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 Amendment
This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed August 10, 2026. As directed by the amendment, claims 15 and 20 have been amended.
The amendment to claim 19 is sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections from the previous Office action. That rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Terminal Disclaimer
Applicant notes that a terminal disclaimer has been submitted, however, the record does not indicate or show that a terminal disclaimer has been submitted. In view of these, absent a terminal disclaimer on record, the double patenting rejections of the previous Office action cannot be withdrawn at this time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C 102/103 are maintained for the following reason(s):
Applicant contends that the Office Action’s characterization of Tavakoli—specifically regarding "encoding one pulse into a latent space and estimating age from the mean/median of the ages of neighboring latent-space points within a Euclidean radius"—is unclear. This argument is without merit.
As established below, the latent space used for age estimation inherently comprises a dataset of various pulse shapes labeled with recorded objective measures (e.g., chronological age). The subsequent age estimation is a structural and mathematical comparison of a user's pulse sample against these previously labeled baseline pulse shapes. This methodology fully reads on the pending claim limitations.
Specifically, Tavakoli explicitly discloses using a latent space to map variations in shape between different pulses to draw health and chronological inferences. The Abstract of Tavakoli teaches that "...pulse-to-pulse comparisons among different individuals can be used to estimate relative cardiovascular health, age, and the like." Furthermore, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, a latent space is a mathematical tool optimized to facilitate side-by-side comparisons. This is confirmed by paragraph [0167], which states: "A latent space that quantifies pulse shape as one or more features can facilitate side-by-side comparison of different pulses." The previously cited method of Figure 8 demonstrates encoding pulse shapes into a latent space to estimate an individual's objective measure (see [0150]). Step 802 involves acquiring pulse data. Paragraph [0151] clarifies that this data set "includes millions of pulse shapes from thousands of individuals aged 18 to 70 and are labelled with recorded objective measures of every individual such as age." This explicitly meets and reads on the claim element requiring a "plurality of baseline pulse waveforms wherein each baseline pulse waveform is associated with a different chronological age of a plurality of chronological ages." Step 808 teaches acquiring a pulse sample from a user and estimating the objective measure (i.e., age). Paragraph [0156] specifies: "The mean or median of the objective measure values of representations within a radius ball around the sample may be taken as the predictive value of the objective measure value." This calculation constitutes a direct comparison showing how the user's pulse sample closely clusters with or matches nearby baseline pulse samples of a known age. This process structurally addresses and satisfies the claim limitation of "identifying a first baseline pulse waveform from the plurality of baseline waveforms... associated with a chronological age."
In conclusion, because Tavakoli clearly teaches acquiring a vast library of baseline, age-labeled pulse shapes (Step 802) and estimating a user's age by finding the closest matching cluster of baseline waveforms within a Euclidean radius of a latent space (Step 808), the prior art directly discloses the claimed invention. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments cannot be withdrawn at this time, subject to any clarification noted above. Arguments directed to dependent claims 2–20 are similarly unpersuasive as they rely on the same argued limitations of independent claim 1.
Maintained Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tavakoli et al., US 20220031181 A1 "Tavakoli".
Regarding claim 1, Tavakoli discloses a method ([abstract], [0007], e.g., method of Fig 8), comprising: receiving, from a wearable device, a photoplethysmogram (PPG) signal representative of a baseline pulse waveform for a user (Fig. 8 @ 808 [0154]); comparing the baseline pulse waveform for the user to a plurality of baseline pulse waveforms, wherein each baseline pulse waveform of the plurality of baseline pulse waveforms is associated with a different chronological age of a plurality of chronological ages; identifying a first baseline pulse waveform from the plurality of baseline pulse waveforms based at least in part on comparing the baseline pulse waveform to the plurality of baseline pulse waveforms, wherein the first baseline pulse waveform is associated with a first chronological age of the plurality of chronological ages (Fig. 8 @ 810 [0155-0156] and [0163-0164] latent space mapping for pulse shape groups pulse shapes labelled with objective measure, in this case, chronological age for comparison as discussed in [0178] and illustrated in Fig. 12, the comparison will identify a first baseline pulse waveform that closely matches the users waveform form from a plurality of waveforms that do not match the user’s waveform as discussed in [0164] to estimate the chronological age and/or cardiovascular fitness); and causing a graphical user interface of a user device to display an indication of a cardiovascular age of the user relative to a chronological age of the user(Fig. 8 @ 812 [0157]), wherein the cardiovascular age is based at least in part on the first chronological age associated with the first baseline pulse waveform ([0155-0156]).
Regarding claims 2-6, see e.g., [0147], [0157], , cardiovascular age reflects cardiovascular health relative to chronological age, an alert is issued if the estimate is too high with a recommendation to the user and/or Fig. 8 @ 820, [0161] “… the objective measure may be an age of the user, and the fitness may be evaluated based on a difference between an age estimated by the machine learning model and a reported age provided by the user. For example, predicted age that is younger than the reported age may indicate a high fitness level, whereas an older predicted age may indicate a low fitness level. If the difference is above a predetermined threshold and the predicted age is older than the reported age, a warning may be displayed to the user”.
Regarding claims 7-14, see [0146-0147] regarding pulse shape analysis, it is noted that [0148] incorporates various references for analyzing PPG pulse waves, e.g., Elgendi, On the analysis of fingertip photoplethysmogram signals. Current Cardiology Reviews, 8(1): 12, 2012; (hereinafter “Elgendi”), [0149] regarding “… resulting models can improve on the static analysis techniques described above, and further facilitate dynamic analysis of changes in pulse shape, e.g., from pulse to pulse for a particular user or among pulses for different users” i.e., the use of morphological features associated with PPG pulse waves, these morphological features are detailed in Elgendi, in section II (A) from page 18 left column, page 20, Fig. 13 showing PPG waveform parameter changes with age, Fig. 14 showing morphologic features of interest associated with first derivative of PPG and Fig. 15, showing morphologic features of interest associated with e second derivative of PPG, it follows that comparing will be based on extracted morphological features from user PPG with baseline morphological features of the plurality of baseline pulse waveforms [claim 7]; matching will be based on morphological features [claim 8]; [0159] regarding “radius of Euclidean distance” represent a deviation of extracted morphological features used to identify first baseline pulse waveform from plurality of baseline pulse waveforms (i.e., best match) [claim 9]; for [claims 10-13], see Fig. 14(a) and/or 15(a) of Elgendi, it can be seen that the features are represented in Fig. 12 of Tavakoli and for claim 14, see Figs. 14(b) and/or 15(b) of Elgendi for first and second derivative respectively.
Regarding claim 15, see Fig. 8 @816 [0159], e.g., objective measure is input into the wearable device or device may access a database to obtain previous information of the user, and the data is used to calculate age of the user.
Regarding claim 16, see Fig. 9 and [0163] regarding training an autoencoder network comprising a neural network and/or [0161] regarding “machine learning model”.
Regarding claim 17, see [0169] regarding creating a latent space mapping using “three second PPG signal captured every fifteen minutes from fifty thousand users and collected over the period of one month, however other similarly large data sets may also or instead be used” and/or [0149] regarding “… accurate machine learning models that can be trained and tested over very large data sets covering a wide range of users and a wide range of user conditions”..
Regarding claim 19, see claim 1 above, PPG is physiological data based on blood flow.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tavakoli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Applicant cited Lusted US 10709339 B1
Regarding claim 18, Tavakoli discloses the inventions of claim 1 as discussed above, but does not explicitly disclose that the wearable device comprises a wearable ring device. these features are well known in the art, as exemplified by Lusted, a wearable ring device that obtains PPG signal ([abstract], Figs, 2, 5-6).
In view of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Tavakoli with a wearable ring to collect and process PPG sensor data as taught by Lusted, because the use of a wearable ring to perform the same function of collecting and processing PPG data was known in the prior art, and the modification provides a wearable device that is less bulky that enables long term biometric data collection and tracking of a user’s health.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tavakoli in view of Lusted.
Regarding claim 20, see claim 1 above for overlapping subject matter, the method as discussed in claim 1 above is performed by a system - see Fig. 1-2 and 7 of Tavakoli, comprising a wearable wrist device comprising one or more sensors (see Fig. 2, sensors“202” of Fig. 7 sensors “704”, “708” - [0140]) configure to measure physiological data including at least PPG data and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the wearable device (see Fig. 2 “processor 208” of Fig. 7, “processor 706” - [0140]), the processor is configured to execute the method of claim 1.
Tavakoli differs with claim 19 in regards to a wearable ring device and a user device communicatively coupled with the wearable device and/or the one or more processors communicatively coupled with the user device. However, these features are exemplified in Fig. 5 of Lusted. Claim 19 would have been obvious in view of Lusted for substantially similar rationale as discussed in claim 18 above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,343,125 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims of a narrower scope compared to the pending claims and therefore anticipate the pending claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BONIFACE N NGANGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 5:30 am - 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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.
/BONIFACE N NGANGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
