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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in combination with amendments, see Remarks and Claims, filed12/11/2025, with respect to rejections of claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejections of claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in combination with amendments, see Remarks and Claims, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to rejections of claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Beginning on page 7, the applicant argues that the steps cannot practically be performed in the human mind. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. The claims, as written and presented, do not require any limitations regarding the number of data points or how fast the calculations needs to be done, therefore, the claim limitations can be performed in human mind.
The applicant compares the set of claims to example 39, and asserts that the claims do not set forth or describe any mathematical relationships. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. The presented claimed limitations differ from that of claim 39 significantly. Claim 39 required “collecting a set of digital facial images, applying one or more transformation to each digital facial image [], creating a first training set [] and training the neural network”. Here, the claims merely recite generating a multi-dimensional embedding using a deep learning model and predicting a peak oxygen consumption using a linear model [], the liner model being trained using CPET derived peak oxygen values. It is evident that the claim does not involve any steps or limitations required to train, generate the models as present in claim 39. Furthermore, Claim 39 is concerned with training a specific model for a specific purpose. Here, the claims merely mention using a deep learning model to generate a multi-dimensional embedding comprising numerical representation of ECG waveform data and a linear model to predict a peak oxygen consumption. The claim does not provide any details regarding the specifics of how the two models are generated.
Beginning on page 10, the applicant argues the improvements. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. However, the improvement here is in the abstract idea. In order to have technological improvement, the additional elements need to be improved.
Beginning on page 13, the applicant argues that the limitations provided in claim 22 recites a specific combination of technical features that goes beyond routine processing. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. The claim as recited merely requires a computer and outputting the results of the abstract idea. The mentioned computer and “outputting” do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry.
For at least the reasons stated above, the 101 rejection of claims are maintained.
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 22-32, 44-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the following analysis:
1 – statutory category: Claims 44-50 recite a system, and therefore, falls under the statutory category of being a thing or products. See MPEP 2106.03. Claims 22-32 recite a series of steps and therefore, falls under the statutory category of being a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
2A – Prong 1: The independent claims 22, 42 and 47 recite a judicial exception by reciting the limitations of “generating numerical representations of ECG waveform [] predicting a peak oxygen consumption of the individual based on the numerical representations and outputting the predicted peak oxygen consumption of the individual”. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind or by a person using a pen and paper and mathematical calculations. Therefore, an abstract idea is involved.
It is further noted that the act of generating, using a deep learning model, a multi-dimensional embedding, inputting training data into a learning model, and using learning models and linear models falls under the judicial exception of mathematical calculations. Additionally or alternatively, the training of the learning model by inputting training data, and adjusting the model accordingly additionally represents mathematical calculations or mental observations or evaluation to iteratively adjust the model.
2A – Prong 2: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The independent claims 22, 42 and 47 recite the additional limitations of “one or more processors”, ” at least one processor”, “memory”, etc. The mentioned limitations are recited at a high level of generality and are considered to be data gathering/processing which are mere extra-solution activity. The elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, each of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. For example, generally reciting an “” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05g) and are understood to be mere signal gathering. The recited “” and “” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05h).
2B: The emphasized elements cited above do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’I, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Claims 23-32 and 43-46, 48-50 depend on claims 22, 42 and 47. The mentioned dependent claims recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims. Furthermore, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the mental process). For example, the dependent claim recites the limitations “12-lead ECG”, “bike, a treadmill, or a rowing ergometer”, etc., are recited at a high level of generality and are mere extra-solution activity, and recited as performing generic computer functions. i.e., data processing. The elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Thus, claims 22-32, 44-50 are directed to an abstract idea and are therefore rejected.
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 SANA SAHAND whose telephone number is (571)272-6842. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 am -5:30 pm; F 9 am-3 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, Jennifer S 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.
/SANA SAHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights