Claim Rejections under 101
The Applicant argues claims 1 and 6 of the present application cannot be practically performed in the mind, citing Example 39 of the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Example 39 recites “A computer-implemented method of training a neural network for facial detection comprising: collecting a set of digital facial images from a database; applying one or more transformations to each digital facial image including mirroring, rotating, smoothing, or contrast reduction to create a modified set of digital facial images; creating a first training set comprising the collected set of digital facial images, the modified set of digital facial images, and a set of digital non-facial images; training the neural network in a first stage using the first training set; creating a second training set for a second stage of training comprising the first training set and digital non-facial images that are incorrectly detected as facial images after the first stage of training; and training the neural network in a second stage using the second training set”, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The additional elements of Example 39 recite a specific manner of performing an iterative training algorithm, in which the system is retrained with an updated training set containing false positives introduced after face detection was performed on a set of non-facial images. The present claims differ such that the additional elements of claim 1 include “computing device”, “electronic”, “router”, “the electronic information is received wirelessly …..transmitting router’, “the electronic information includes Wi-Fi Channel State Information (CSI)”, “display”, “encrypted”. The claim, as a whole, merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of non-intrusive and continuous monitoring of a person’s vital sign (as described in the Applicant’s specification). In addition, the specification does not disclose training or machine learning. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to continuously monitor a patient’s vital sign. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The Applicant’s published specification recites:
[0026] Referring now to FIG. 1, medical system 100 is shown, in accordance with some embodiments. The system 100 is shown to include medical source 114, a medical information navigation engine (MINE) 112, and medical information consumers (also referred to herein as "output" or "medical output") 117. The medical source 114 are shown to include one or more electronic health records (EHR) llS and 120, health information exchange (HIE) 122, and a picture archiving and communication system (PACS) 124. The MINE 112 is shown to include interface 113, a back-end medical processor 116, and a front-end medical processor 115.
[0046] The processor 115, in some embodiments, includes display and visualization 340 executing on one or more servers 238, which may be any suitable computing engine, similar to the servers 232, including but not limited to PCs or servers. The display 340 is used to construct presentation and display information to users, such as the patient's records, billing information, and other types of medical information. The display 340, in some embodiments, also performs processing of some of the functions of the processor 115.
[0047] The foregoing modules may be software programs, executed by a computer or computing engine of suitable sorts, or may be implemented in hardware.
[0048] FIG. 3 shows an exemplary embodiment implementing the system 100 using various devices. That is, the medical system 330 is analogous to the system 100 and is shown to include the sources 114 coupled to communicate, securely, through the secure communication link 342, to the interface 113. The link 342 may be any suitable communication channel allowing information, of various formats and types, to be transferred to the interface 113 in a secure and encrypted fashion. Exemplary communication channels of which the link 342 is made include the Internet, VPN connections over the Internet, private dedicated digital lines such as Tl, T3, El, E3, SONET, and other fiber optic formats.
[0049] The interface 113, in some embodiments, is a software program that executes on one or more servers 232, which can be a server of any kind of suitable computing engine, such as personal computer (PC). The servers 232 receive secure information through the link 342 from the sources 114. The processor 116, in some embodiments, includes the module 236 and one or more servers 234, which may be any suitable computing engine, similar to the servers 232, including but not limited to PCs or servers.”
[0051] The processor 115, in some embodiments, includes display and visualization 340 executing on one or more servers 238, which may be any suitable computing engine, similar to the servers 232, including but not limited to PCs or servers. The display 340 is used to construct presentation and display information to users, such as the patient's records, billing information, and other types of medical information. The display 340, in some embodiments, also performs processing of some of the functions of the processor 115.
In addition, the limitations “the electronic information is received from a receiving router located at a particular distance from the person”, “the electronic information is received wirelessly, and the receiving router receives the electronic information from a transmitting router located at a particular distance from the person”, the electronic information includes Wi-Fi Channel State Information (CSI), wherein the CSI is a complex number”, and “the electronic information is not received from an device physically attached on the person’s body” are extra solution activity related to data gathering. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In Flook, the Court reasoned that "[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula". 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; Id. (holding that step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was "post-solution activity"). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012) (additional element of measuring metabolites of a drug administered to a patient was insignificant extra-solution activity). MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity [R-08.2017].
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTINE K RAPILLO whose telephone number is (571)270-3325. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 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, Fonya Long can be reached at 571-270-5096. 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.
/K.K.R/Examiner, Art Unit 3682 /ROBERT A SOREY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights