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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendments to the Claims filed 02/25/2026 have been entered. Claims 28-55 are pending in the application. Claims 1-27 have been canceled. Applicant’s amendment to the Claims have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection previously set forth in the final rejection dated 10/29/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
As noted above the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections previously set forth have been overcome by amendment to the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 28-31, 37-38, 40-43, and 47-55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solem et al. (US 20110112595 A1) in view of Olde et al. (US 20130172803 A1), and Kerver et al. (US 20040215274 A1).
Regarding Claims 28, 54, and 55. Solem teaches:
A computer-implemented signal filtering method comprising:
receiving, in a processor (See Fig. 1 and para[0044]: processor.) of a medical apparatus (See Fig. 4 and para[0058]: an extracorporeal blood flow circuit 20.) from a pressure sensor of the medical apparatus (See Fig. 1 and para[0041]: Pressure sensor.), a pressure signal (p) comprising a time-sequence of data samples representing fluid pressure in a medical apparatus (See Fig. 1, Fig. 4 Fig. 11, para[0053], and para[0058]: A time-dependent pressure signal d(n). Measures the pressure between the blood pump 3 and the dialyser 6.);
operating, using the processor, a digital filter (See Fig. 2, Fig. 11, para[0008], para[0017], and para[0112]: Electronic filters (digital or analog). Finite impulse response (FIR) filter.) on the pressure signal (p) to produce a filtered pressure signal (y) (See Fig. 2, Fig. 11, para[0008], para[0017], para[0053], and para[0125]: Filtering the measurement signal in the time-domain. Time-dependent filtered signal e(n). Where e(n) is given by,
PNG
media_image1.png
36
242
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.),
wherein the digital filter is operated to, at each current time point (See para[0045]: n indicates a sample number and is thus equivalent to a (relative) time point in a time-dependent signal.), compute a current filtered data sample (ym) of the filtered pressure signal (y) (See Fig. 2, Fig. 11, para[0008], para[0017], para[0053], and para[0125]: Time-dependent filtered signal e(n). Where e(n) is given by,
PNG
media_image1.png
36
242
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.) as a function of a preceding state vector (Z*) of the digital filter (See Fig. 11, para[0017], para[0112], and para[0124] – para[0125]: The adaptive filter may comprise a finite impulse response filter with filter coefficients that operate on the first pulse profile to generate the output signal. Filter coefficients w(n). Where e(n) is given by,
PNG
media_image1.png
36
242
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.) and a current data sample (pm) in the pressure signal (p) ((See Fig. 2, Fig. 11, para[0008], para[0017], para[0053], and para[0125]: A time-dependent pressure signal d(n). Where e(n) is given by,
PNG
media_image1.png
36
242
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.), and
compute a current state vector (Zm) of the digital filter (See Fig. 11, para[0017], para[0124], and para[0141]: Tn adaptive algorithm which optimizes the filter coefficients as a function of the error signal and the first pulse profile. The filter coefficients are updated according to
PNG
media_image2.png
27
237
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.) as a function of the preceding state vector (Z*) (See Fig. 11, para[0017], para[0112], para[0124], and para[0141]: an adaptive algorithm which optimizes the filter coefficients as a function of the error signal and the first pulse profile. Filter coefficients w(n). The filter coefficients are updated according to
PNG
media_image2.png
27
237
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.), the current data sample (pm) and (See Fig. 2, Fig. 11, para[0017], para[0053], para[0124] – para[0125], and para[0141]: A time-dependent pressure signal d(n). The filter coefficients are updated according to
PNG
media_image2.png
27
237
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. Where e(n) is given by,
PNG
media_image1.png
36
242
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
PNG
media_image3.png
30
209
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image4.png
28
199
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.), optionally, the current filtered data sample (ym) (See Fig. 2, Fig. 11, para[0017], para[0113] – para[0114], para[0124] – para[0125], and para[0141]: calculates the filter coefficients of the variable filter 32 based on the predicted signal profile u(n) and the error signal e(n). The filter coefficients are updated according to
PNG
media_image2.png
27
237
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. Where e(n) is given by,
PNG
media_image1.png
36
242
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.); and
operating, using the processor, the medical apparatus by controlling at least one of the valve, the blood pump, or the controller based on the filtered pressure signal (y) (See Fig. 2, para[0005], para[0043] – para[0045], para[0059] – para[0061]: Upon identification of a fault condition, the surveillance device 25 may issue an alarm or warning signal and/or alert a control system of the first or second sub-systems S1, S2 to take appropriate action. In step 203, the resulting filtered signal e(n) is then analysed for the purpose of monitoring the aforesaid functional state or parameter. The extracorporeal circuit 20 corresponds to the first sub-system S1, the blood pump 3 (as well as any further pulse source(s) within or associated with the extracorporeal circuit 20, such as a dialysis solution pump, valves, etc).).
Solem is silent as to the language of:
receiving, in the processor, a trigger signal (D) indicating an operational change in the medical apparatus, the trigger signal (D) comprising a control signal (C) for a functional component of the medical apparatus, wherein the functional component is one of a valve, a blood pump, and a controller and wherein the trigger signal (D) is independent of the pressure signal (p);
detecting or predicting, using the processor, a disturbance in the pressure signal (p) based on the trigger signal (D), wherein the disturbance causes a ringing artifact in the filtered signal (y); and
selectively modifying, using the processor, the preceding state vector (Z*) of the digital filter at a selected time point (t2) subsequent to the disturbance in the pressure signal (p), by modifying data stored in a digital memory associated with the digital filter, thereby reconfiguring the digital filter after the disturbance has subsided, so as to suppress the ringing artifact of the disturbance on the filtered pressure signal (y).
Nevertheless Olde teaches:
receiving, in the processor, a trigger signal (D) indicating an operational change in the medical apparatus, the trigger signal (D) comprising a control signal (C) for a functional component of the medical apparatus (See para[0197]: The reference measurement may be carried out in a simulated treatment with blood or any other fluid. The identifying of relevant signal segments may be at least partially based on timing information which indicates the expected position of each pump pulse in the reference signal. The timing information may be obtained from a trigger point in the output signal of the pump sensor 25, in a control signal of the pump controller 24, or in the pressure signal from another one of the pressure sensors 4a-4c. For example, a predicted time point of a pump pulse in the reference signal may be calculated based on a known time delay between the trigger point and the pressure sensor that generates the reference signal.),
wherein the functional component is one of a valve (See para[0036]: Valves.), a blood pump (See para[0036] and para[00197]: Blood pump. Output signal of the pump sensor 25.), and a controller (See para[0036] and para[0197]: A control signal of the pump controller 24.) and
wherein the trigger signal (D) is independent of the pressure signal (p) (See para[0036] and para[0197]: The timing information may be obtained from a trigger point in the output signal of the pump sensor 25, in a control signal of the pump controller 24.);
detecting or predicting, using the processor, a disturbance in the pressure signal (p) based on the trigger signal (D) (See Fig. 1, para[0040], para[0062], para[0085] - para[0087], para[0117], para[0129], para[0197], and para[0313]: Whenever the pressure sensor is located in (or attached to) the apparatus 200, there may be a need for removing or suppressing pressure pulses that originate from the pumps and other mechanical pulse generators in the apparatus 200 (collectively denoted "pressure artefacts" or "pump pulses" in the following). Such an embodiment may further facilitate the detection of pressure pulses in the measurement data, since the approximate timing of each pressure pulse in the measurement data may be obtained from a control signal for the pulse generator, e.g. by approximating the propagation time for the pressure wave from the pulse generator to the pressure sensor. The identifying of relevant signal segments may be at least partially based on timing information which indicates the expected position of each pump pulse in the reference signal. The timing information may be obtained from a trigger point in the output signal of the pump sensor 25, in a control signal of the pump controller 24, or in the pressure signal from another one of the pressure sensors 4a-4c. wherein the signal processor (29) is configured to intermittently effect the reference measurement to update the pulse profile (u(n)) during operation of the extracorporeal blood circuit (20).),
wherein the disturbance causes a ringing artifact in the filtered signal (y) (See Fig. 1, para[0040], para[0062], para[0085] - para[0087], para[0117], para[0129], para[0197], and para[0313]: Whenever the pressure sensor is located in (or attached to) the apparatus 200, there may be a need for removing or suppressing pressure pulses that originate from the pumps and other mechanical pulse generators in the apparatus 200 (collectively denoted "pressure artefacts" or "pump pulses" in the following). As indicated in FIG. 4 (time section A5), the pressure artefacts may dominate the measurement data and make it difficult to identify pressure pulses that originate from the pulse generator in (or attached to) the patient (collectively denoted "patient pulses" in the following).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Solem by receiving, in the processor, a trigger signal (D) indicating an operational change in the medical apparatus, the trigger signal (D) comprising a control signal (C) for a functional component of the medical apparatus, wherein the functional component is one of a valve, a blood pump, and a controller and wherein the trigger signal (D) is independent of the pressure signal (p); detecting or predicting, using the processor, a disturbance in the pressure signal (p) based on the trigger signal (D), wherein the disturbance causes a ringing artifact in the filtered signal (y) such as that of Olde. Olde teaches, “Whenever one or more machine-controlled clamps (or other mechanical flow blocking devices) are opened, pressure waves are generated which may interfere with the detection of the characteristic change according to steps 304-308. Thus, it may be beneficial to delay steps 304-308 until such pressure waves have subsided, which usually takes place within one or a few seconds” (See para[0062]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Solem, because using a trigger signal to predict a disturbance would have helped to determine when to delay analyzing a pressure signal to wait for pressure waves to subside, as recognized by Olde.
Olde is silent as to the language of:
selectively modifying, using the processor, the preceding state vector (Z*) of the digital filter at a selected time point (t2) subsequent to the disturbance in the pressure signal (p), by modifying data stored in a digital memory associated with the digital filter, thereby reconfiguring the digital filter after the disturbance has subsided, so as to suppress the ringing artifact of the disturbance on the filtered pressure signal (y).
Nevertheless Kerver teaches:
selectively modifying, using the processor, the preceding state vector (Z*) of the digital filter at a selected time point (t2) subsequent to the disturbance in the pressure signal (p) (See Fig. 5, Fig. 6, para[0007], para[0057] – para[0059]: following delivery of a stimulation pulse to the heart and reconfigures a filter state of a filter from an initial filter state to remove a polarization artifact. The medical device may, for example, reconfigure the filter state after the filter output stabilizes, e.g., after an upward stroke of a filter step response, or at a predetermined time interval after delivery of the stimulation pulse.),
by modifying data stored in a digital memory associated with the digital filter, thereby reconfiguring the digital filter after the disturbance has subsided (See Fig. 1, Fig. 5, para[0030], para[0036] – para[0038]: A microprocessor 40 that executes program instructions stored in memory. Both the data from A/D converter 82 and the data filtered by digital filter 86 are available for storage in RAM 42 under control of direct memory access (DMA) circuit 84. A filter controller 88 reconfigures a filter state of a filter, e.g., digital filter 86, from an initial filter state to remove the polarization artifact from the electrical activity signal. Digital filter 86 may be implemented within a digital signal processor (DSP). In some embodiments, microprocessor 40 may take the form of a DSP, or microprocessor 40 can perform the digital filtering.) (Examiner note: the examiner views Kerver as modifying digital memory because the digital filter of Kerver is stored on computer memory and any change in the function of the digital filter would result in a modification of computer memory.),
so as to suppress the ringing artifact of the disturbance on the filtered pressure signal (y) (See Fig. 5, Fig. 6, para[0007], and para[0057] – para[0059]: following delivery of a stimulation pulse to the heart and reconfigures a filter state of a filter from an initial filter state to remove a polarization artifact. The medical device may, for example, reconfigure the filter state after the filter output stabilizes, e.g., after an upward stroke of a filter step response, or at a predetermined time interval after delivery of the stimulation pulse.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Solem by selectively modifying, using the processor, the preceding state vector (Z*) of the digital filter at a selected time point (t2) subsequent to the disturbance in the pressure signal (p), by modifying data stored in a digital memory associated with the digital filter, thereby reconfiguring the digital filter after the disturbance has subsided, so as to suppress the ringing artifact of the disturbance on the filtered pressure signal (y) such as that of Kerver. Kerver teaches, “The filter, in effect, removes polarization artifacts from sensed electrical activity signals by reconfiguring a filter state of a filter from an initial filter state in order to determine existence of an evoked response following the stimulation pulse” (See para[0006]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Solem, because modifying a state vector of a digital filter after a disturbance would have helped to remove artifacts caused by a disturbance and better determine an existence of an evoked response following a disturbance, as recognized by Kerver.
Regarding Claim 29. Solem is silent as to the language of:
The signal filtering method of claim 28,
wherein selectively modifying the preceding state vector (Z*) comprises replacing the preceding state vector (Z*) of the digital filter at the selected time point (t2) by a reconfiguration state vector (Z′), and wherein the trigger signal (D) is detected or received from a functional component of the medical apparatus.
Nevertheless Olde teaches:
wherein the trigger signal (D) is detected or received from a functional component of the medical apparatus (See Fig. 1, para[0040], para[0085] – para[0087], and para[0197]: A control signal for the pulse generator.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Solem wherein the trigger signal (D) is a control signal that is detected or received from a functional component of the medical apparatus such as that of Olde. Olde teaches, “there may be a need for removing or suppressing pressure pulses that originate from the pumps and other mechanical pulse generators in the apparatus 200 (collectively denoted "pressure artefacts" or "pump pulses" in the following). As indicated in FIG. 4 (time section A5), the pressure artefacts may dominate the measurement data and make it difficult to identify pressure pulses that originate from the pulse generator in (or attached to) the patient” (See para[0087]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Solem, because using a trigger signal to predict a disturbance would have helped to remove or suppress pressure pulses originating from mechanical pulse generators, as recognized by Olde.
Nevertheless Kerver teaches:
wherein selectively modifying the preceding state vector (Z*) comprises replacing the preceding state vector (Z*) of the digital filter at the selected time point (t2) by a reconfiguration state vector (Z′) (See Fig. 6, para[0007], para[0038]: reconfigures a filter state of a filter from an initial filter state to remove a polarization artifact. Filter controller 88 recalculates the digital filter component values using the present input of the electrical activity signal as a constant DC input value of the filter.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Solem wherein selectively modifying the preceding state vector (Z*) comprises replacing the preceding state vector (Z*) of the digital filter at the selected time point (t2) by a reconfiguration state vector (Z′) such as that of Kerver. Kerver teaches, “The filter, in effect, removes polarization artifacts from sensed electrical activity signals by reconfiguring a filter state of a filter from an initial filter state in order to determine existence of an evoked response following the stimulation pulse” (See para[0006]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Solem, because modifying a state vector of a digital filter would have helped remove polarization artifacts, as recognized by Kerver.
Regarding Claim 30. Solem is silent as to the language of:
The signal filtering method of claim 29,
further comprising obtaining, using the processor, the reconfiguration state vector (Z′) to match a working point of the medical apparatus at the selected time point (t2).
Nevertheless Kerver teaches:
further comprising obtaining, using the processor, the reconfiguration state vector (Z′) to match a working point of the medical apparatus at the selected time point (t2) (See Fig. 6, para[0007], para[0038]: reconfigures a filter state of a filter from an initial filter state to remove a polarization artifact. Filter controller 88 recalculates the digital filter component values using the present input of the electrical activity signal as a constant DC input value of the filter.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Solem by obtaining, using the processor, the reconfiguration state vector (Z′) to match a working point of the medical apparatus at the selected time point (t2) such as that of Kerver. Kerver teaches, “In this manner, the output of the reconfigured digital filter has the filter step response caused by the polarization artifact removed and the medical device can more accurately determine presence of an evoked response” (See para[0009]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Solem, because modifying a state vector of a digital filter to match a working point would have helped remove polarization artifacts, as recognized by Kerver.
Regarding Claim 31. Solem is silent as to the language of:
The signal filtering method of claim 30,
further comprising:
acquiring, using the processor, from a digital storage memory, at least one state vector ([Z]) for the working point of the medical apparatus at the selected time point (t.sub.2); and
obtaining, using the processor, the reconfiguration state vector (Z′) as a function of the at least one state vector ([Z]).
Nevertheless Kerver teaches:
acquiring, using the processor, from a digital storage memory, at least one state vector ([Z]) for the working point of the medical apparatus at the selected time point (t.sub.2) (See para[0038]: recalculates the digital filter component values using the present input of the electrical activity signal as a constant DC input value of the filter.); and
obtaining, using the processor, the reconfiguration state vector (Z′) as a function of the at least one state vector ([Z]) (See para[0038]: filter controller 88 may recalculate one or more gain coefficients or time constants associated with digital filter 86.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Solem by acquiring, using the processor, from a digital storage memory, at least one state vector ([Z]) for the working point of the medical apparatus at the selected time point (t.sub.2); and obtaining, using the processor, the reconfiguration state vector (Z′) as a function of the at least one state vector ([Z]) such as that of Kerver. Kerver teaches, “In this manner, the output of the reconfigured digital filter has the filter step response caused by the polarization artifact removed and the medical device can more accurately determine presence of an evoked response” (See para[0009]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Solem, because modifying a state vector of a digital filter to match a working point would have helped remove polarization artifacts, as recognized by Kerver.
Regarding Claim 37. Solem teaches:
The signal filtering method of claim 30,
wherein the pressure signal (p) comprises pulsations originating from a repetitive pulse generator in the medical apparatus (See Fig. 1, and para[0041]: A first pulse generator 3 is arranged to generate a series of pressure waves in the fluid within the first sub-system S1.), and wherein the working point is at least partly given by a phase of the repetitive pulse generator (See para[0009]: a phase of the first pulse profile.).
Regarding Claim 38. Solem teaches:
The signal filtering method of claim 37,
wherein the repetitive pulse generator operates in a sequence of pulse cycles (R), each pulse cycle (R) resulting in at least one pulsation in the pressure signal (p), and wherein the phase corresponds to a location within the pulse cycle (R) (See para[0014], and para[0096]: phase value for the given frequency indicates the proper phase angle of the sinousoid.).
Regarding Claim 40. Solem teaches:
The signal filtering method of 37,
wherein the working point is further given by at least one of a current operating frequency (ω) of the repetitive pulse generator (See para[0096]: This method of preparing the predicted signal profile by combining (typically adding) sinusoids of appropriate frequency, amplitude and phase angle allows the predicted signal profile to include all harmonics of the pump frequency within a desired frequency range.), an average fluid pressure (P) in the medical apparatus (See para[0074]: the reference measurement could involve averaging a plurality of pressure profiles to reduce noise.), and an amplitude of pressure variations in the pressure signal (p) (See para[0096]: This method of preparing the predicted signal profile by combining (typically adding) sinusoids of appropriate frequency, amplitude and phase angle allows the predicted signal profile to include all harmonics of the pump frequency within a desired frequency range.).
Regarding Claim 41. Solem teaches:
The signal filtering method of claim 37,
wherein the repetitive pulse generator comprises a pump for pumping a fluid in the medical apparatus (See para[0058]: blood pump.).
Regarding Claim 42. Solem teaches:
The signal filtering method of claim 41,
wherein the phase corresponds to a stroke position of the pump (See para[0063]: The base frequency, also denoted pump frequency in the following, is the frequency of the pump strokes that generate pressure waves in the extracorporeal circuit 20.).
Regarding Claim 43. Solem teaches:
The signal filtering method of claim 41,
wherein the pump is a peristaltic pump comprising a rotation element for engaging a tube segment (See Fig. 4 and para[0058]: a blood pump 3 which may be of peristaltic type.), and wherein the phase corresponds to an angular position of the rotation element (See para[0079]: shaft position of pump actuator (e.g. angular or linear position).).
Regarding Claim 47. Solem teaches:
The signal filtering method of claim 28,
wherein the digital filter is operated to compute the current filtered data sample (ym) as a function of a state value (z.sub.1*) of the preceding state vector (Z*) (See Fig. 2, Fig. 11, and para[0113] – para[0114]: The estimated measurement signal {circumflex over (d)}(n), which is subtracted from the measurement signal d(n) to generate the error signal e(n), is thus formed as a linear combination of M shifted predicted signal profiles u(n), i.e. a linear filtering of u(n).), and the current data sample (pm) modified by a filter coefficient (b.sub.1) (See Fig. 2, Fig. 11, and para[0120] – para[0121]: coefficients w.sub.0, w.sub.1, . . . , w.sub.M-1.).
Regarding Claim 48. Solem is silent as to the language of:
The signal filtering method of claim 47,
wherein the digital filter is operated to compute the filtered data sample as: y.sub.m = b.sub.1 x p.sub.m + z.sub.1*, wherein b.sub.1 is said filter coefficient, p.sub.m is the current data sample, and z.sub.1* is said state value of the preceding state vector (Z*) (See para[0125]:
PNG
media_image5.png
24
145
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.).
Regarding Claim 49. Solem teaches:
The signal filtering method of claim 28,
wherein the digital filter is operated to compute the current state vector (Zm) for each current data sample (p.sub.m) in the pressure signal (p) (See Fig. 11, para[0113]: an adaptive update algorithm 34, which calculates the filter coefficients of the variable filter 32 based on the predicted signal profile u(n) and the error signal e(n).).
Regarding Claim 50. Solem is silent as to the language of:
The signal filtering method of claim 28,
further comprising;
generating, using the processor, a control signal (C) based on the trigger signal (D); and
providing, using the processor, the control signal (C) to the digital filter; and
stopping, using the processor, the operation of the digital filter, via the control signal (C), during at least part of the predicted or detected disturbance in the pressure signal (p), wherein the control signal (C) indicates at least one of a first time point when the digital filter is to be stopped and a second time point when the digital filter is to be restarted and reconfigured.
Nevertheless Olde teaches:
generating, using the processor, a control signal (C) based on the trigger signal (D) (See para[0085] – para[0087], para[0117], para[0197], and para[0344]: The approximate timing of each pressure pulse in the measurement data may be obtained from a control signal for the pulse generator, e.g. by approximating the propagation time for the pressure wave from the pulse generator to the pressure sensor. The identifying of relevant signal segments may be at least partially based on timing information which indicates the expected position of each pump pulse in the reference signal. The timing information may be obtained from a trigger point in the output signal of the pump sensor 25, in a control signal of the pump controller 24.); and
providing, using the processor, the control signal (C) to the digital filter (See para[0344]: obtain timing information indicative of the timing of said at least one interference pulse in the composite signal.); and
stopping, using the processor, the operation of the digital filter, via the control signal (C) (See para[0062], para[0085] – para[0087], and para[0197]: Pressure waves are generated which may interfere with the detection of the characteristic change according to steps 304-308. Thus, it may be beneficial to delay steps 304-308 until such pressure waves have subsided, which usually takes place within one or a few seconds.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Solem generating, using the processor, a control signal (C) based on the trigger signal (D); and providing, using the processor, the control signal (C) to the digital filter; and stopping, using the processor, the operation of the digital filter, via the control signal (C) such as that of Olde. Olde teaches, “Pressure waves are generated which may interfere with the detection of the characteristic change according to steps 304-308. Thus, it may be beneficial to delay steps 304-308 until such pressure waves have subsided, which usually takes place within one or a few seconds” (See para[0062]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Solem, because stopping a digital filter based on a trigger signal would have helped to allow for pressure waves to subside before filtering a pressure signal, as recognized by Olde.
Olde is silent as to the language of:
stopping, using the processor, the operation of the digital filter, via the control signal (C), during at least part of the predicted or detected disturbance in the pressure signal (p), wherein the control signal (C) indicates at least one of a first time point when the digital filter is to be stopped and a second time point when the digital filter is to be restarted and reconfigured.
Nevertheless Kerver teaches:
stopping, using the processor, the operation of the digital filter (See Fig. 2, Fig. 5, para[007], and para[0057] - para[0059]: a filter controller 88 waits for the filter to stabilize (128) and reconfigures a filter state of the filter from an initial filter state to remove the polarization artifact from the sensed electrical activity signal (130).), via the control signal (C) (See Fig. 5, Fig. 6, para[0007], para[0057] – para[0059]: Following delivery of a stimulation pulse to the heart and reconfigures a filter state of a filter from an initial filter state to remove a polarization artifact. Pacer timing/control circuitry 58 of IMD 10 waits for an escape interval to expire, indicating a need to deliver a stimulation pulse to heart 12 (120). During generation of the stimulation pulse, pacer timing/control circuitry 58 disconnects, i.e., turns off, an amplifier coupled to stimulation and sensing electrodes.), during at least part of the predicted or detected disturbance in the pressure signal (p), wherein the control signal (C) indicates at least one of a first time point when the digital filter is to be stopped and a second time point when the digital filter is to be restarted and reconfigured (See para[0057] - para[0059]: A filter controller 88 waits for the filter to stabilize (128) and reconfigures a filter state of the filter from an initial filter state to remove the polarization artifact from the sensed electrical activity signal (130). Filter controller 88 may, for example, consider the filter to be stabilized based on timing information received from microprocessor 40, or timing information received from pacer timing and control circuit 58.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Solem by stopping, using the processor, the operation of the digital filter, via the control signal (C), during at least part of the predicted or detected disturbance in the pressure signal (p), wherein the control signal (C) indicates at least one of a first time point when the digital filter is to be stopped and a second time point when the digital filter is to be restarted and reconfigured such as that of Kerver. Kerver teaches “a filter controller 88 waits for the filter to stabilize (128) and reconfigures a filter state of the filter from an initial filter state to remove the polarization artifact from the sensed electrical activity signal (130)” (See para[0059].) One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Solem, because stopping the filter would have helped to stabilize the filter before reconfiguring the state vector, as recognized by Kerver.
Regarding Claim 51. Solem teaches:
The signal filtering method of claim 28,
wherein the medical apparatus is one of an extracorporeal blood processing apparatus and an infusion apparatus (See para[0001]: extracorporeal blood treatment.).
Regarding Claim 52. Solem teaches:
The signal filtering method of claim 28,
further comprising
detecting, using the processor, a fluid pressure in a fluid line based on the filtered pressure signal (y) (See Fig. 2, and para[0008]: a pressure sensor in a fluid containing system associated with a first pulse generator and a second pulse generator, wherein the pressure sensor is arranged in the fluid containing system to detect a first pulse originating from the first pulse generator and a second pulse originating from the second pulse generator.).
Regarding Claim 53. Solem teaches:
A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 28 (See Fig. 1 and para[0044]: a computer.).
Claim(s) 32-36, 39, and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solem et al. (US 20110112595 A1) in view of Olde et al. (US 20130172803 A1), and Kerver et al. (US 20040215274 A1) as applied to claims 28, 31, and 38 above, and further in view of Po et al. (US 20140072134 A1).
Regarding Claim 32. Solem is silent as to the language of:
The signal filtering method of claim 31,
wherein the digital storage memory stores a database that comprises state vectors for a plurality of different working points of the medical apparatus, and
wherein said at least one state vector ([Z]) is selected among the state vectors stored in the database based on the working point of the medical apparatus at the selected time point (t.sub.2).
Nevertheless Po teaches:
wherein the digital storage memory stores a database that comprises state vectors for a plurality of different working points of the medical apparatus (See Fig. 1, para[0004], para[0006], and para[0016] – para[0017]: The new system includes an adaptive filter state storage that stores copies of the prior states of the adaptive filter. The state of the adaptive filter 7, including its digital filter coefficients, is repeatedly updated by a state updater within an adaptive filter controller 9.), and
wherein said at least one state vector ([Z]) is selected among the state vectors stored in the database based on the working point of the medical apparatus at the selected time point (t.sub.2) (See Fig. 1, para[0004], para[0006], para[0016] – para[0018]: But when the disturbance detector detects abnormal noise, the state manager signals that the adaptive filter be restored to one of its prior states (from the copies stored in the state storage). For example, the adaptive filter may be signaled to retreat back to how it was just prior to the disturbance having been detected.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Solem wherein the digital storage memory stores a database that comprises state vectors for a plurality of different working points of the medical apparatus, and wherein said at least one state vector ([Z]) is selected among the state vectors stored in the database based on the working point of the medical apparatus at the selected time point (t.sub.2) such as that of Po. Po teaches, “It has been found that since transient noise situations cause the active noise control (ANC) system to make incorrect updates to the filter coefficients or state of the adaptive filter” (See para[0004]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Solem, because selecting a state vector from stored state vectors would have helped to prevent incorrect updates to filter coefficients during transient noise situations, as recognized by Po.
Regarding Claim 33. Solem is silent as to the language of:
The signal filtering method of claim 32,
further comprising
populating, using the processor, at least part of the database during operation of the digital filter prior to the disturbance, by storing one or more of the preceding state vectors (Z*) in association with a respective current working point of the medical apparatus.
Nevertheless Po teaches:
populating, using the processor, at least part of the database during operation of the digital filter prior to the disturbance (See Fig. 1 and para[0004]: an adaptive filter state storage that stores copies of the prior states of the adaptive filter.), by storing one or more of the preceding state vectors (Z*) in association with a respective current working point of the medical apparatus (See Fig. 1, para[0022] – para[0023]: the adaptive filter state storage 10 stores each of the copies of the prior states of the adaptive filter 7 in association with a respective time stamp. The adaptive filter state storage 10 stores each of the copies of the prior states in association with a flag that indicates whether or not the copy was written while downlink speech of a far-end user was determined to be present.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Solem by populating, using the processor, at least part of the database during operation of the digital filter prior to the disturbance, by storing one or more of the preceding state vectors (Z*) in association with a respective current working point of the medical apparatus such as that of Po. Po teaches, “This information, namely whether or not the prior state was captured while down link speech was present, may be used by the state manager 11 to inform its decision as to which one of the prior states to select (for restoring the adaptive filter 7)” (See para[0023]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Solem, because storing a state vector with a working point would have helped to make inform decisions as to which prior state of the filter to select, as recognized by Po.
Regarding Claim 34. Solem is silent as to the language of:
The signal filtering method of claim 31,
further comprising
selectively storing, using the processor, when detecting or predicting the presence of the disturbance in the pressure signal (p), a preceding state vector (Z*) at a first time point (t.sub.1), wherein the at least one state vector ([Z]) is acquired to comprise the preceding state vector (Z*) at the first time point (t.sub.1).
Nevertheless Po teaches:
selectively storing, using the processor, when detecting or predicting the presence of the disturbance in the pressure signal (p), a preceding state vector (Z*) at a first time point (t.sub.1), wherein the at least one state vector ([Z]) is acquired to comprise the preceding state vector (Z*) at the first time point (t.sub.1) (See Fig. 1, para[0004], para[0006], and para[0016] – para[0017]: An adaptive filter state manager repeatedly signals that a copy of a current state of the adaptive filter should be written to the state storage, so long as the disturbance detector is detecting normal ambient noise as time passes.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Solem by selectively storing, using the processor, when detecting or predicting the presence of the disturbance in the pressure signal (p), a preceding state vector (Z*) at a first time point (t.sub.1), wherein the at least one state vector ([Z]) is acquired to comprise the preceding state vector (Z*) at the first time point (t.sub.1) such as that of Po. Po teaches, “It has been found that since transient noise situations cause the active noise control (ANC) system to make incorrect updates to the filter coefficients or state of the adaptive filter” (See para[0004]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Solem, because selecting a state vector from stored state vectors would have helped to prevent incorrect updates to filter coefficients during transient noise situations, as recognized by Po.
Regarding Claim 35. Solem is silent as to the language of:
The signal filtering method of claim 34,
wherein the selected time point (t.sub.2) is selected based on the first time point (t.sub.1).
Nevertheless Po teaches:
wherein the selected time point (t.sub.2) is selected based on the first time point (t.sub.1) (See para[0006]: if the latency for a particular disturbance detections is 25 milliseconds, then the state manager may decide to select a copy of a prior state that has a time-stamp of about 25 milliseconds earlier than the point in time at which the state manager was alerted about the abnormal noise.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Solem wherein the selected time point (t.sub.2) is selected based on the first time point (t.sub.1) such as that of Po. Po teaches, “It has been found that since transient noise situations cause the active noise control (ANC) system to make incorrect updates to the filter coefficients or state of the adaptive filter” (See para[0004]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Solem, because selecting a state vector from stored state vectors would have helped to prevent incorrect updates to filter coefficients during transient noise situations, as recognized by Po.
Regarding Claim 36. Solem is silent as to the language of:
The signal filtering method of claim 34,
wherein the selected time point (t.sub.2) is selected such that the working point of the medical apparatus at the selected time point (t.sub.2) corresponds to the working point of the medical apparatus at the first time point (t.sub.1).
Nevertheless Po teaches:
wherein the selected time point (t.sub.2) is selected such that the working point of the medical apparatus at the selected time point (t.sub.2) corresponds to the working point of the medical apparatus at the first time point (t.sub.1) (See para[0004], para[0006], and para[0022] – para[0023]: Such a decision making process may involve determining whether or not local speech activity (that is, speech by the near-end user) is present when the disturbance detector 13 indicates abnormal noise, based on which the state manager 11 may select a copy of a prior state that is associated with a flag indicating no far-end user speech.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Solem wherein the selected time point (t.sub.2) is selected such that the working point of the medical apparatus at the selected time point (t.sub.2) corresponds to the working point of the medical apparatus at the first time point (t.sub.1) such as that of Po. Po teaches, “It has been found that since transient noise situations cause the active noise control (ANC) system to make incorrect updates to the filter coefficients or state of the adaptive filter” (See para[0004]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Solem, because selecting a state vector from stored state vectors would have helped to prevent incorrect updates to filter coefficients during transient noise situations, as recognized by Po.
Regarding Claim 39. Solem teaches:
The signal filtering method of claim 38,
further comprising:
obtaining, using the processor, the reconfiguration state vector (Z′) associated with a selected location within the pulse cycle (R) (See Fig. 2, Fig. 11, para[0063], and para[0086] – para[0088]: The reference library is searched for retrieval of the reference profile that is associated with the pump frequency that lies closest to the current pump frequency.).
Solem is silent as to the language of:
determining the selected time point (t.sub.2), based on a phase signal (θ) indicative of the phase of the repetitive pulse generator, to correspond to the selected location; and
setting, using the processor, the preceding state vector (Z*) at the selected time point (t.sub.2) to the reconfiguration state vector (Z′).
Nevertheless Po teaches:
determining the selected time point (t.sub.2), based on a phase signal (θ) indicative of the phase of the repetitive pulse generator, to correspond to the selected location (See para[0006], para[0037]: depending upon the detected disturbance, the state manager 11 can perform a table look up for instance to determine the latency associated with the current detection, and then use the time stamp values in the state storage 10 to find the "closest" prior state, for restoring the adaptive filter.); and
setting, using the processor, the preceding state vector (Z*) at the selected time point (t.sub.2) to the reconfiguration state vector (Z′) (See para[0004], para[0006] and para[0037]: If the latency for a particular disturbance detections is 25 milliseconds, then the state manager may decide to select a copy of a prior state that has a time-stamp of about 25 milliseconds earlier than the point in time at which the state manager was alerted about the abnormal noise.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Solem by determining the selected time point (t.sub.2), based on a phase signal (θ) indicative of the phase of the repetitive pulse generator, to correspond to the selected location; and setting, using the processor, the preceding state vector (Z*) at the selected time point (t.sub.2) to the reconfiguration state vector (Z′) such as that of Po. Po teaches, “It has been found that since transient noise situations cause the active noise control (ANC) system to make incorrect updates to the filter coefficients or state of the adaptive filter” (See para[0004]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Solem, because selecting a state vector from stored state vectors would have helped to prevent incorrect updates to filter coefficients during transient noise situations, as recognized by Po.
Regarding Claim 44. Solem teaches:
The signal filtering method of claim 28,
further comprising:
determining, using the processor, based on a phase signal (θ) indicative of a phase of a repetitive pulse generator in the medical apparatus, a first phase value at a first time point (t.sub.1) preceding the disturbance (See para[0063] and para[0085] – para[0086]: the pump revolution frequency ("pump frequency"), or a related parameter (e.g. blood flow rate) is used to indicate the current operational state of the fluid containing system during the monitoring process.);
storing, in the digital storage memory, the current state vector (Z.sub.m) computed at the first time point (t.sub.1) (See para[0063] and para[0084] – para[0087]: The reference library is searched for retrieval of the reference profile that is associated with the pump frequency that lies closest to the current pump frequency.);
obtaining, using the processor, a selected phase value as a function of the first phase value (See para[0063] and para[0085] – para[0087]: The reference library is searched for retrieval of the reference profile that is associated with the pump frequency that lies closest to the current pump frequency.).
Solem is silent as to the language of:
determining, using the processor, the selected time point (t.sub.2), based on the phase signal (θ), to correspond to the selected phase value;
acquiring, using the processor, from the digital storage memory, a reconfiguration state vector (Z′) as a function of the current state vector (Z.sub.m) computed at the first time point (t.sub.1); and
setting, using the processor, the preceding state vector (Z*) at the selected time point (t.sub.2) to the reconfiguration state vector (Z′).
Nevertheless Po teaches:
determining, using the processor, the selected time point (t.sub.2), based on the phase signal (θ), to correspond to the selected phase value (See para[0006], para[0037]: depending upon the detected disturbance, the state manager 11 can perform a table look up for instance to determine the latency associated with the current detection, and then use the time stamp values in the state storage 10 to find the "closest" prior state, for restoring the adaptive filter.);
acquiring, using the processor, from the digital storage memory, a reconfiguration state vector (Z′) as a function of the current state vector (Z.sub.m) computed at the first time point (t.sub.1) (See para[0006], para[0037]: depending upon the detected disturbance, the state manager 11 can perform a table look up for instance to determine the latency associated with the current detection, and then use the time stamp values in the state storage 10 to find the "closest" prior state, for restoring the adaptive filter.); and
setting, using the processor, the preceding state vector (Z*) at the selected time point (t.sub.2) to the reconfiguration state vector (Z′) (See para[0006], para[0037]: depending upon the detected disturbance, the state manager 11 can perform a table look up for instance to determine the latency associated with the current detection, and then use the time stamp values in the state storage 10 to find the "closest" prior state, for restoring the adaptive filter.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Solem by determining, using the processor, the selected time point (t.sub.2), based on the phase signal (θ), to correspond to the selected phase value; acquiring, using the processor, from the digital storage memory, a reconfiguration state vector (Z′) as a function of the current state vector (Z.sub.m) computed at the first time point (t.sub.1); and setting, using the processor, the preceding state vector (Z*) at the selected time point (t.sub.2) to the reconfiguration state vector (Z′) such as that of Po. Po teaches, “It has been found that since transient noise situations cause the active noise control (ANC) system to make incorrect updates to the filter coefficients or state of the adaptive filter” (See para[0004]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Solem, because selecting a state vector from stored state vectors would have helped to prevent incorrect updates to filter coefficients during transient noise situations, as recognized by Po.
Claim(s) 45-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solem et al. (US 20110112595 A1) in view of Olde et al. (US 20130172803 A1), and Kerver et al. (US 20040215274 A1) as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Sethuraman et al. (US 20120207200 A1).
Regarding Claim 45. Solem teaches:
The signal filtering method of claim 28,
wherein the digital filter, when computing the current state vector (Z.sub.m), is operated to modify the current data sample (p.sub.m) by a first set of filter coefficients (b.sub.2, . . . b.sub.n) (See para[0120]: filter coefficients w.sub.0, w.sub.1, . . . , w.sub.M-1.) and,
Solem is silent as to the language of:
optionally, to modify the current filtered data sample (y.sub.m) by a second set of filter coefficients (a.sub.2, . . . a.sub.n).
Nevertheless Sethuraman teaches:
optionally, to modify the current filtered data sample (y.sub.m) by a second set of filter coefficients (a.sub.2, . . . a.sub.n) (See Fig. 4, para[0033] – para[0036]: filter coefficients a.sub.1, b.sub.1.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Solem to optionally, to modify the current filtered data sample (y.sub.m) by a second set of filter coefficients (a.sub.2, . . . a.sub.n) such as that of Sethuraman. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Solem, because combining the prior art element of an impulse response filter would have yielded the predictable result of calculating a filter output.
Regarding Claim 46. Solem is silent as to the language of:
The signal filtering method of claim 28,
wherein the current state vector (Z.sub.m) comprises a predefined number of state values (z.sub.1, . . . z.sub.n−1) associated with the current time point, wherein the digital filter is operated to compute the state values as:
PNG
media_image6.png
161
345
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein z.sub.2*, . . . z.sub.n−1* are state values of the preceding state vector (Z*), p.sub.m is the current data sample, y.sub.m is the current filtered data sample, and a.sub.2, . . . a.sub.n and b.sub.2, . . . b.sub.n, are filter coefficients, and wherein a.sub.2, . . . a.sub.n may be set to zero.
Nevertheless Sethuraman teaches:
wherein the current state vector (Z.sub.m) comprises a predefined number of state values (z.sub.1, . . . z.sub.n−1) associated with the current time point, wherein the digital filter is operated to compute the state values as:
PNG
media_image6.png
161
345
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein z.sub.2*, . . . z.sub.n−1* are state values of the preceding state vector (Z*), p.sub.m is the current data sample, y.sub.m is the current filtered data sample, and a.sub.2, . . . a.sub.n and b.sub.2, . . . b.sub.n, are filter coefficients, and wherein a.sub.2, . . . a.sub.n may be set to zero (See para[0043] – para[0045]: y(n)=a.sub.1*x(n)+a.sub.2*x(n-1)-b.sub.1*y(n-1)-b.sub.2*y(n-2).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Solem to include the features such as that of Sethuraman. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Solem, because combining the prior art element of an impulse response filter would have yielded the predictable result of calculating a filter output.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that: A reference is reasonably pertinent only if it logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering the problem addressed by the invention. MPEP § 2141.01(a). Here, Kever addresses problems arising in filtering cardiac electrical signals. Cardiac signals and pressure signals are affected by different physical phenomena and different sources of noise. Thus, Kever would not logically have commended itself to an inventor seeking to solve the problem of filtering pressure signals. Accordingly, Kever is not reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor and does not constitute analogous art.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the amended independent claims 28, 54, and 55 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Kerver is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Kerver is both from the same field of the inventor’s endeavor and reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned.
In regards to establishing the field of endeavor Applicant’s Specification as filed recites “The present invention relates to digital filtering of a pressure signal, in particular a pressure signal that represents fluid pressure in a medical apparatus, e.g. an apparatus for extracorporeal blood processing” (See Page 1, lines 5-10). Kerver recites “a medical device receives a signal that represents electrical activity within the heart following delivery of a stimulation pulse to the heart and reconfigures a filter state of a filter from an initial filter state to remove a polarization artifact from the electrical activity signal in order to determine whether a cardiac event, such as an evoked response has occurred” (See para[0007]). In view of the state of the art, the examiner understands that both the instant application and Kerver are both directed to filtering signals from medical devices.
In regards to establishing that Kerver is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem Applicant’s Specification as filed recites “All of these monitoring techniques presume that the physiological signal components can be reliably detected in the pressure signal. To enable monitoring, it may be necessary operate a filter on the pressure signal for removal or suppression of signal interferences, e.g. pressure pulses (“pump pulses”) originating from the blood pump” (See Page 2, lines 4-8). Kerver recites “a medical device receives a signal that represents electrical activity within the heart following delivery of a stimulation pulse to the heart and reconfigures a filter state of a filter from an initial filter state to remove a polarization artifact from the electrical activity signal in order to determine whether a cardiac event, such as an evoked response has occurred” (See para[0007]). In view of the state of the art, the examiner understands Kerver to be reasonable pertinent to the problem of filtering a signal from a medical device to monitor physiological components such as heartbeats.
Accordingly, because Kerver is directed to the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to the problem applicant’s arguments regarding the reference Kerver are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that: Cardiac rhythm signals are shaped by the heart's electrical activity and pressure signals are governed by fluid dynamics and mechanical inertia, so their rise and decay patterns respond differently to timing and filtering. Because Kerver is limited to electrical cardiac signals and provides no teaching or suggestion to apply its approach to pressure sensing, a POSITA would have no motivation or reasonable expectation of success in modifying with Solem with Kerver.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the amended independent claims 28, 54, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Further, where there is a reason to modify or combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention, the claims may be rejected as prima facie obvious provided there is also a reasonable expectation of success. The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to "the likelihood of success" in combining or modifying prior art disclosures to meet the limitations of the claimed invention. See Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1375, 2023 USPQ2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2023) and Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367, 119 USPQ2d 1171, 1176 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In this case, although Kerver does not disclose filtering a signal from a pressure sensor, Kerver does teach filtering a signal from a medical device to removing artifacts from the signal.
Referring to the Specification as filed of the instant application “the pressure sensor may be of any type, e.g. operating by resistive, capacitive, inductive, magnetic, acoustic or optical sensing, and using one or more diaphragms, bellows, Bourdon tubes, piezo-electrical components, semiconductor components, strain gauges, resonant wires, accelerometers, etc. For example, the pressure sensor may be implemented as a conventional pressure sensor, a bioimpedance sensor, a photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor, etc.” (See Page 25, lines 8-13) and “The digital filter may be implemented as an infinite impulse response (IIR) filter (also known as a recursive filter) or a finite impulse response filter (FIR), which are both well-known in the art” (See Page 8, lines 15-22). Solem teaches, “the measurement and reference signals may originate from any conceivable type of pressure sensor, e.g. operating by resistive, capacitive, inductive, magnetic or optical sensing, and using one or more diaphragms, bellows, Bourdon tubes, piezo-electrical components, semiconductor components, strain gauges, resonant wires, accelerometers, etc” (See para[0150]) and “Adaptive filters are well-known electronic filters (digital or analog) that self-adjust their transfer function according to an optimizing algorithm. Specifically, the adaptive filter 30 includes a variable filter 32, typically a finite impulse response (FIR) filter of length M with filter coefficients w(n)” (See para[0112]). Kerver teaches, “IMD 10 senses cardiac activity, i.e., electrical activity signals, via one or more of electrodes 18, 20, 28, 30, 34, and 36 following delivery of a stimulation pulse to heart 12” (See para[0027]) and “Electrical activity signals from the electrodes selected for coupling to filter amplifier 78 are converted to multi-bit digital signals by A/D converter 82, for processing by a digital filter 86 or processor 40” (See para[0036]).
In view of the state of the art, the examiner understands that the pressure signal of both the instant application and Solem, and the electrical activity signals of Kerver are electrical signals from a medical device. Further, the examiner understands the digital filters of the instant application, Solem, and Kerver to be generally applicable to filtering electrical signals. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Solem, because using digital filters to filter electrical signals was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as recognized by applicant’s specification.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Solem wherein selectively modifying the preceding state vector (Z*) comprises replacing the preceding state vector (Z*) of the digital filter at the selected time point (t2) by a reconfiguration state vector (Z′) such as that of Kerver. Kerver teaches, “The filter, in effect, removes polarization artifacts from sensed electrical activity signals by reconfiguring a filter state of a filter from an initial filter state in order to determine existence of an evoked response following the stimulation pulse” (See para[0006]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Solem, because modifying a state vector of a digital filter would have helped remove polarization artifacts, as recognized by Kerver.
Accordingly, because there is a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references and a reasonable expectation of success the rejection of claims 28, 54, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARTER W FERRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 am - 8 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, Catherine T. Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/CARTER W FERRELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857