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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/28/2025 has been entered based on the RCE request filed on 08/28/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and under examination. As per the amendments filed on 07/28/2025, claim 1 is amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 5-6 (Rejection of Claim 1 under § 112(a)), filed 07/28/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claim language to no longer claim to turn off the electrodes. Therefore, the rejections of claims 1-12 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 7-9 (Rejection of Claims 1-12 under § 103), filed 07/28/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues:
The Office combines the teachings of Baxi A, Baxi B, and Gunasekar, contending that it would have been obvious to modify the contact detection device of Baxi A and B with the teaching of Gunasekar to turn off unused sensing electrodes to reduce power and noise (Office Action, para. 31-32). Applicant respectfully submits that the Office is misunderstanding the teachings of Gunasekar and its applicability to the claimed invention. Gunasekar teaches deactivating unused or superfluous electrodes to reduce power consumption and noise originating from those specific, now-inactive electrodes (See Gunasekar, Para. [0120]). The electrodes that are turned off in Gunasekar play no further role in the measurement process.
This is fundamentally different from the invention recited in Claim 1. In the claimed invention, the first and second electrodes are essential and remain active throughout the entire operation. They are used first in a contact detection process and subsequently in the biological information measurement process. The electrodes themselves are never turned off. Instead, the claimed invention solves a different technical problem: eliminating noise generated by the bias power source during the sensitive measurement process. To solve this problem, the claimed invention disconnects the bias power source from the still-active first and second electrodes after contact is confirmed but before measurement begins. This unique control sequence ensures that the very same electrodes confirmed to have proper contact are then used for a high-fidelity measurement, free from noise that would otherwise be introduced by the biasing circuit. The specification provides clear support for this, stating that " ... since the control means executes a process of turning OFF the bias power source from the circuit before performing the measurement process, noise generated due to connection of the power source can be eliminated" (See '718 Pub., Para. [0010]).
The cited combination fails to teach or suggest this specific sequence. A person having ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teachings of the cited references, would not be motivated to disconnect the bias power source from the active measuring electrodes. Gunasekar's teaching to deactivate unused electrodes provides no suggestion to one having ordinary skill in the art to disconnect a biasing circuit from active electrodes. Plainly, problems aiming to be solved are different, and the solutions are different. Gunasekar's motivation is to manage superfluous components, whereas the Applicant's motivation is to improve the signal quality from essential, active components by temporarily altering their circuit connections. (pages 7-8, 09/09/2025 Remarks)
In light of the amendment to claim 1, Applicant’s argument is persuasive. Gunasekar does not teach executing the measurement process after executing a process of disconnecting the bias power source from the first electrode and the second electrode. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rao (US PG Pub 2008/0303598 A1), see “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103” section.
Applicant’s arguments for claims 2-12 are that dependent claims inherit the arguments from claim 1 and that Matsumoto does not provide any additional teachings to address the arguments provided in claim 1. Applicant’s argument is persuasive and the rejections for claims 2-12 are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rao (US PG Pub 2008/0303598 A1), see “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103” section.
Summary: The prior art rejections of claims 1-12 are withdrawn. However, new 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections in view of Rao are added (see “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103”).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
•Claim 1: “control unit configured to execute a measurement process of measuring the biological information” in Claim 1: The limitation does not disclose sufficient structure for the “control unit.” The specification states: “the control unit 101 manages the control of the portable electrocardiograph 10, and includes a central processing unit (CPU) and the like, for example. In response to receiving operation of the user via the operation unit 107, the control unit 101 controls each component of the portable electrocardiograph 10 to execute various processing operations such as electrocardiographic measurement and information communication in accordance with a predetermined program. Note that the predetermined program is stored in the storage unit 105 described below” (Specification, [0024]). Therefore, the “control unit” is interpreted as a CPU or equivalent computational element used to carry out the specified functions.
• Claim 1: “a contact state determination unit configured to determine whether or not all of the first electrode, the second electrode, and the third electrode are in contact with the surface of the measurement target based on outputs of the first comparator and the second comparator” in Claim 1: The limitation does not disclose sufficient structure for the “contact state determination unit.” The “contact state determination unit” is described as: “The contact state determination unit 93 is configured by, for example, an AND circuit, and when both of the left comparator 910 and the right comparator 920 output ‘High’, the contact state determination unit 93 determines that all the electrodes of the left electrode 12a, the first right electrode 12b, and the second right electrode 12c are correctly in contact with each other, and outputs the determination result to the control unit 101” (Specification, [0041]). Therefore, the “contact state determination unit” is interpreted as circuitry used to carry out the specified functions.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Baxi (US PG Pub 2016/0374577 A1, see previously cited), to be referred to as Baxi A, in view of Baxi (US PG Pub 2016/0157781 A1, see previously cited), to be referred to as Baxi B, and Rao (US PG Pub 2008/0303598 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”).
Regarding Claim 1, Baxi A discloses a biological information measurement device (Abstract) including a first electrode, a second electrode, and a third electrode ([0009] – discusses first, second, and third electrodes, total electrode set corresponds to sensors 104, 106, 124, and 126), the biological information measurement device measuring biological information of a measurement target based on a potential difference between the first electrode and the second electrode ([0025] – corresponds to differential amplifier OP2 to measure the potential difference between sensors 124 and 126 for measuring physiologic signals), the biological information measurement device comprising:
• an electrode contact detection unit configured to detect and output a state in which all of the first electrode, the second electrode, and the third electrode are in contact with a surface of the measurement target ([0034] – “that is, the circuits and module 110 may be powered on in response to a detection of the user's body portion (e.g., a finger) simultaneously touching both electrode sets (e.g., 104-106 and 124-26)” and [0050] – to summarize, the contact state is detected and registered for 3-4 electrodes, which controls whether the “physiological context measurement module” is powered in order to collect physiologic data) and
• a control unit configured to execute a measurement process of measuring the biological information ([0009] – physiologic context measurement module 110 and control module 130 facilitate the contact detection function of the device), wherein the electrode contact detection unit includes:
• a bias power source is configured to apply a voltage to the contact detection electrodes ([0026] – the bias voltage is applied to the electrodes in OP1 to facilitate the change in current upon contact with the contact electrodes)
• the control unit is configured to execute the measurement process when the electrode contact detection unit outputs that all of the first electrode, the second electrode, and the third electrode are in contact with the surface of the measurement target ([0049] – “wherein the physiological context measurement module is to be powered on in response to detection of contact between the user's body portion and the third electrode, wherein the first, second, and third electrodes are disposed in the apparatus to facilitate simultaneous contact of the user's body portion with the first, second, and third electrodes, and collection of the one or more parameters of the physiological context while the simultaneous contact is maintained.” i.e. the physiologic signal is measured by the electrodes and transmitted to the physiological context measurement module as a signal)
Baxi A discloses:
A wearable sensing system may need to be comfortably attached to the human body, and may be able to measure and quantify various parameters of a user's physiological context, such as, for example, electrocardiogram (ECG), electromyogram (EMG), electroencephalogram (EEG), and the like, as well as provide user authentication based on biometric measurements, to enable "no password" device unlocking. However, the quality of a user's physiological context readings and performance of biometric authentication algorithms (e.g., based on ECG readings) are highly dependent on the quality and repeatability of signals (e.g., ECG signals) sensed from the human body. The quality of ECG signals is dependent on the electrode material and the electrode-tissue impedance (ETI). ETI levels may vary dependent on the level of dryness of the hands of the user. This difference in ETI may affect the quality and repeatability of ECG signals and in turn, the accuracy of measurements of the user's physiological context and biometric authentication [0002].
Baxi A does not disclose an electrode contact detection unit comprising: (1) the first electrode and the second electrode have a contact detection potential higher than a potential of the third electrode, (2) a first comparator and a second comparator connected to the first electrode and the second electrode, respectively, and configured to compare the contact detection potential with respective potentials of the first electrode and the second electrode; and (3) a contact state determination unit configured to determine whether or not all of the first electrode, the second electrode, and the third electrode are in contact with the surface of the measurement target based on outputs of the first comparator (see paragraph 30).
Baxi B, in the same field of endeavor of detecting skin/electrode contact in a physiologic sensor, teaches an electrode contact detection unit ([0028]) comprising:
(1) the first electrode and the second electrode have a contact detection potential higher than a potential of the third electrode ([0021] – all four sensors 110, 112, 114, and 116 are capable of measuring ECG signals, [0029] - the contact detection electrode among these sensors is maintained at a higher potential than the designated reference potential, V-REF),
(2) a first comparator and a second comparator connected to the first electrode and the second electrode, respectively, and configured to compare the contact detection potential with respective potentials of the first electrode and the second electrode ([0029] – comparators are used to compare voltage potentials between the electrodes and the reference, i.e. the contact detection potential, where the normally high electrode voltage is reduced during contact: “The output signal 250 of the comparator 246 may be normally ‘high’ since its voltage is greater than the voltage V-REF of signal 252 at negative input of the comparator 246. When one hand, palm or wrist of the user (not shown) touches electrodes 210, 214 and the other hand, palm, or wrist touches electrodes 212, 216, the voltage signal 244 at positive input of comparator 246 may drop below V-REF, causing the output signal 250 of comparator 246 to switch from "high" to "low." This drop in comparator 246's output voltage signal 250 may be used to detect contact of both hands” [0029]); and
(3) a contact state determination unit configured to determine whether or not all of the first electrode, the second electrode, and the third electrode are in contact with the surface of the measurement target based on outputs of the first comparator and the second comparator ([0029] – contact with the user is decided based on the comparator circuit output for the array of physiologic sensors 110, 112, 114, and 116 and sensor data is transmitted to the processing unit where one sensor is a reference electrode).
Baxi B teaches:
Today's computing devices may provide for sensing and rendering to user some user context parameters, such as user's movements, ambient light, ambient temperature, and the like. The user context parameters may be provided by adding relevant sensors and corresponding logic to a user's computing device. However, the existing methods for provision of the user context may not include provision of user's physiological context, such as parameters related to user's state of health. Furthermore, provision of the user physiological context may consume substantial amount of user's time, and involve continuous sensor readings and corresponding data processing, which may require using substantial energy, hardware, and computing resources [0002].
Baxi A is embodied primarily as a sensor on a watch device (Fig 3-4) for biometric use which establishes contact between the user and physiologic sensors ([0001], [0009]) while Baxi B is embodied primarily as a sensor on a laptop (Fig 6-8) for opportunistic physiologic measurements where contact between the user and sensors must be established ([0001], [0014]). Baxi B’s design allows for “direct or indirect contact with the electrodes, allowing for measurements of the user’s physiologic context” ([0014]), which could be integrated into Baxi A to allow for more incidental contact with electrodes while still retaining diagnostic quality.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Baxi A’s skin/electrode contact detection device by incorporating the scheme for comparators evaluating the difference between electrode potentials in Baxi B. This would have been obvious because both Baxi A and Baxi B discuss evaluating electrode contact with the skin and Baxi B provides a solution/improvement to increase sensitivity of contact detection. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the device of Baxi A by incorporating the scheme for comparators evaluating the difference between electrode potentials in Baxi B.
Baxi A also does not disclose the control unit is configured to execute the measurement process after executing a process of disconnecting the bias power source from the first electrode and the second electrode.
Rao, in the same field of endeavor of an amplifier circuit in a physiologic sensor ([0005]), teaches a decoupler or switch used to decouple an active biasing source from a passive biasing source connected to the sensor amplifier circuit ([0014]). The decoupling is meant to occur while the sensor signal is being amplified so as to reduce noise from the bias circuit ([0018] – “Advantageously, the active biasing source 18 does not need to be optimized for low noise as would typically be required because the active biasing source 18 is decoupled from the amplifier 12 when the amplifier 12 is amplifying the sensor signal 50 from the sensor 22”). Rao teaches “in particular, it is desirable to provide very low noise amplification of sensor signals to minimize a dosage amount needed to perform x-ray and CT scan imaging. As amplitude of an input signal to an amplifier is decreased, an amount of circuit noise that can be tolerated also decreases ... Typically, noise at the output of the amplifier may is characterized as the root mean square sum of the noise from the sensor, the amplifier, and the biasing circuit” ([0002]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Baxi A’s electrode contact detector device by incorporating the switch to remove bias source noise to a sensor during active sensing in Rao. This would have been obvious because both Baxi A and Rao discuss evaluating sensor readings with a focus on reducing noise and Rao provides a solution/improvement to further reduce noise by switching away from bias source during active sensing. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the device of Baxi A by incorporating the switch to remove bias source noise to a sensor during active sensing in Rao.
Therefore, Claim 1 is obvious over Baxi A in view of Baxi B and Rao.
Regarding Claim 2, the biological information measurement device in Claim 1 is obvious over Baxi A in view of Baxi B and Rao. Baxi A further discloses:
• the third electrode is a ground electrode ([0027] – electrode 106 serves as a common reference electrode with a connection to ground),
• the biological information measurement device includes a first differential amplifier connected to the first electrode and the second electrode, the first differential amplifier being configured to amplify and output a potential difference between the first electrode and the second electrode ([0025] – “Sensors 124, 126 may be connected as inputs to a differential amplifier OP2. OP2 may be configured to amplify the resultant readings of the user's physiological context, such ECG signal”), and
• the control unit is configured to measure the biological information of the measurement target based on an output of the first differential amplifier ([0025] – “Sensors 124, 126 may be connected as inputs to a differential amplifier OP2. OP2 may be configured to amplify the resultant readings of the user's physiological context, such ECG signal, and feed the signal to the input of the physiological context measurement module”).
Therefore, Claim 2 is obvious over Baxi A in view of Baxi B and Rao.
Regarding Claim 4, the biological information measurement device in Claim 1 is obvious over Baxi A in view of Baxi B and Rao, as indicated hereinabove. Baxi A further discloses the biological information is an electrocardiographic waveform ([0016] – electrocardiogram listed as a signal measured by sensors/electrodes).
Therefore, Claim 4 is obvious over Baxi A in view of Baxi B and Rao.
Regarding Claim 5, the biological information measurement device in Claim 1 is obvious over Baxi A in view of Baxi B and Rao, as indicated hereinabove. Baxi A further discloses the biological information measurement device is a portable device ([0030] – described as a wearable device which can be attached to various articles of clothing, thereby making the device portable).
Therefore, Claim 5 is obvious over Baxi A in view of Baxi B and Rao.
Regarding Claim 6, the biological information measurement device in Claim 2 is obvious over Baxi A in view of Baxi B and Rao, as indicated hereinabove. Baxi A further discloses the biological information is an electrocardiographic waveform ([0016] – electrocardiogram listed as a signal measured by sensors/electrodes).
Therefore, Claim 6 is obvious over Baxi A in view of Baxi B and Rao.
Regarding Claim 8, the biological information measurement device in Claim 2 is obvious over Baxi A in view of Baxi B and Rao, as indicated hereinabove. Baxi A further discloses the biological information measurement device is a portable device ([0030] – described as a wearable device which can be attached to various articles of clothing, thereby making the device portable).
Therefore, Claim 8 is obvious over Baxi A in view of Baxi B and Rao.
Claims 3, 7, and 9-12 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Baxi (US PG Pub 2016/0374577 A1, see previously cited), to be referred to as Baxi A, in view of Baxi (US 2016/0157781 A1, see previously cited), to be referred to as Baxi B, Rao (US PG Pub 2008/0303598 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”), and Matsumoto (WO 2019/163375 A1, see previously cited). Note a machine translation via Espacenet (https://worldwide.espacenet.com) was used to interpret the disclosure in Matsumoto (WO 2019/163375 A1- see previously attached).
Regarding Claim 3, the biological information measurement device in Claim 1 is obvious over Baxi A in view of Baxi B and Rao, as indicated hereinabove. Baxi A further discloses:
• a connection between the first and third electrodes and configured to output a signal containing less noise using a common mode rejection ratio ([0033])
• a connection between the second and third electrodes and configured to output a signal containing less noise using a common mode rejection ratio ([0033])
• a differential amplifier between the first and second electrode and output a potential difference between the first and second electrode outputs ([0025])
•the control unit is configured to measure the biological information of the measurement target based on an output of the differential amplifier between the first and second electrode outputs ([0025] – “Sensors 124, 126 may be connected as inputs to a differential amplifier OP2. OP2 may be configured to amplify the resultant readings of the user's physiological context, such ECG signal, and feed the signal to the input of the physiological context measurement Module”).
Baxi A discloses:
In accordance with embodiments, the apparatus may comprise a physiological context measurement module including first and second electrodes, to obtain one or more parameters of physiological context of a user in response to a provision of contact of the first and second electrodes with at least a portion of a body of the user while the physiological context measurement module is powered on. The apparatus may further comprise a third electrode coupled with the physiological context measurement module, wherein the physiological context measurement module may be powered on in response to detection of contact between the user's body portion and the third electrode. The first, second, and third electrodes may be disposed in the apparatus to facilitate simultaneous contact of the user's body portion with the first, second, and third electrodes, and to facilitate collection of the one or more parameters of the physiological context while the simultaneous contact is maintained [0009].
Baxi A further discloses:
To improve performance of capacitive electrodes (124, 126 of FIG. 1) that may be susceptible to noise pickup (due to their high internal impedance and large capacitance), a third electrode (e.g., 106) may be used as a virtual ground reference electrode to improve common mode rejection ratio (CMRR) of the readings sensed by capacitive electrodes. Utilizing a pair of capacitive electrodes, in conjunction with a reference ground electrode, may result in better measurement (e.g., ECG) signal quality due to lesser baseline wandering, lesser low-frequency artifacts and reduced 50/60 Hz mains interference [0033].
Baxi A does not explicitly teach the connection between the first and third electrodes and second and third electrodes is a differential amplifier which is used to amplify and output and potential difference and the difference between these two pairings as part of a fourth differential amplifier.
Matsumoto, in the same field of endeavor of detecting skin/electrode contact in a physiologic sensor, teaches a circuit comparing outputs from a capacitive electrode and a reference electrode using a differential amplifier ([0050]).
Matsumoto teaches:
A biosignal measuring device according to one embodiment of the present invention comprises a first pulse generator that outputs a first pulse, a first amplifier circuit to which a biosignal detected by a first electrode in contact with a living body is input, and a first capacitive element that capacitively couples an output terminal of the first pulse generator and an input terminal of the first amplifier circuit, for superimposing the first pulse on the biosignal [0001].
Matsumoto further teaches:
The multiple electrodes 51 include a measurement electrode 51a that measures a biosignal,
and a reference electrode 51b that measures a reference potential used to calculate a difference from the potential measured by the measurement electrode. The headset 10 also includes an operation input device 10a (see FIG. 5) through which the subject 5 inputs operation information to the biosignal measurement system 100, and operations for realizing desired processing are input. In addition, the biosignal detection device that constitutes the biosignal measurement system 100 is not limited to an electroencephalograph, but may also be an electrocardiograph that detects electrocardiogram (ECG) signals from electrodes attached to the body, hands, feet, etc. [0015].
Therefore, Baxi A already provides for a difference to be calculated between the physiologic signal electrodes and the reference to reduce noise. A feature of both Baxi A ([0009]) and Matsumoto ([0005]) is detecting contact between a physiologic electrode and the user’s skin in order to promote signal fidelity. Baxi A discloses a differential amplifier between two physiologic electrodes, where both physiologic electrodes are compared to a reference electrode to reduce noise ([0033]). While Baxi A does not explicitly name a differential amplifier between the physiologic electrodes and reference electrode, Matsumoto provides for a differential amplifier between physiologic/reference electrode pairings as a unit to compare the reference signal with the physiologic signal ([0015]). Baxi A provides for measuring the difference between physiologic electrodes with and without the reference electrode differences being assessed ([0033]), so the inclusion of Matsumoto’s differential amplifier arrangement between physiologic/reference electrode pairings provides for four differences (via differential amplifier) to be assessed: (1) raw signal between physiologic electrodes, (2) first physiologic electrode and the reference electrode, (3) second physiologic electrode and the reference electrode, and (4) the signal between physiologic electrodes after both being compared to the reference electrode.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Baxi A’s skin/electrode contact detection device by incorporating the scheme for differential amplifiers between the physiologic signal and reference electrodes in Matsumoto. This would have been obvious because both Baxi A and Matsumoto discuss evaluating electrode contact with the skin while reducing noise and Matsumoto provides a solution/improvement to promote signal fidelity. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the device of Baxi A by incorporating the scheme for differential amplifiers between the physiologic signal and reference electrodes in Matsumoto.
Therefore, Claim 3 is obvious over Baxi A in view of Baxi B, Rao, and Matsumoto.
Regarding Claim 7, the biological information measurement device in Claim 3 is obvious over Baxi A in view of Baxi B, Rao, and Matsumoto, as indicated hereinabove. Baxi A further discloses the biological information is an electrocardiographic waveform ([0016] – electrocardiogram listed as a signal measured by sensors/electrodes).
Therefore, Claim 7 is obvious over Baxi A in view of Baxi B, Rao, and Matsumoto.
Regarding Claim 9, the biological information measurement device in Claim 3 is obvious over Baxi A in view of Baxi B, Rao, and Matsumoto, as indicated hereinabove. Baxi A further discloses the biological information measurement device is a portable device ([0030] – described as a wearable device which can be attached to various articles of clothing, thereby making the device portable).
Therefore, Claim 9 is obvious over Baxi A in view of Baxi B, Rao, and Matsumoto.
Regarding Claim 10, the biological information measurement device in Claim 4 is obvious over Baxi A in view of Baxi B, Rao, and Matsumoto, as indicated hereinabove. Baxi A further discloses the biological information measurement device is a portable device ([0030] – described as a wearable device which can be attached to various articles of clothing, thereby making the device portable).
Therefore, Claim 10 is obvious over Baxi A in view of Baxi B, Rao, and Matsumoto.
Regarding Claim 11, the biological information measurement device in Claim 6 is obvious over Baxi A in view of Baxi B, Rao, and Matsumoto, as indicated hereinabove. Baxi A further discloses the biological information measurement device is a portable device ([0030] – described as a wearable device which can be attached to various articles of clothing, thereby making the device portable).
Therefore, Claim 11 is obvious over Baxi A in view of Baxi B, Rao, and Matsumoto.
Regarding Claim 12, the biological information measurement device in Claim 7 is obvious over Baxi A in view of Baxi B, Rao, and Matsumoto, as indicated hereinabove. Baxi A further discloses the biological information measurement device is a portable device ([0030] – described as a wearable device which can be attached to various articles of clothing, thereby making the device portable).
Therefore, Claim 12 is obvious over Baxi A in view of Baxi B, Rao, and Matsumoto.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is 703-756-1345. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Benjamin A. Schmitt/
Examiner
Art Unit 3796
/Jennifer Pitrak McDonald/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796