Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/852,389

HEART RATE ESTIMATION METHOD, DEVICE, AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 29, 2022
Examiner
COOK, CHRISTOPHER L
Art Unit
3797
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
BOMDIC INC.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
47%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 7m
To Grant
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 47% of resolved cases
47%
Career Allow Rate
254 granted / 544 resolved
-23.3% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 7m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
590
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.0%
-36.0% vs TC avg
§103
42.8%
+2.8% vs TC avg
§102
11.0%
-29.0% vs TC avg
§112
32.6%
-7.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 544 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/04/2025 has been entered. 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) 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 13-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2019/0192018 to Zhang et al. “Zhang” in view of U.S. Publication No. 2016/0354038 to Demirtas et al. “Demirtas”. As for Claims 1, 5, 10, 14 and 19, Zhang discloses a system and method for estimating heart rate with a photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor configured to generate PPG spectrums over time (e.g. including at least a t-th time point and a reference PPG spectrum; Paragraphs [0091] and [0133]); an accelerometer configured to provide acceleration data (e.g. motion energy parameter) used to remove noise from the PPG spectrum (Paragraphs [0092] and [0112]-[0113]); determine a reference mask based on the predicted heart rate and the motion energy parameter of the time segment (e.g. t-th time point; Paragraphs [0014], [0018], [0029] and [0120]); determining a specific PPG spectrum based on the reference mask and the reference spectrum to estimate the heart rate (Paragraphs [0134 and [0155]-[0158] and Figs. 3 and 5). However, Zhang does not expressly disclose steps to obtain original motion parameter to estimate an activity count and historical motion energy parameters as now claimed. Zhang also does not appear to specify the accelerometer data includes a plurality of values and that the reference mask is multiplied by the reference PPG data to generate “specific PPG spectrum”. Demirtas teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to systems and methods to estimate heart rate with PPG data within time windows (Abstract; Paragraph [0045]) where a plurality of accelerometer values may be used to identify a pattern of motion (e.g. activity count) used to reduce noise of the input signal (Paragraph [0031]). Demirtas explains a filter generator may process data samples of individual channels that include data from multiple accelerometer channels (Paragraphs [0054]-[0055]; Fig. 5). Demirtas also teaches the system multiplies a reference mask by reference PPG data to determine individual contributions of each source (e.g. product of the short time Fourier transform (STFT) to the PPG and the mask) (Paragraph [0058]) and discloses the computed HR mask is applied to the PPG data to substantially reduce contributions to the PPG signal from all other sources other than the HR source via a point-wise multiplication of the STFT matrix for the PPG channel (Paragraph [0060]-[0062]). Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified the accelerometer data described by Zhang to include a plurality of values described by Demirtas in order to estimate an accurate activity count and thus improve HR estimation. In addition, one skilled in the art would have also been motivated to have included a step to multiply the reference mask with PPG data as described by Demirtas in order to improve Zhang’s HR estimation by removing motion related artifacts from the data. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143). Regarding Claims 2 and 11, Zhang discloses de-noising the PPG spectrum (Paragraphs [0135], [0175]-[0178]). In addition, Demirtas teaches filtering the PPG signal to reduce the amount of noise (e.g. de-noising) (Paragraph [0061]). As for Claims 4 and 13, Examiner notes that the accelerometer data may have a weight of 1 and thus, may be “weighted” in its broadest reasonable interpretation. With respect to Claims 6 and 15, Zhang teaches where the HR estimation includes a step of determining a reference value based on the previous heart rate and previous motion parameters (Paragraphs [0149]-[0152]). Regarding Claims 7 and 16, Examiner notes that when w1=0, and w2 =1, the reference value would be represented by the last HR + c. Zhang discloses wherein the HR estimation includes the previous HR as described above. Thus, Zhang would read on the claimed equation in its broadest reasonable interpretation. As for Claims 8 and 17, Zhang disclose wherein the HR estimation takes into account a standard deviation (Paragraph [0169]). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 11/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the updated grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER L COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approximately 8AM-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, Anne Kozak can be reached on 571-270-0552. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /CHRISTOPHER L COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 29, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 23, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 13, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Nov 04, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 13, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594056
ULTRASOUND SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING ULTRASOUND SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12569149
SYSTEM AND METHOD TO DETECT THE PRESENCE AND PROGRESSION OF DISEASES CHARACTERIZED BY SYSTEMIC CHANGES IN THE STATE OF THE VASCULATURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569309
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MONITORING PATIENT MOTION DURING A MEDICAL PROCEDURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12551129
SKULL-CONTOURED MRI LOCALIZER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12529738
PATIENT-COMPLIANT MRI COIL EMPLOYING PATIENT ANATOMY FOR COIL LOCATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
47%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+27.4%)
4y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 544 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month