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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/22/2025 and 07/07/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-18, 20, 25-26, 29-31, and 33-35 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16, line 4 reads "cause the apparatus at least to perform:" should read "causes the apparatus to perform at least the following:".
Claim 16, line 6 reads “the obtained data” should read “said data”.
Claim 16, line 13 reads “has a confidence level” should read “have the confidence level”.
Claim 17, lines 1-2 read “said cardiorespiratory coupling ratio” should read “said stored cardiorespiratory coupling ratio”.
Claim 18, line 2 reads “the lowest confidence level” should read “the lower confidence level”.
Claim 18, lines 3-4 read “has a confidence level below” should read “have the confidence level below”.
Claim 20, line 3 reads “user heart profile” should read “user heart rate profile”.
Claim 25, line 1 reads “comprise” should read “comprises”.
Claim 26, line 3 reads “levels are based said correlations” should read “levels are based on said correlations”.
Claim 29, line 3 reads “the obtained data” should read “said data”.
Claim 29, line 10 reads “has a confidence level” should read “have the confidence level”.
Claim 30, line 1 reads “the cardiorespiratory coupling ratio” should read “the stored cardiorespiratory coupling ratio”.
Claim 31, line 2 reads “the lowest confidence level” should read “the lower confidence level”.
Claim 31, line 3 reads “has a confidence level below” should read “have the confidence level below”.
Claim 33, line 3 reads “user heart profile” should read “user heart rate profile”.
Claim 34, line 1 reads “comprise” should read “comprises”.
Claim 35, line 2 reads “cause” should read “causes”.
Claim 35, line 4 reads “the obtained data” should read “said data”.
Claim 35, line 11 reads “has a confidence level” should read “have the confidence level”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "an identified activity" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “said activity” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “respective stored data profiles templates” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “stored data” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "an identified activity" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims inherit the same deficiencies.
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 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Independent claims 16, 29, and 35 recite an apparatus, a method, and a computer readable medium. Thus, they are directed to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, prong 1:
Claims 16, 29, and 35 recite the following claim limitations:
obtaining data relating to a user, wherein said data includes physiological data
determining a confidence level in said estimated user profiles based on differences between said user profiles and corresponding stored data profiles for an identified activity of the user
estimating user profiles based on the obtained data, wherein the user profiles include a user respiratory rate profile and at least one of a user heart rate profile or a user blood pressure profile;
generate an enhanced user profile of one of the estimated user profiles having a lower confidence level based, at least in part, on one of the estimated user profiles having a higher confidence level and a stored cardiorespiratory coupling ratio for the user.
These limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that can be practically performed mathematically in the human mind, using a pen and paper. These limitations describe evaluating physiological data, with mathematical operations involving confidence levels, and thresholds. A human, provided physiological data, could compare and determine a confidence level of the obtained data with stored reference data for a patient performing an activity, for example running. In the case that a physiological data is not accurate, for example heart rate, a human could use mathematical concepts to determine the heart rate, by using the obtained respiration rate with the cardiorespiratory coupling ratio. Such operations constitute an abstract idea because they involve mathematical relationships and mental evaluation of information. Thus, the claims recite limitations which fall within the ‘mental processes’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, prong 2:
Claims 16, 29, and 35 recite the following additional elements:
at least one processor (claim 1);
at least one memory storing instructions (claim 1)
performing signal enhancement in the event that one or more of the estimated user profiles has a confidence level below a respective threshold level
a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions (claim 35)
The recitation of "signal enhancement" fails to recite any additional element or combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. As recited the signal enhancement, which upon reference of the specification is an algorithm in conjunction with a processor (pg. 9, lines 5-20), is a conventional component that does not impose any meaningful structural limitations on the apparatus used to implement the judicial exception. Similarly, the recitation of "at least one processor" fails to recite any additional element or combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. As recited the processor, is a conventional component that does not impose any meaningful structural limitations on the apparatus used to implement the judicial exception. The recitation of a processor in the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claim merely uses the processor as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The additional elements of "at least one memory storing instructions", amount to nothing more than functions performed by a generic computer. Merely storing instructions in a memory does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Claim 35’s recitation of a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” comprising instructions that implement a method are merely reciting the computer-readable medium at a high-level of generality, and the computer-readable medium merely instructs the computer to carry out the steps of the method. In other words, the computer components are being used as a tool to carry out the method (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The combination of these additional elements is no more than insignificant extra solution activity, and mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (the at least one processor and signal enhancement). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements of storing the instructions in memory and a storage medium in the claim, amount to no more than insignificant extra solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
The recitation of the processor/signal enhancement is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are recited at a high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional structure that distinguishes the elements from well-known, routine, and/or conventional elements. Recitation of a processor as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not add significantly more than what is well-known, routine, and/or conventional in view of Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims
Claims 17 and 30 recite limitations that further define the cardiorespiratory coupling ratio, such as being activity-specific.
Claims 18 and 31 further limit the abstract idea by introducing mathematical concepts (correlation values, comparing thresholds)
Claims 19 and 32 recite limitations that further define the threshold, such as being user profile dependent.
Claims 20 and 33 further define the mathematical relationships, such as determining a physiological estimate based on the store cardiorespiratory coupling ratio.
Claims 21-23 adds the limitation of an outputting information, which merely acts as extra-solution activity. Merely outputting information does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Claims 24 recites limitations that further defines identifying the activity.
Claims 25 and 34 recite limitations that further define the stored data profiles, by identifying templates, for when being compared to the user profile.
Claim 26 further defines the mathematical concepts of confidence levels, by generating correlations between the estimated user profiles and stored templates.
Claim 27 adds the limitation of “one or more sensors”, which is merely insignificant extra-solution activity, for data collection.
Claim 28 adds the limitation of updating stored data, which is merely a post-solution activity involving data storage after analysis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 29, and 35 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Applicant teaches user profiles including a user respiratory rate profile and at least one of a user heart rate profile or a user blood pressure profile, and determining a confidence level based on differences between user profiles and corresponding stored data profiles for an identified activity of the user; and performing a signal enhancement to generate an enhanced user profile of one of the estimated user profiles having a lower confidence level based, at least in part, on one of the estimated user profiles having a higher confidence level and a stored cardiorespiratory coupling ratio for the user.
Dalal et al. (US 20080033304 A1) discloses generating a cardiorespiratory ratio (CRR) based on the obtained heart and respiration rate, and comparing the CRR to a stored CRR to determine sleep stage (Fig. 2&3). However, the cited reference fails to individually disclose, or suggest when combined, user profiles based on an activity of the user, performing a signal enhancement, and a stored cardiorespiratory coupling ratio for the user.
Franceschetti et al. (US 20250121154 A1 discloses identifying a user based on their heart rate or respiration rate and has a database that contains stored normal signals based on a sleep phase (para. 0207, 0071). Based on the obtained data and the stored data, a sleep stage is identified (Fig. 7B). However, the cited reference fails to individually disclose, or suggest when combined a confidence level between the obtained data and the stored data, performing a signal enhancement, and a cardiorespiratory coupling ratio for the user.
No prior art was found teaching individually, or suggesting in combination, all of the features of the applicants' invention in combination with the recited structural limitations of the claimed invention. Specifically, performing signal enhancement in the event that one or more of the estimated user profiles has a confidence level below a respective threshold level, wherein said signal enhancement is configured to generate an enhanced user profile of one of the estimated user profiles having a lower confidence level based, at least in part, on one of the estimated user profiles having a higher confidence level and a stored cardiorespiratory coupling ratio for the user.
Claims 17-28 and 30-34 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EILEEN ROBLES whose telephone number is (571)429-9383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 - 5:00 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, Niketa Patel can be reached at (571) 272-4156. 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.
/EILEEN ROBLES/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights