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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 - 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are objected to because “…the instructions… is configured…” (2nd paragraph in each claim) is grammatically incorrect.
Claim 10 is objected to because “PPG” should be defined, as in claims 1 and 15.
Claim 11 is objected to because the claim does not end with a period.
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 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a mental-process type abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1:
With regard to Step 1, the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., an electronic device.
With regard to Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim recites limitations directed towards:
‘detecting an external electronic device comprising a cuff’,
‘identifying blood flow rate information via the PPG sensor’,
‘obtaining compression timing information of the cuff and relaxation timing information of the cuff’,
‘obtaining first perfusion index information, based on the blood flow rate information and the compression timing information’,
‘obtaining second perfusion index information, based on the blood flow rate information, the compression timing information, and the relaxation timing information’, and
‘identifying vascular health information based on a ratio of the second perfusion index information to the first perfusion index information’
As drafted, each of the limitations amount to nothing more than a step that can practically be performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen/paper. For example:
a human can ‘detect an external electronic device comprising a cuff’ by noting the presence of the device, mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper
a human can ‘identify blood flow rate information via the PPG sensor’ by thinking about data acquired using the PPG sensor (and/or derived by processing the PPG sensor data in some way, such as a graph, image, table, etc.), and noting blood flow rate information based on the data, mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper
a human can ‘obtain compression timing information of the cuff and relaxation timing information of the cuff’ by noting when the cuff is inflated and deflated, mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Alternatively, the limitation reads on extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering), such as merely receiving the information from a file.
a human can ‘obtain first perfusion and second index information’ as recited by considering the blood flow in light of the recited information, mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Alternatively, the limitations read on extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering), such as merely receiving the information from a file.
a human can ‘identify vascular health information based on a ratio of the second perfusion index information to the first perfusion index information’ by calculating the claimed ration and arriving at an identification of the vascular health information based on the ratio, mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper
Therefore, the limitations recite a mental-process type abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
With regard to Step 2A: Prong 2, the claim recites an additional element directed towards a memory and processor to perform the mental steps, which is merely an instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The claim also recites a “photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor”. However, the sensor is recited at a high level of generality, and is therefore considered to be generic hardware for extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering). The claim further recites limitations directed towards displaying “a notification indicating a vascular health state, based on the vascular health information”, which is mere extra-solution activity (i.e., data output). Consequently, the additional elements, when considered individually and as a whole, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to Step 2B, as explained above, the additional limitations comprise hardware for and/or steps of extra-solution activity, and an instruction to implement the judicial exception on a computer. Therefore, when considered separately and in combination, the additional limitations do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claim 10:
With regard to Step 1, the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., a method performed by an electronic device.
With regard to Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim recites limitations directed towards:
‘detecting an external electronic device comprising a cuff’,
‘identifying blood flow rate information via a PPG sensor’,
‘obtaining compression timing information of the cuff and relaxation timing information of the cuff’,
‘obtaining first perfusion index information, based on the blood flow rate information and the compression timing information’,
‘obtaining second perfusion index information, based on the blood flow rate information, the compression timing information, and the relaxation timing information’, and
‘identifying vascular health information based on a ratio of the second perfusion index information to the first perfusion index information’
As drafted, each of the limitations amount to nothing more than a step that can practically be performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen/paper. For example:
a human can ‘detect an external electronic device comprising a cuff’ by noting the presence of the device, mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper
a human can ‘identify blood flow rate information via the PPG sensor’ by thinking about data acquired using the PPG sensor (and/or derived by processing the PPG sensor data in some way, such as a graph, image, table, etc.), and noting blood flow rate information based on the data, mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper
a human can ‘obtain compression timing information of the cuff and relaxation timing information of the cuff’ by noting when the cuff is inflated and deflated, mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Alternatively, the limitation reads on extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering), such as merely receiving the information from a file.
a human can ‘obtain first perfusion and second index information’ as recited by considering the blood flow in light of the recited information, mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Alternatively, the limitations read on extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering), such as merely receiving the information from a file.
a human can ‘identify vascular health information based on a ratio of the second perfusion index information to the first perfusion index information’ by calculating the claimed ration and arriving at an identification of the vascular health information based on the ratio, mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper
Therefore, the limitations recite a mental-process type abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
With regard to Step 2A: Prong 2, the claim recites an additional element directed towards the method being “performed by an electronic device” which is merely an instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The claim further recites limitations directed towards displaying “a notification indicating a vascular health state, based on the vascular health information”, which is mere extra-solution activity (i.e., data output). Consequently, the additional elements, when considered individually and as a whole, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to Step 2B, as explained above, the additional limitations comprise -solution activity and an instruction to implement the judicial exception on a computer. Therefore, when considered separately and in combination, the additional limitations do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claim 15:
With regard to Step 1, the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., an electronic device.
With regard to Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim recites limitations directed towards:
‘detecting an external electronic device comprising a cuff’,
‘identifying blood flow rate information via the PPG sensor’,
‘obtaining compression timing information of the cuff and relaxation timing information of the cuff’,
‘obtaining first perfusion index information, based on the blood flow rate information and the compression timing information’,
‘obtaining second perfusion index information, based on the blood flow rate information, the compression timing information, and the relaxation timing information’, and
‘identifying vascular health information based on a ratio of the second perfusion index information to the first perfusion index information’
As drafted, each of the limitations amount to nothing more than a step that can practically be performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen/paper. For example:
a human can ‘detect an external electronic device comprising a cuff’ by noting the presence of the device, mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper
a human can ‘identify blood flow rate information via the PPG sensor’ by thinking about data acquired using the PPG sensor (and/or derived by processing the PPG sensor data in some way, such as a graph, image, table, etc.), and noting blood flow rate information based on the data, mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper
a human can ‘obtain compression timing information of the cuff and relaxation timing information of the cuff’ by noting when the cuff is inflated and deflated, mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Alternatively, the limitation reads on extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering), such as merely receiving the information from a file.
a human can ‘obtain first perfusion and second index information’ as recited by considering the blood flow in light of the recited information, mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Alternatively, the limitations read on extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering), such as merely receiving the information from a file.
a human can ‘identify vascular health information based on a ratio of the second perfusion index information to the first perfusion index information’ by calculating the claimed ration and arriving at an identification of the vascular health information based on the ratio, mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper
Therefore, the limitations recite a mental-process type abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
With regard to Step 2A: Prong 2, the claim recites an additional element directed towards a memory and processor to perform the mental steps, which is merely an instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The claim also recites a “photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor and a cuff configured to inflate by introduction of fluid”. However, the sensor and cuff are recited at a high level of generality, and are therefore considered to be generic hardware for extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering). The claim further recites limitations directed towards displaying “a notification indicating a vascular health state, based on the vascular health information”, which is mere extra-solution activity (i.e., data output). Consequently, the additional elements, when considered individually and as a whole, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to Step 2B, as explained above, the additional limitations comprise hardware for and/or steps of extra-solution activity, and an instruction to implement the judicial exception on a computer. Therefore, when considered separately and in combination, the additional limitations do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims:
claims 2 and 11 recite additional limitations directed towards using thresholds to classify the vascular health information, which read on a mental step.
claims 3 and 12 recite additional limitations directed towards emitting light to an object via the PPG sensor and identifying light reflected from the object, which is extra-solution activity comprising normal use of the PPG sensor. The claims further recite limitations directed towards the identification of the blood flow rate information being based on a ratio of an intensity of the emitted light to an intensity of the reflected light, which merely further limits the judicial exception and does not preclude the cited mental steps from being practically performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen/paper.
claims 4 and 13 recite additional limitations directed towards displaying a notification to induce an operation of the cuff of the external electronic device, which is extra-solution activity.
claims 5 and 14 recite additional limitations directed towards transmitting and receiving information, which is extra-solution activity. The features reciting the intended use of the information merely limit the judicial exception to a particular field of use.
claim 6 recites additional limitations directed towards receiving a signal, which is extra-solution activity. The features characterizing the relaxation timing merely limit the judicial exception to a particular field of use.
claim 7 recites additional limitations directed towards identifying timing information, which read on a mental step.
claim 8 recites additional limitations directed towards displaying a notification, which is extra-solution activity.
claim 9 recites additional limitations directed towards characterizing the first and second perfusion index information, which merely limit the judicial exception to a particular field of use. It is noted that the claimed system does not set forth that the system performs the recited division calculations.
Therefore, when considered separately and in combination, the limitations of the dependent claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or result in the claims amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMELIE R DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 - 6:00 PST.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571)272-2714. 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.
/AMELIE R DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights