DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In response to amendment filed April 13, 2026, claims 1 and 13 are amended. Claims 3 and 18 are cancelled. Claims 1-2, 4-17 and 19-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed April 13, 2026, with respect to the specification objection have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. The objection of specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed April 13, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The abstract ideas are identified as the steps of “determining”; “ascertaining” and “providing”. That is, as broadly and reasonably interpreted, the above recited steps of determining, ascertaining and providing are steps that can practically be performed in the mind or with the aid of pen/paper. A medical professional can perform the claimed step of capturing by mentally looking at measurement signals, and can further determine a bioelectrical signal by looking at all the measurement signals and deem one to be a bioelectrical signal. The medical professional can then ascertain an item of breathing information by looking at the bioelectrical signal and further provide that item mentally as a note. Thus, the claims can be readily interpreted as being a mere application of a mental process on a computer. An improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea even if such an abstract idea results in more accurate results.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims integrate the abstract idea into practical application, Examiner respectfully disagrees. An improvement to the technology cannot be in the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05a. “[L]imitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” MPEP 2106.05(h). “[T]he additional element in Flook ... was not sufficient to make the claim eligible, because it was merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating the alarm limit value were performed.” Furthermore, the abstract idea amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For example, the recitations regarding the generic computer components for determining; capturing; ascertaining; providing; filtering; executing; outputting; applying; using; synchronizing; carrying out; and executing merely invoke a computer as a tool to perform an existing process. The additional elements are identified in the 101 section below as being signal measuring circuits with capacitive sensor elements; a signal processing apparatus; a computer unit; a comparator module; a number of pressure-sensitive measuring elements; a mechanical mounting; a sensor electrode; an output unit; and a medical imaging system. Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine and conventional means for data-gathering and computing as demonstrated by Applicant’s background in the specification and paragraphs [0011]; [0100]; and [0152]-[0154] and by the non-patent literature cited previously. When considered in combination, the additional elements (i.e. the generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed April 16, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C 102 and 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Longinotti-Buitoni (US 20140318699 A1)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are all within at least one of the four categories.
The independent claim 1 recites:
[…] determine at least one bioelectrical signal from the measurement signals;
ascertain an item of breathing information on the basis of at least one of the beat-to-beat heart rate of the patient, the ECG vector of the patient, or the muscle activity signal of the patient; and
provide the item of breathing information.
The independent claim 13 recites:
capturing a number of measurement signals relating to the patient […];
determining, […], at least one bioelectrical signal from the measurement signals;
ascertaining, […], the item of breathing information of the patient on the basis of at least one of the beat-to-beat heart rate of the patient, the ECG vector of the patient, or the muscle activity signal of the patient; and
providing, […], the item of breathing information.
The above claim limitations constitute an abstract idea that is part of the Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes group identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019. See footnotes 14 and 15.
“A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words ….” October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, II. A. i. “[T]here are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping.” Id. at II. A. ii. “[A] claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation.” Id. at II. A. iii. See for example, SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (performing a resampled statistical analysis to generate a resampled distribution).
The claimed steps of capturing, determining, ascertaining and providing can be practically performed in the human mind using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas.
Examples of ineligible claims that recite mental processes include:
a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.;
claims to “comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations,” where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp.
a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC.
See p. 7-8 of October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.
With respect to the pending claims, for example, a medical professional can perform the claimed step of capturing by mentally looking at measurement signals, and can further determine a bioelectrical signal by looking at all the measurement signals and deem one to be a bioelectrical signal. The medical professional can then ascertain an item of breathing information by looking at the bioelectrical signal and further provide that item mentally as a note. Thus, the claims can be readily interpreted as being a mere application of a mental process on a computer.
Regarding the dependent claims, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data output that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry. For example, dependent claims recite steps (e.g. determining, capturing, ascertaining, providing, filtering, extracting, outputting, applying, using, synchronizing, carrying out and executing) that can be performed in the mind. Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
This judicial exception (abstract idea) in claims 1-20 is not integrated into a practical application because:
The abstract idea amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For example, the recitations regarding the generic computing components for determining, capturing, ascertaining, providing, filtering, extracting, outputting, applying, using, synchronizing, carrying out and executing merely invoke a computer as a tool.
The data-gathering step (capturing) and the data-output step (providing and outputting) do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. “The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.” MPEP 2106.05(a) II. The claims recite a computer that is used as a tool for determining, capturing, ascertaining, providing, filtering, extracting, outputting, applying, using, synchronizing, carrying out and executing.
The claims do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Rather, the abstract idea is utilized to determine a relationship among data to provide information about breathing using differential voltage signals.
The claims do not apply the abstract idea to a particular machine. “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b). II. “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b) III. The pending claims utilize a computer for determining, capturing, ascertaining, providing, filtering, extracting, outputting, applying, using, synchronizing, carrying out and executing. The claims do not apply the obtained data to a particular machine. Rather, the data is merely output in an post-solution step.
The additional elements are identified as follows: signal measuring circuits with capacitive sensor elements; a signal processing apparatus; a computer unit; a comparator module; a number of pressure-sensitive measuring elements; a mechanical mounting; a sensor electrode; an output unit; a medical imaging system;
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by
Applicant's Background in the specification;
Applicant's specification ([0011]) discloses that differential voltage measuring systems are known to the person skilled in the art according to their basic functioning; [0100] which discloses that known pressure sensors from prior art are used; and [0152]-[0154] which discloses that known devices as hardware devices with processors and computer programs can be used to perform the generic computer functions (e.g. determining, capturing, ascertaining, providing, filtering, extracting, outputting, applying, using, synchronizing, carrying out and executing) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry; and
the non-patent literature previously cited herewith:
Ha, Sohmyung, et al. "Integrated circuits and electrode interfaces for noninvasive physiological monitoring." IEEE Transactions on biomedical engineering 61.5 (2014): 1522-1537.
the non-patent literature previously cited by applicant:
BAILON R ET AL "Robust estimation of respiratory frequency from exercise ECGs", COMPUTERS IN CARDIOLOGY 2003 THESSALONIKI, GREECE, SEPT 21 - 24, 2003, [COMPUTERS IN CARDIOLOGY], NEW YORK, NY IEEE, US, Bd VOL 30, 21 September 2003 (2003-09-21), Seiten 299-302, XP010698899, DOI 10 1109/CIC 2003 1291150, ISBN 978-0-7803-8170-4,
Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3.
Furthermore, the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(lI) note the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of such additional elements as those claimed. See option III. A. 2. in the Berkheimer memorandum.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (i.e. the generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 11-13, 15 and 19-20 are rejected under are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henning (US 20120310053 A1; previously cited) in view of Longinotti-Buitoni (US 20140318699 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Henning discloses
A differential voltage measuring system to determine a breathing activity of a patient, the differential voltage measuring system (see paragraph 0012, medical apparatus that relate to breathing activity of patient) comprising:
a number of signal measuring circuits, each having a capacitive sensor element configured to capture a measurement signal relating to the patient (see paragraph 0048-0049 and Figs. 2-3: a number of electrical potential sensors #20 are arranged in a two-dimensional matrix is integrated as a contact device for a patient into a patient support plate #11 where each of the electrical potential sensors includes three electrodes #41-#43);
a signal processing apparatus configured to determine at least one bioelectrical signal from the measurement signals (see paragraph 0051, each electrical potential sensor #20 has electrical structural elements for signal pre-processing thereby the signals of active electrodes are supplied to an instrument preamplifier where a filter #49 and ND convertor can be provided which is interpreted to be a signal processing apparatus); and
a computer unit (see paragraph 0052, electrical potential sensors #20 are connected with a signal evaluation device that has a multiplexer #21 and a computer #14) configured to
ascertain an item of breathing information, said item of breathing information indicating the breathing activity of the patient (see paragraph 0052-0059, the difference measurement signals determine the breathing cycle of the patient which indicates the breathing activity), and
provide the item of breathing information (see paragraph 0052-0059, the breathing cycle pertaining to chest breathing is determined based on the sensors #20 and provided).
Henning does not specifically disclose that the at least one bioelectrical signal includes at least on or a beat-to-beat heart rate of the patient, an ECG vector of the patient, or a muscle activity of the patient.
Longinotti-Buitoni teaches capacitive sensors that measure data in the form of heart rate and muscle electrical activity (see paragraph 0032, 0261) and ascertain an item of breathing from the data (see paragraph 0296, 0326).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Henning with the teaching of Longinotti-Buitoni to have included a bioelectrical signal in the form of muscle electrical activity because it would have resulted in the predictable result of detecting breathing based on chest wall surface kinematics (Longinotti-Buitoni: see [0326]).
With respect to claim 2, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Henning further discloses
the signal processing apparatus is configured to determine at least two different bioelectrical signals from the measurement signals (see paragraph 0052-0059, the cardiac activity and respiratory activity of the patient can be determined using sensors #20); and
the computer unit is configured to take into account each of the at least two different bioelectrical signals to ascertain the item of breathing information (see paragraph 0052-0059, the breathing cycle is determined based on both the respiratory and cardiac activity signals).
With respect to claim 4, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Henning further discloses
the at least one bioelectrical signal indicates a capacitive coupling between at least one of the capacitive sensor elements and the patient (see paragraph 0049, the electrical potential sensor #20 includes three electrodes #41,#42 and #43 which are coupled capacitively to the body of the patient of which all provide signals); and
the signal processing apparatus (see paragraph 0051, each electrical potential sensor #20 has electrical structural elements for signal pre-processing thereby the signals of active electrodes are supplied to an instrument preamplifier where a filter #49 and ND convertor can be provided which is interpreted to be a signal processing apparatus) includes
a reference signal capture apparatus configured to capture a reference signal (see paragraph 0049, electrode #43 is a reference electrode that captures reference signal), and
a comparator module (see paragraph 0051, each electrical potential sensor #20 has electrical structural elements for signal pre-processing thereby the signals of active electrodes are supplied to an instrument preamplifier where a filter #49 and ND convertor can be provided which is interpreted to be a signal processing apparatus) configured to
ascertain, on the basis of the reference signal, a corrected measurement signal (see paragraph 0049, electrode #43 is the reference electrode and electrodes #41 and #42 are the active electrodes and the difference measurement signals are generated based on the signals of the active electrodes utilizing the reference signal), and
provide, on the basis of the corrected measurement signal, as the at least one bioelectrical signal, a signal from which a capacitive coupling between at least one of the capacitive sensor elements and the patient is derivable (see paragraph 0049, electrode #43 is the reference electrode and electrodes #41 and #42 are the active electrodes and the difference measurement signals are generated based on the signals of the active electrodes utilizing the reference signal).
With respect to claim 5, all limitations of claim 4 apply in which Henning further discloses wherein the comparator module comprises:
a reference formation filter configured to filter the reference signal (see paragraph 0051, filters #49); and
an adaptive filter unit configured to filter a measurement signal on the basis of the filtered reference signal, to ascertain the corrected measurement signal (see paragraph 0051, filters #49 along with ND convertor).
With respect to claim 11, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Henning further discloses wherein the computer unit is configured to apply a trained function to signals input into the computer unit (see paragraph 0053, computer #14 utilizes Fourier and/or wavelet analysis which is interpreted to be a form of trained function), said trained function being configured to ascertain the item of breathing information on the basis of the signals input into the computer unit (see paragraph 0052-0059, the difference measurement signals determine the breathing cycle of the patient which indicates the breathing activity), and provide the item of breathing information (see paragraph 0052-0059, the breathing cycle pertaining to chest breathing is determined based on the sensors #20 and provided).
With respect to claim 12, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Henning further discloses a method comprising: using a differential voltage measuring system as claimed in claim 1 to synchronize a medical imaging system with the breathing activity of the patient (see paragraph 0047 and 0061-0064, method according to the invention to control a medical apparatus along with an imaging medical apparatus to determine breathing cycle of patient).
With respect to claim 13, Henning discloses
A computer-implemented method for providing an item of breathing information indicating a breathing activity of a patient (see paragraph 0012, medical apparatus that relate to breathing activity of patient; and see paragraph 0035, the invention can be achieved by a non-transitory computer readable data storage medium encoded with programming instructions that cause the signal evaluation device to implement the method), the computer-implemented method comprising:
capturing a number of measurement signals relating to the patient with a number of signal measuring circuits, each including a capacitive sensor element to capture a measurement signal relating to the patient (see paragraph 0048-0049 and Figs. 2-3: a number of electrical potential sensors #20 are arranged in a two-dimensional matrix is integrated as a contact device for a patient into a patient support plate #11 where each of the electrical potential sensors includes three electrodes #41-#43);
determining, by a signal processing apparatus, at least one bioelectrical signal from the measurement signals (see paragraph 0051, each electrical potential sensor #20 has electrical structural elements for signal pre-processing thereby the signals of active electrodes are supplied to an instrument preamplifier where a filter #49 and ND convertor can be provided which is interpreted to be a signal processing apparatus);
ascertaining, by a computer unit (see paragraph 0052, electrical potential sensors #20 are connected with a signal evaluation device that has a multiplexer #21 and a computer #14), the item of breathing information of the patient (see paragraph 0052-0059, the difference measurement signals determine the breathing cycle of the patient which indicates the breathing activity); and
providing, by the computer unit, the item of breathing information (see paragraph 0052-0059, the breathing cycle pertaining to chest breathing is determined based on the sensors #20 and provided).
Henning does not specifically disclose that the at least one bioelectrical signal includes at least on or a beat-to-beat heart rate of the patient, an ECG vector of the patient, or a muscle activity of the patient.
Longinotti-Buitoni teaches capacitive sensors that measure data in the form of heart rate and muscle electrical activity (see paragraph 0032, 0261) and ascertain an item of breathing from the data (see paragraph 0296, 0326)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Henning with the teaching of Longinotti-Buitoni to have included a bioelectrical signal in the form of muscle electrical activity because it would have resulted in the predictable result of detecting breathing based on chest wall surface kinematics (Longinotti-Buitoni: see [0326]).
With respect to claim 15, all limitations of claim 13 apply in which Henning further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program having program portions that carry out the method as claimed in claim 13 when the computer program is executed at a differential voltage measuring system (see paragraph 0035, the invention can be achieved by a non-transitory computer readable data storage medium encoded with programming instructions that cause the signal evaluation device to implement the method).
With respect to claim 19, all limitations of claim 2 apply in which Henning further discloses
the at least one bioelectrical signal indicates a capacitive coupling between at least one of the capacitive sensor elements and the patient (see paragraph 0049, the electrical potential sensor #20 includes three electrodes #41,#42 and #43 which are coupled capacitively to the body of the patient of which all provide signals); and
the signal processing apparatus (see paragraph 0051, each electrical potential sensor #20 has electrical structural elements for signal pre-processing thereby the signals of active electrodes are supplied to an instrument preamplifier where a filter #49 and ND convertor can be provided which is interpreted to be a signal processing apparatus) includes
a reference signal capture apparatus configured to capture a reference signal (see paragraph 0049, electrode #43 is a reference electrode that captures reference signal), and
a comparator module (see paragraph 0051, each electrical potential sensor #20 has electrical structural elements for signal pre-processing thereby the signals of active electrodes are supplied to an instrument preamplifier where a filter #49 and ND convertor can be provided which is interpreted to be a signal processing apparatus) configured to
ascertain, on the basis of the reference signal, a corrected measurement signal (see paragraph 0049, electrode #43 is the reference electrode and electrodes #41 and #42 are the active electrodes and the difference measurement signals are generated based on the signals of the active electrodes utilizing the reference signal), and
provide, on the basis of the corrected measurement signal, as the at least one bioelectrical signal, a signal from which a capacitive coupling between at least one of the capacitive sensor elements and the patient is derivable (see paragraph 0049, electrode #43 is the reference electrode and electrodes #41 and #42 are the active electrodes and the difference measurement signals are generated based on the signals of the active electrodes utilizing the reference signal).
With respect to claim 20, all limitations of claim 7 apply in which Henning further discloses
the at least one bioelectrical signal indicates a capacitive coupling between at least one of the capacitive sensor elements and the patient (see paragraph 0049, the electrical potential sensor #20 includes three electrodes #41,#42 and #43 which are coupled capacitively to the body of the patient of which all provide signals); and
the signal processing apparatus (see paragraph 0051, each electrical potential sensor #20 has electrical structural elements for signal pre-processing thereby the signals of active electrodes are supplied to an instrument preamplifier where a filter #49 and ND convertor can be provided which is interpreted to be a signal processing apparatus) includes
a reference signal capture apparatus configured to capture a reference signal (see paragraph 0049, electrode #43 is a reference electrode that captures reference signal), and
a comparator module (see paragraph 0051, each electrical potential sensor #20 has electrical structural elements for signal pre-processing thereby the signals of active electrodes are supplied to an instrument preamplifier where a filter #49 and ND convertor can be provided which is interpreted to be a signal processing apparatus) configured to
ascertain, on the basis of the reference signal, a corrected measurement signal (see paragraph 0049, electrode #43 is the reference electrode and electrodes #41 and #42 are the active electrodes and the difference measurement signals are generated based on the signals of the active electrodes utilizing the reference signal), and
provide, on the basis of the corrected measurement signal, as the at least one bioelectrical signal, a signal from which a capacitive coupling between at least one of the capacitive sensor elements and the patient is derivable (see paragraph 0049, electrode #43 is the reference electrode and electrodes #41 and #42 are the active electrodes and the difference measurement signals are generated based on the signals of the active electrodes utilizing the reference signal).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henning in view of Longinotti-Buitoni as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Prichep (US 20030144601 A1; previously cited).
With respect to claim 6, all limitations of claim 4 apply in which Henning further discloses wherein the signal processing apparatus includes a prefilter (see paragraph 0051, signal pre-processing with filters #49).
Henning and Longinotti-Buitoni do not specifically teach wherein the signal processing apparatus includes a prefilter, in the form of a comb filter configured to extract at least one of frequencies of 50 Hz, 60 Hz or their harmonics from at least one of a measurement signal or the reference signal.
Prichep teaches a filter in the form of a comb filter (see paragraphs 0023 and 0032, comb filter; further as described in U.S. Pat. No. 4705049 which is incorporated by reference entirely into Prichep) configured to extract at least one of frequencies of 50 Hz, 60 Hz or their harmonics from at least one of a measurement signal or the reference signal (see paragraph 0023 and 0032 and claim 2, frequency range of 50-2000 Hz is utilized).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hennings and Longinotti-Buitoni with the teachings of Prichep to have included a comb filter because it would have resulted in the predictable result of reducing the adverse effects of noise (Prichep: see [0023]) to improve signal-to-noise ratio (Prichep: see [0032]).
Claims 7-9, 14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henning in view of Longinotti-Buitoni as applied to claims 1 and 13 respectively above, and further in view of Ueda (US 20070008156 A1; previously cited).
With respect to claim 7, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Henning and Longinotti-Buitoni do not specifically teach a number of pressure-sensitive measuring elements, each of which is configured to capture a pressure signal indicating a local pressure loading by the patient on an underlay; a secondary signal processing apparatus configured to determine at least one pressure loading signal from the pressure signals; and wherein the computer unit is configured to ascertain and provide the item of breathing information on the basis of the at least one pressure loading signal.
Ueda teaches a number of pressure-sensitive measuring elements, each of which is configured to capture a pressure signal indicating a local pressure loading by the patient on an underlay (see paragraph 0111, pressure sensitive sheet #13 provided with pressure sensitive sensors #21 and #22 are pushed down on mattress due to weight of a bedded person laying on the bedding and the load is measured as a pressure signal); a secondary signal processing apparatus configured to determine at least one pressure loading signal from the pressure signals (see paragraph 0128-0131, first pressure sensitive sensor #21 is coupled to first signal processing unit #31 and second pressure sensitive sensor #22 is coupled to a second signal processing unit #33 where the signal processing units #31 and #33 output signals to amplified circuits #35 to further process and determine pressure loading); and wherein the computer unit is configured to ascertain and provide the item of breathing information on the basis of the at least one pressure loading signal (see paragraph 0239-0244, the breathings of a person on the bed can be detected through the known signal processing based on the output signal from the pressure sensors and provided).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Henning and Longinotti-Buitoni with the teachings of Ueda to have included pressure sensitive measuring elements because it would have resulted in the predictable result of detecting movement of a body based on the breathing of a person in bed (Ueda: see [0187]) to notify that a person in bed is not safely in bed if being watched by a care person (Ueda: see [0187]).
With respect to claim 8, all limitations of claim 7 apply in which Ueda further teaches at least one of the capacitive sensor elements has a mechanical mounting (see paragraph 0108, the pressure sensitive sensors are laminated onto the sheet #13), said mechanical mounting being configured to support a sensor electrode of the corresponding capacitive sensor element (see paragraph 0113, each of the pressure sensitive sensors has sensor electrodes corresponding to it); and at least one of the pressure-sensitive measuring elements is accommodated in the mechanical mounting (see paragraph 0108, the pressure sensitive sensors are laminated onto the sheet #13).
With respect to claim 9, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Henning and Longinotti-Buitoni do not specifically teach an output unit configured to output the item of breathing information and at least one of the at least one bioelectrical signal, the at least one of the at least one bioelectrical signal indicating at least a heartbeat of the patient.
Ueda teaches an output unit configured to output the item of breathing information and at least one of the at least one bioelectrical signal, the at least one of the at least one bioelectrical signal indicating at least a heartbeat of the patient (see paragraph 0240-0241, a display unit is provided on with the breathing information and heartbeat signals are displayed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Henning and Longinotti-Buitoni with the teachings of Ueda to have added an output unit because it would have resulted in the predictable result of displaying the determined signals on a display (Ueda: see [0241]) to be viewable by a user and physician.
With respect to claim 14, all limitations of claim 13 apply in which Henning and Longinotti-Buitoni do not specifically teach capturing pressure signals, with at least one pressure- sensitive measuring element, indicating a pressure loading by the patient on an underlay; and determining at least one pressure loading signal from the pressure signals; wherein the ascertaining the item of breathing information of the patient is further based on the pressure loading signal.
Ueda teaches capturing pressure signals, with at least one pressure- sensitive measuring element, indicating a pressure loading by the patient on an underlay (see paragraph 0111, pressure sensitive sheet #13 provided with pressure sensitive sensors #21 and #22 are pushed down on mattress due to weight of a bedded person laying on the bedding and the load is measured as a pressure signal) and determining at least one pressure loading signal from the pressure signals (see paragraph 0128-0131, first pressure sensitive sensor #21 is coupled to first signal processing unit #31 and second pressure sensitive sensor #22 is coupled to a second signal processing unit #33 where the signal processing units #31 and #33 output signals to amplified circuits #35 to further process and determine pressure loading); and wherein the ascertaining the item of breathing information of the patient is further based on the pressure loading signal (see paragraph 0239-0244, the breathings of a person on the bed can be detected through the known signal processing based on the output signal from the pressure sensors and provided).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Henning and Longinotti-Buitoni with the teachings of Ueda to have included pressure sensitive measuring elements because it would have resulted in the predictable result of detecting movement of a body based on the breathing of a person in bed (Ueda: see [0187]) to notify that a person in bed is not safely in bed if being watched by a care person (Ueda: see [0187]).
With respect to claim 16, all limitations of claim 7 apply in which Ueda further teaches wherein the at least one pressure loading signal includes a spatially resolved pressure loading signal (see paragraph 0241, the generated signal includes at least one of the heartbeat activity or breathing activity; interpreted based on applicant’s specification [0032]).
With respect to claim 17, all limitations of claim 14 apply in which Ueda further teaches wherein the at least one pressure loading signal includes a spatially resolved pressure loading signal (see paragraph 0241, the generated signal includes at least one of the heartbeat activity or breathing activity; interpreted based on applicant’s specification [0032]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henning in view of Longinotti-Buitoni as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Derkx (US 20170360329 A1; previously cited).
With respect to claim 10, all limitations of claim 1 apply in which Hennings teaches the use of a filter (see paragraph 0051, each electrical potential sensor #20 has electrical structural elements for signal pre-processing thereby the signals of active electrodes are supplied to an instrument preamplifier where a filter #49 and ND convertor can be provided which is interpreted to be a signal processing apparatus) to ascertain the item of breathing information of the patient on the basis of signals input into the computer unit (see paragraph 0052-0059, the difference measurement signals determine the breathing cycle of the patient which indicates the breathing activity; and see paragraph 0052, electrical potential sensors #20 are connected with a signal evaluation device that has a multiplexer #21 and a computer #14); and provide the item of breathing information (see paragraph 0052-0059, the breathing cycle pertaining to chest breathing is determined based on the sensors #20 and provided).
Henning and Longinotti-Buitoni do not specifically teach wherein the filter is a Kalman filter.
Derkx teaches the use of a Kalman filer (see paragraph 0046, Kalman filter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Henning and Longinotti-Buitoni with the teachings of Derkx to have utilized a Kalman filter because it would have resulted in the predictable result of using a temporal approach to track multiple signals over time (Derkx: see [0046]) to correct the signal.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIDHI PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2379. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays to Fridays 9AM-5PM.
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 Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/N.N.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights