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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/10/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 8-13, 22, and 26 have been amended, claims 1-7, and 14-21 have been cancelled, and no claims have been added. Claims 29-36 were previously withdrawn due to a Restriction Requirement. Thus, claims 8-13 and 22-28 are presently under consideration in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(b), on page 8, filed 02/10/2026, pertaining to claim set filed 07/29/2025, are not persuasive. Applicants arguments are pertaining to amendments that are not being entered due to the change in scope of the invention. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 101, on pages 9-11, filed 02/10/2026, pertaining to claim set filed 07/29/2025, are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 9 that "Amended claim 8 now recites "An electronic device, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform operations comprising: receiving an accelerometer signal from an accelerometer in a headphone configured to be mounted in a user's ear canal." This recites a specific machine that performs the claimed operations. As described in the specification, high-speed accelerometers available in earbuds or headphones configured to be mounted in the ear canal "benefit from a relatively stable position in the ear canal with respect to vital organs" enabling "robust measurements of cardiac and respiratory functions" from inside the ear."
Examiner notes that Applicant fails to claim the high speed accelerometers in the claim as the BRI of accelerometer is any type of motion sensor. Further, there is nothing in the claim that would distinguish the high speed accelerometer from a normal accelerometer.
Applicant then argues on pages 9-10 that "The ability to capture multiple distinct cardiac signals from a single sensor represents a technological improvement over conventional approaches requiring separate sensors for different signal types. "Current systems for capturing aspects of these mechano-acoustic signals suffer from susceptibility to environmental noise or low-frequency motion artifacts, and have difficulty capturing both mechanical and acoustic signals simultaneously with high fidelity." "
Applicant is asserting the abstract idea itself as the improvement. However, the abstract idea cannot be an “additional element” that shows integration into a practical application. The order of calculations and the particular calculations claimed do not make the abstract idea any less abstract. The claims are currently structured as simply using a generic computer to implement the abstract idea (mental process), which is not enough to show a practical application.
Applicant then argues on page 10 that "Amended claim 8 further recites "providing, using an output device interface of the electronic device, sensory feedback to the user based on the first cardiac rate and the second cardiac rate." As described in the specification, "[f]eedback provided to the user can be any form of sensory feedback, such as visual feedback, auditory feedback, or tactile feedback." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0044]. This limitation ties the claimed process to a practical application by providing actionable cardiac information to the user through a specific hardware interface."
Examiner notes that the sensory feedback is an additional element of outputting data which is necessary to implement the abstract idea on a computer amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity.
Applicant asserts on page 10 that "Applicant submits that the claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The combination of elements recited in amended claim 8 represents an unconventional technical arrangement. The claims do not merely recite generic computer components performing generic functions. Rather, amended claim 8 recites a specific electronic device comprising a memory storing computer programs, processors configured to execute those programs, receiving accelerometer signals from an ear-canal mounted headphone, dual bandpass filtering to extract both BCG and PCG signals from the same accelerometer signal, peak detection in both extracted signals, determination of two distinct cardiac rates, and providing sensory feedback through an output device interface based on both rates. This simultaneous multi-signal capture from a single sensor represents a specific technological improvement, not routine or conventional computer functionality." Applicant then argues on page 10 that "The Examiner has cited Liu et al. as evidence that an accelerometer in a headset is conventional. However, the claims do not merely recite an accelerometer in a headset. Amended claim 8 recites the specific combination of an electronic device with memory and processors configured to receive an accelerometer signal from an ear-canal mounted headphone, apply distinct bandpass filters to extract both BCG and PCG signals from that single accelerometer signal, detect peaks in both signals, determine two cardiac rates, and provide sensory feedback based on both rates through an output device interface. This ordered combination of specific technical elements is not shown to be well-understood, routine, or conventional."
Examiner disagrees because the implementation of an accelerometer on the headset to obtain physiological parameters is WURC, and therefore does not add significantly more. The additional elements asserted by Applicant are simply implementing extra-solution activity onto a computer.
Applicant then argues on page 11 that "As described in the specification, high-speed accelerometers "allow[] a single sensor to simultaneously record multiple cardiopulmonary signals, from subtle vibrations produced by respiration and heart beats" (e.g., BCG signals), "to those acoustic waves produced by heart and lung sounds (e.g., PCG signals) that cover a wide spectrum" As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0015]. Processing such high-frequency data streams to detect peaks and determine cardiac rates is not something that can be practically performed by the human mind. Claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations...This is not an abstract mathematical relationship but rather a specific technical operation performed by processors to extract distinct physiological signals from a single accelerometer signal."
Examiner notes that Applicant fails to claim the high speed accelerometers in the claim as the BRI of accelerometer is any type of motion sensor.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 103, on page 12, filed 02/10/2026, are not persuasive. Applicants arguments that the amendments obviate the rejection is not persuasive. Although claim 8 is now directed to an electronic device, the recitation that the accelerometer is found in an earphone mounted in a user’s ear canal has no bearing on the claim because this limitation is language configured to be done by the processor, which an accelerometer’s location and position does not matter, so long as the signal is saved received on the processor. Therefore, Examiner will interpret that the acceleration signal is obtained from any accelerometer that is positioned and located anywhere, so long that the acceleration signal is recorded and found in the memory, and received by the processor. The independent claim fails to actively recite a headset and an accelerometer that is attached to the headset. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “accelerometer is positioned adjacent to the user’s ear canal by the headphone mounted in the user's ear canal” is claiming the mammal subject, as the systems are attached to the ear. Examiner suggests to amend the claim to recite “accelerometer is configured to be positioned adjacent to the user’s ear canal by the headphone configured to be mounted in the user's ear canal”.
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 8-13 and 22-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Each of independent claims 8 and 23 recites a step detecting a first plurality of peaks in the ballistocardiogram and a second plurality of peaks in the phonocardiogram, determining a first cardiac rate of the user based on the detected first plurality of peaks and a second cardiac rate of the user based on the detected second plurality of peaks, which is a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements (ie. a non-transitory computer-readable medium, processor), determining values, and determining cardiac rates do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are to receiving data, processing data, and determine cardiac rates, which are all well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
MPEP 2106(III) outlines steps for determining whether a claim is directed to statutory subject
matter. The stepwise analysis for the instant claim is provided here.
Step 1 – Statutory categories
Claim 8 is directed to a system (i.e. a machine), and thus, meets the step 1 requirements.
Claim 23 is directed to a method and thus meets the step 1 requirements.
Step 2A – Prong 1 – Judicial exception (j.e.)
Regarding claims 8 and 23, the following step is an abstract idea:
“detecting a first plurality of peaks in the ballistocardiogram and a second plurality of peaks in the phonocardiogram,
determining a first cardiac rate of the user based on the detected first plurality of peaks and a second cardiac rate of the user based on the detected second plurality of peaks”, which is a mental process when given its broadest reasonable interpretation. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), the mental process grouping includes observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. In this case, a human could analyze peaks in the BCG and PCG signals to determine cardiac rates from each signal.
“applying a first bandpass filter, having a first frequency range, to the accelerometer signal to extract a ballistocardiogram signal from the accelerometer signal, and
applying a second bandpass filter, having a second frequency range different from the first frequency range, to extract a phonocardiogram signal from the accelerometer signal” , which is a mathematical concept when given its broadest reasonable interpretation. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), the mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. In this case, the bandpass filtering of specific frequencies for BCG and PCG signals involves the use of the filter’s selectivity equation
PNG
media_image1.png
58
88
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, a mathematical concept used to narrow data for a specific bandwidth.
Step 2A – Prong 2 – additional elements to integrate j.e. into a practical application
Regarding claims 8 and 23, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The following claim elements do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea:
- “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “electronic device”, and “processor” are recited at a high level of generality amounting to generic computer components for implementing abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “headphones” is structure that does not impose meaningful limits on the claim [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “accelerometer” are data gathering structures for the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “accelerometer signal”, “first/second cardiac signal”, “BCG signal”, “PCG signal”, “first and second frequency ranges”, “sensor feedback”, “plurality of peaks” and “cardiac rates” are data (gathering, selecting, and displaying) that is necessary to implement the abstract idea on a computer amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity [MPEP 2106.05(g)].
Step 2B – significantly more/inventive concept
The following claim elements do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea:
- “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “electronic device”, and “processor” are recited at a high level of generality amounting to generic computer components for implementing abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “headphones” is structure that does not impose meaningful limits on the claim [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “accelerometer” are data gathering structures for the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering [MPEP 2106.05(b)];
- “accelerometer signal”, “first/second cardiac signal”, “BCG signal”, “PCG signal”, “first and second frequency ranges”, “sensor feedback”, “plurality of peaks” and “cardiac rates” are data (gathering, selecting, and displaying) that is necessary to implement the abstract idea on a computer amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity [MPEP 2106.05(g)].
The additional elements of claims 8 and 23, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more (ie. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the implantable medical device, processing circuitry, and storage devices, along with their associated functions, are recited at a high level of generality and simply amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The accelerometer is claimed very generically and are used only to gather the data they are designed for. These are well-understood, routine and conventional structure since the diagnostic art in Roovers et al (US 20170007166) teaches an accelerometer for detecting motion signals ([0008]) and are used only to gather the data they are designed for. See Liu et al. (US 20160206222) that teaches an accelerometer in a headset. Further, Dai et al. (US 20200301650) teaches that obtaining acceleration signals from a motion sensor from a headset ([0004]).
Dependent claims 9-13, 22, and 24-28 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea of claims 8 and 23. The dependent claim limitations are directed extra-solution activity (claims 9-10 and 24-25), generic structure for holding generic gathering structure (claim 11), the mental process and mathematical concepts (claim 13, 22, 26, and 28) the implementing the mental process on a generic computer (claims 12 and 27 (applying template matching)), which are insignificant extra-solution activity and do not amount to more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
In summary, claims 8-13 and 22-28 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and, therefore, are patent ineligible.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 8, the recitation that the accelerometer is found in an earphone mounted in a user’s ear canal has no bearing on the claim because this limitation is language configured to be done by the processor, which an accelerometer’s location and position does not matter, so long as the signal is saved received on the processor. Therefore, Examiner will interpret that the acceleration signal is obtained from any accelerometer that is positioned and located anywhere, so long that the acceleration signal is recorded and found in the memory, and received by the processor. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will also include a piece of art showing the ability to combine an earphone for the ear canal with an accelerometer.
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) 8, 11, 13 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanegae et al. (US 20230086376)(Hereinafter Kanegae) in view of Lunner et al. (US 20190174238)(Hereinafter Lunner), Pandia et al. (US 20110098583)(Hereinafter Pandia), and He et al. (US 20150164351)(Hereinafter He).
Regarding claim 8, Kangae teaches An electronic device (Abstract “An apparatus”) comprising:
receiving an accelerometer signal from an accelerometer in a headphone configured to be mounted in a user's ear canal ([0020] “The said bio-vibration signal acquisition apparatus that is an accelerometry sensor.”);
filtering the accelerometer signal by applying a first bandpass filter, having a first frequency range, to the accelerometer signal to extract a ballistocardiogram signal from the accelerometer signal ([0130] “the bio-vibration signals (BCG), and the filtered bio-vibration signals obtained by passing through the 5 Hz, 10 Hz, 15 Hz, 20 Hz, 25 Hz, 30 Hz, 35 Hz, or 40 Hz high-pass filter, and the differentiated bio-vibration signals (diff) as waveforms.”[0070] “the preprocessing unit 12 passes the bio-vibration signals through a high-pass filter with a cutoff frequency of 0.5 Hz, a high-pass filter with the cutoff frequency (20 Hz to 40 Hz) appropriate for extraction of heart sound signals from the said bio-vibration signals, or a band-pass filter (BPF) with a pass-band of 0.5 Hz to 40 Hz to isolate or extract the beating vibration signals.” See Fig. 14 where the signal is filtered at frequencies 5, 10, and 15 Hz.);
applying a second bandpass filter, having a second frequency range different from the first frequency range, to extract a phonocardiogram signal from the accelerometer signal ([0133] “The heart sound signals observed with the high-pass filters with the cutoff frequency of 20 Hz and higher in FIG. 14 are also obtained with a phonocardiograph.” [0070] “the preprocessing unit 12 passes the bio-vibration signals through a high-pass filter with a cutoff frequency of 0.5 Hz, a high-pass filter with the cutoff frequency (20 Hz to 40 Hz) appropriate for extraction of heart sound signals from the said bio-vibration signals, or a band-pass filter (BPF) with a pass-band of 0.5 Hz to 40 Hz to isolate or extract the beating vibration signals.” See Fig. 14 where the signal is filtered at frequencies above 20 Hz.);
determining … a second cardiac rate of the user based on the detected second plurality of peaks ([0150] “The phonocardiograph, therefore, acquires signals that are readily turned into the heartbeat interval or heart rate.”).
However, Kanegae does not teach the detecting a first plurality of peaks in the ballistocardiogram signal and determining a first cardiac rate of the user based on the detected first plurality of peaks. Lunner, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a chest and ear acquires BCG signal from motion sensors (accelerometer and gyroscope) ([0053]-[0054]), and further teaches detecting a first plurality of peaks in the ballistocardiogram signal…([0118] “The peaks of the BCG signal can be used to estimate the heart rate” Fig. 7 BCG signals peaks can be identified, similar to Fig. 8, for heart rate.); and
determining a first cardiac rate of the user based on the detected first plurality of peaks… ([0118] “The peaks of the BCG signal can be used to estimate the heart rate.”) to use a better-quality signal for estimation ([0120]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Pandia, with the detecting a first plurality of peaks in the ballistocardiogram signal and determining a first cardiac rate of the user based on the detected first plurality of peaks of Lunner, because such a modification would allow to use a better-quality signal for estimation.
However, Kanegae does not teach the detecting a first plurality of peaks in the ballistocardiogram signal and determining a first cardiac rate of the user based on the detected first plurality of peaks. Lunner, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a chest and ear acquires BCG signal from motion sensors (accelerometer and gyroscope) ([0053]-[0054]), and further teaches detecting … a second plurality of peaks in the phonocardiogram signal ([0118] “The peaks of the BCG signal can be used to estimate the heart rate” Fig. 7 BCG signals peaks can be identified, similar to Fig. 8, for heart rate.); and
determining … a second cardiac rate of the user based on the detected second plurality of peaks ([0055] “the heart rate sensor is a phonocardiography (PCG) sensor and the heart rate signal of the subject may be acquired from a PCG signal measured by the PCG sensor. A PCG signal is received from the subject when a wearable device comprising a PCG sensor is worn by the subject. The PCG sensor may comprise one or more vibration transducers”) to use a better-quality signal for estimation ([0120]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Kanegae, with the detecting a first plurality of peaks in the ballistocardiogram signal and determining a first cardiac rate of the user based on the detected first plurality of peaks of Lunner, because such a modification would allow to use a better-quality signal for estimation.
However, Kanegae does not teach the detecting second plurality of peaks in the phonocardiogram signal and determining a second cardiac rate of the user based on the detected second plurality of peaks. Pandia, in the same field of endeavor, teaches obtaining an acceleration signal for acceleration-based cardiac-related signal (Abstract), and further teaches detecting … a second plurality of peaks in the phonocardiogram signal ([0096] “for detection of primary heart sounds and cardiac activity, the acceleration signal is digitally low pass filtered in a step 110 at 50 Hz--using a 3326 tap digital FIR filter with a steep 80 dB roll-off over 20 Hz” Claim 4 “wherein said digital processor is further operable to count peaks based on said cardiac-related signal to provide a heart rate output.” [0153] “The heart rate is counted in response to the peak detection to provide a Heart-Rate signal output.” Examiner notes that the PCG is between 20-85 Hz, which the peaks can be detected in Pandia.); and
determining …a second cardiac rate of the user based on the detected second plurality of peaks (Claim 4 “wherein said digital processor is further operable to count peaks based on said cardiac-related signal to provide a heart rate output.” [0096] “Then the location of the peaks is threshold-detected in a step 170 using an electronic amplitude-based peak picking process, and the selected peaks are counted in a step 180 to calculate heart rate HR.”) to express multiple parameters from a singular acceleration signal ([0153]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Kanegae, with the detecting second plurality of peaks in the phonocardiogram signal and determining a second cardiac rate of the user based on the detected second plurality of peaks of Pandia, because such a modification would allow to express multiple parameters from a singular acceleration signal.
However, Kanegae does not teach providing, using an output device interface of the electronic device, sensory feedback to the user based on the first cardiac rate and the second cardiac rate. He, in the same field of endeavor, teaches using chest vibrations (acceleration data) for determining physiological parameters (Abstract), and further teaches providing, using an output device interface of the electronic device, sensory feedback to the user based on the first cardiac rate and the second cardiac rate ([0370] “the method also includes embedding a visual indication of one or more of the fitness score, a heart rate, a respiratory rate, and a blood pressure of the subject into a video showing the subject performing a fitness routine.”) to provide a constant update on a user’s physiological parameters ([0371]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Kanegae, with the providing, using an output device interface of the electronic device, sensory feedback to the user based on the first cardiac rate and the second cardiac rate of He, because such a modification would allow to provide a constant update on a user’s physiological parameters.
Regarding claim 11, claim 1 is obvious over Kanegae, Lunner, and Pandia. Kanegae teaches wherein the accelerometer signal is received while the accelerometer is positioned adjacent to the user's ear canal by the headphone mounted in the user's ear canal (Intended use because neither the accelerometer or the headset is actively recited.).
Regarding claim 13, Pandia teaches further comprising:
extracting an envelope of the PCG signal ([0131] “Some other embodiments store and average a set of values from the transform output of Equation (4) from different windowed segments of the data stream X.” Fig. 15 showing multiple segments taken from the raw acceleration signal. Examiner interprets the envelope as a time window/period.),
wherein the plurality of peaks are detected in the extracted envelope of the PCG signal (Claim 4 “wherein said digital processor is further operable to count peaks based on said cardiac-related signal to provide a heart rate output.” [0153] “The heart rate is counted in response to the peak detection to provide a Heart-Rate signal output.”).
Regarding claim 22, Kanegae teaches the operations further comprising:
applying a third bandpass filter, having a third frequency range different from the first frequency range and the second frequency range, to the accelerometer signal to extract a respiratory rate of the user from the accelerometer signal ([0060] “The bio-vibrations additionally include vibrations generated by respiration, body movements, vocalization, and snoring.” [0070] “the preprocessing unit 12 passes the bio-vibration signals through a high-pass filter with a cutoff frequency of 0.5 Hz, a high-pass filter with the cutoff frequency (20 Hz to 40 Hz) appropriate for extraction of heart sound signals from the said bio-vibration signals, or a band-pass filter (BPF) with a pass-band of 0.5 Hz to 40 Hz to isolate or extract the beating vibration signals.”).
However, Kanegae does not teach a respiration rate. Pandia, in the same field of endeavor, teaches obtaining an acceleration signal for acceleration-based cardiac-related signal (Abstract), and further teaches a respiration rate from acceleration sensor ([0153]) to express multiple parameters from a singular acceleration signal ([0153]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Kanegae, with the detecting second plurality of peaks in the phonocardiogram signal and determining a second cardiac rate of the user based on the detected second plurality of peaks of Pandia, because such a modification would allow to express multiple parameters from a singular acceleration signal.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanegae et al. (US 20230086376)(Hereinafter Kanegae) in view of Lunner et al. (US 20190174238)(Hereinafter Lunner), Pandia et al. (US 20110098583)(Hereinafter Pandia), He et al. (US 20150164351)(Hereinafter He), and Zhang et al. (US 20080208013)(Hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, claim 1 is obvious over Kanegae, Lunner, and Pandia. However, Kanegae does not teach the accelerometer signal parsed into a linear pulse code modulated format of an audio file. Zhang, in a similar field of endeavor, obtaining measurements from a patient (Abstract) including accelerometer motion signals and heart rate ([0131]), and further teaches wherein the accelerometer signal is parsed into an audio format, wherein the audio format is a linear pulse code modulated format ([0104] “The data compression module 188 can compress the processed data in any one of a number of data compression methods, for example, FAN, AZTEC and CORTES algorithms, or MPEG, WAV, WMA, Ogg, AAC, and AC-2 format, which are typically associated with audio files.” Examiner notes that a WAV file is a LPCM format of an audio file. [0131] “the output 238 from the physiology measurement processor 236 and/or the output 230 from the oxygenation measurement processor 228 can be used in conjunction with the motion reference sensor signal 208 in a event-triggered fashion to characterize the multi-sensor constellation of changes (brain oxygenation drop, heart rate drop, and/or downward motion acceleration)”) to compress the file for greater amount of data storage ([0104]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Kanegae, with the accelerometer signal parsed into a linear pulse code modulated format of an audio file of Zhang, because such a modification would allow to compress the file for greater amount of data storage.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanegae et al. (US 20230086376)(Hereinafter Kanegae) in view of Lunner et al. (US 20190174238)(Hereinafter Lunner), Pandia et al. (US 20110098583)(Hereinafter Pandia), He et al. (US 20150164351)(Hereinafter He), and Mouchantaf et al. (US 20200260962)(Hereinafter Mounchantaf).
Regarding claim 12, claim 1 is obvious over Kanegae, Lunner, and Pandia.. However, Kanegae does not teach template matching of the first cardiac signal. Mounchantaf, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the mechanical vibration, via accelerometers, on a user to extract heart rate (Abstract and [0072]-[0073]) wherein detecting the plurality of peaks in the BCG signal comprises performing template matching on the BCG signal (Claim 12 “receive said data stream and produce a rate signal indicative of cardiac or respiratory rate data of said wearer by correlating segments of said data stream to templates using an algorithm comprising peak detection”) to optimize the performance of the analysis ([0145]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Kanegae, with the template matching of the first cardiac signal of Mounchantaf, because such a modification would allow to optimize the performance of the analysis.
Conclusion
Claims 23-28 overcome the prior art but are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of the claims overcoming the prior art:
The receiving accelerometer signal from the ear canal from headphones, that are filtered into BCG and PCG signals from the single acceleration signal from the ear used to extract respective cardiac rates and sensory feedback based on the cardiac rates are not conventionally relied upon in capturing cardiopulmonary signals from the ear and are therefore allowable over the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUSSA M HADDAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6341. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-6:00.
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.
/MOUSSA HADDAD/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights