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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 12 are currently amended.
Claims 2, 4, and 7-9 are now cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 103: Nemoto in view of Klap in view of Gentry
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Nemoto, alone or in combination with the prior art,
does not teach “wherein the cover portion has a relatively larger area and a greater hardness than the case, and the case is fixed to a lower surface the cover portion.”
After further search and consideration, the examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that
Nemoto teaches that the cover portion 12, which comprises the pressure sensitive plate 10 is a relatively rigid and hard material. Specifically, “the material of the pressure sensitive plate 10 is not limited to a resin or a metal. The pressure sensitive plate 10 may be made of a different material such as ceramics preferably having high rigidity that will not generate delay in signal transmission (fig. 2; paragraph 27-30).” The applicant’s specification [18, 33, and 43] does not disclose a type of material or a level/range of hardness. It is only disclosed that “the cover portion 110 may have hardness greater than that of the vibration medium 21 to prevent the transmitted vibration from being attenuated.” The material of Nemoto is not limited to any one type of metal. It is further that the case (40) of Nemoto is not limited to any one type of material. Specifically, “the material of the support members 40 is not limited to a metal of high rigidity. The support members 40 may be made of a different material such as a high-rigid resin and ceramics preferably having high rigidity that will not generate delay in signal transmission.” Therefore, the cover portion may have a harder surface than that of the case.
The applicant further amended the claim to recite “the support member forms a cavity recessed
by the height of the case without protruding toward a surface of the vibration medium.”
The examiner argues that it is well-known for a cavity to be formed by a recessed mattress as taught by Gentry (fig. 14-15; paragraph 70). A pocket 90 is disclosed and equates to the cavity because the figures represent a cut-out that exposes the core of the mattress.
The examiner further argues that Gentry discloses the claimed invention except for a cavity
recessed by a specified height of the case without protruding toward a surface of the vibration medium. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Gentry with the specified cavity height range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art [In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233] and/or since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ (Please see MPEP 2144.05
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mattress of Nemoto in view of Klap with the cavity from Gentry for the benefit of providing proper relative positioning and structural support of the sensor system.
Applicant has amended the claim to recite features from dependent claims 7 and 9 (cancelled),
“wherein the cover portion is a disk shape, and both the surfaces of the cover portion are in contact with the vibration medium and the support member, respectively, wherein the case is disposed at a diameter center of the cover portion.” Nemoto teaches the disk shape cover portion and wherein the case is disposed at a diameter center of the cover portion (fig. 1-2; paragraph 28). It is disclosed that “the shape of the substrate 30 is not limited thereto, but the substrate 30 may also be a square or circular plate member (in the form of a plate).” It is shown in figure 2(a) that the force detection mechanism is disposed at a diameter center of the cover portion.
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.
Claims 1-3, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Nemoto et al. US Pub.: US 2012/0089033 A1, hereinafter Nemoto in view of KLAP et al. US Pub.: US 2011/0046498 A1, hereinafter Klap in view of Gentry et al. US Pub.: 2005/0190068, hereinafter Gentry.
Regarding claim 1, Nemoto teaches a contactless electrocardiogram measurement device (100) disposed inside a bed comprising (fig. 1-2; paragraph 24-30):
a measurement unit (50) for measuring vibration generated from a body of a person (fig. 1-2; paragraph 24-30);
wherein the measurement unit (50) includes a plate-shaped cover portion (12) and a case (40) in which a vibration sensor is interposed to detect the vibration generated in the cover portion (12) (fig. 1-2; paragraph 24-30). It is disclosed in [30] that “The clamping force variation detecting mechanism 50 is arranged between the pressure sensitive plate 10 and the substrate 30. Based on vibration acting on the pressure sensitive surface 12, the clamping force variation detecting mechanism 50 detects variation in a clamping force applied between the pressure sensitive plate 10 and the substrate 30.” The force detecting mechanism 50 equates to the vibration sensor because force detection is based on vibration.
wherein the cover portion (12) has a relatively larger area and a greater hardness than the case (40), and the case (40) is fixed to a lower surface of the cover portion (12) (fig. 1-2; paragraph 24-30); The applicant’s specification [18, 33, and 43] does not disclose a type of material or a level/range of hardness. It is only disclosed that “the cover portion 110 may have hardness greater than that of the vibration medium 21 to prevent the transmitted vibration from being attenuated.” The material of Nemoto is not limited to any one type of metal. It is further that the case (40) of Nemoto is not limited to any one type of material. Specifically, “the material of the support members 40 is not limited to a metal of high rigidity. The support members 40 may be made of a different material such as a high-rigid resin and ceramics preferably having high rigidity that will not generate delay in signal transmission.” Therefore, the cover portion may have a harder surface than that of the case. The detecting mechanism 50 is positioned on the lower surface of the pressure sensitive surface 12. The pressure sensitive surface 12 equates to the plate-shaped cover portion, this has a larger area than the housing of the sensor indicated as the area between columns 40.
wherein the cover portion is a disk shape (fig. 1-2; paragraph 28). It is disclosed that “the shape of the substrate 30 is not limited thereto, but the substrate 30 may also be a square or circular plate member (in the form of a plate).”
wherein the case is disposed at a diameter center of the cover portion.” Nemoto teaches the disk shape cover portion and wherein the case is disposed at a diameter center of the cover portion (fig. 1-2; paragraph 28). It is shown in figure 2(a) that the force detection mechanism is disposed at a diameter center of the cover portion.
However, Nemoto does not explicitly teach a bed comprising a vibration medium as a topper and a support member as a mattress; the vibration medium or the support member forms a cavity recessed by the height of the case, without protruding toward a surface of the vibration medium; the recessed cavity is formed with an area smaller than that of the cover portion; and wherein the case, excluding the cover portion, is disposed so that it is fully interposed in the recessed cavity of the vibration medium or the support member; both the surfaces of the cover portion are in contact with the vibration medium and the support member, respectively.
Klap, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a bed comprising a vibration medium as a topper and a support member as a mattress (fig. 1; paragraph 160 and 180). It is disclosed in [180] that “motion sensor 30 is configured to be installed in, on, or under surface 37 in a vicinity of an abdomen 38 or chest 39 of subject 12.” The bed topper 37 is the vibration medium and the mattress at the bottom is the support member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor placement of Nemoto with the placement from Klap for the benefit of providing an increase in comfort to the patient in that the device doesn’t affect the sleep quality and to increase the accuracy of health measurements during sleep.
Gentry, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the vibration medium or the support member forms a cavity recessed by the height of the case, without protruding toward a surface of the vibration medium; the recessed cavity is formed with an area smaller than that of the cover portion; and wherein the case, excluding the cover portion, is disposed so that it is fully interposed in the recessed cavity of the vibration medium or the support member, wherein both the surfaces of the cover portion are in contact with the vibration medium and the support member, respectively (fig. 14-15; paragraph 70). A pocket 90 is disclosed and equates to the cavity because the figures represent a cut-out that exposes the core of the mattress, wherein the case of the sensor from Nemoto may be disposed fully in.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mattress of Nemoto in view of Klap with the cavity recessed by the height of the case, without protruding toward a surface of the vibration medium from Gentry for the benefit of providing proper relative positioning and structural support of the sensor system. Although not explicitly stated in the art, one of ordinary skill would immediately recognize and understand that adjusting the height of the cavity to fully envelope the case would provide a flat surface for the mattress, which would allow a patient to lay comfortably in bed.
Regarding claim 3, Nemoto in view of Klap and Gentry teaches the claimed invention and Nemoto further teaches a processor and receiving data measured by the vibration Sensor (fig. 1-2; paragraph 24-30). It is disclosed in [24] that “The bioinformation detecting device 2 includes a detecting module 100, a signal combining unit 200, a signal extracting unit 300, and a signal analyzing unit 400.” It is disclosed in [30] that “The clamping force variation detecting mechanism 50 is arranged between the pressure sensitive plate 10 and the substrate 30. Based on vibration acting on the pressure sensitive surface 12, the clamping force variation detecting mechanism 50 detects variation in a clamping force applied between the pressure sensitive plate 10 and the substrate 30.”
However, Nemoto in view of Klap and Gentry does not teach a processor fixed on the support member.
Klap, in the same field of endeavor, further teaches a processor fixed on the support member (fig. 1; paragraph 160 and 180). It is disclosed in [180] that “motion sensor 30 is configured to be installed in, on, or under surface 37 in a vicinity of an abdomen 38 or chest 39 of subject 12.” The bed topper 37 is the vibration medium and the mattress at the bottom is the support member.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Nemoto in view of Gentry with the support member of Klap for the benefit of providing stable connection with the contactless sensor and to increase the accuracy of health measurements during sleep.
Regarding claim 11, Nemoto in view of Klap in view of Gentry teaches the claimed invention and
Nemoto further Teaches wherein the cover portion has hardness greater than that of the vibration medium (fig. 1-2; paragraph 24-30). It is disclosed that “The clamping force variation detecting mechanism 50 is arranged between the pressure sensitive plate 10 and the substrate 30.” The pressure sensitive plate 10 equates to the plate-shaped cover portion. It is further disclosed in [28] that “The substrate 30 is arranged to face the pressure sensitive plate 10, and is composed of a plate member (in the form of a plate) made of a resin or a metal having high rigidity.” Therefore, the cover portion is harder than the vibration medium because a metal plate is harder than a mattress.
Claims 5-6, 10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Nemoto in view Klap in view of Gentry and in further view of HASHIMOTO et al. US Pub.: US 2019/0380216 A1, hereinafter Hashimoto.
Regarding claim 5, Nemoto in view of Klap in view of Gentry teaches the claimed invention and
Nemoto further teaches wherein the cover portion includes a plate-shaped cover body having a diameter greater than its thickness (fig. 1-2; paragraph 24-30). It is disclosed that “The clamping force variation detecting mechanism 50 is arranged between the pressure sensitive plate 10 and the substrate 30.” The pressure sensitive plate 10 equates to the plate-shaped cover portion.
However, Nemoto in view of Klap in view of Gentry does not teach a first screw hole passing through both surfaces of the cover body, the case includes a second screw hole disposed in the one side thereof to face the first screw hole, and the cover body and the case are screwed to each other.
Hashimoto, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a first screw hole passing through both surfaces of the cover body, the case includes a second screw hole disposed in the one side thereof to face the first screw hole, and the cover body and the case are screwed to each other (fig. 12-14; paragraph 94). It is disclosed that “the attachment surface 245 of the accommodation unit 24C and the attachment plate 280 of the holding unit 25C face each other. In detail, the four bosses 282 and the four screw holes 245a both are arranged in four fold rotational symmetry, and thus the holding unit 25C is attachable to the accommodation unit 24C in any one of four locations.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Nemoto in view of Klap in view of Gentry with the case and screws of Hashimoto for the benefit of securing the covering plate to the case for consistent vibration data collection.
Regarding claim 6, Nemoto in view of Klap in view of Gentry does not teach wherein a seating
groove into which a cable is able to be inserted is disposed in the one side of the case, and the cable is wired to the vibration sensor.
Hashimoto, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein a seating groove into which a cable is able to be inserted is disposed in the one side of the case, and the cable is wired to the vibration sensor (fig. 12-13; paragraph 93). It is disclosed that “to interconnect the device 50 and the device connector 22 by the connection cable 90, it is sufficient to insert the connection cable 90 into the opening 280a of the attachment plate 280 and the opening 281e of the surrounding wall 281 and connect the connector 91 of the connection cable 90 to the device connector 22.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Nemoto in view of Klap in view of Gentry with the case and grooves of Hashimoto for the benefit of providing a cable connection with ECG sensors placed on the body of the patient.
Regarding claim 10, Nemoto in view of Klap in view of Gentry and in further view of Hashimoto
teaches the claimed invention and Nemoto further teaches further comprising a fixing member for fixing the vibration sensor into the case (fig. 1-2; paragraph 33). It is disclosed that “The second piezoelectric element 80 converts variation in a clamping force acting on the second piezoelectric element 80 itself to a second detected signal. The second piezoelectric element 80 and the transmission member 70 are fixed (tightly connected) with an elastic adhesive agent made of an epoxy resin. The second piezoelectric element 80 and the substrate 30 are fixed (tightly connected) with an adhesive agent made of a silicone resin.”
Regarding claim 12, Nemoto in view of Klap in view of Gentry teaches wherein
both surfaces of the cover portion are in contact with the vibration medium and the support member, respectively (fig. 1; paragraph 160 and 180). It is disclosed in [180] that “motion sensor 30 is configured to be installed in, on, or under surface 37 in a vicinity of an abdomen 38 or chest 39 of subject 12.” The bed topper 37 is the vibration medium and the mattress at the bottom is the support member.
However, Nemoto in view of Klap in view of Gentry does not teach a case into which the vibration sensor is inserted and which has one side coupled to one surface of the cover portion is disposed at a diameter center of the cover portion.
Hashimoto, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a case into which the vibration sensor is inserted and which has one side coupled to one surface of the cover portion is disposed at a diameter center of the cover portion (fig. 12-13; paragraph 93). It is disclosed in figures 12-13 that the interconnection device is a case this case may surround the vibration detector mechanism of Nemoto, which is disposed in the center of the cover portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Nemoto in view of Klap in view of Gentry with the case of Hashimoto for the benefit of securing the covering plate to the case for consistent vibration data collection.
Regarding claim 13, Nemoto in view of Klap and Gentry in view of Hashimoto does not teach wherein the
vibration medium or the support member has a cavity disposed in its surface in contact with the cover portion to embed the vibration sensor therein, and an area of the cavity is smaller than an area of the cover portion.
Gentry, in the same field of endeavor, further teaches wherein the vibration medium or the support member has a cavity disposed in its surface in contact with the cover portion to embed the vibration sensor therein, and an area of the cavity is smaller than an area of the cover portion (fig. 14-15; paragraph 70). A pocket 90 is disclosed and equates to the cavity because the figures represent a cut-out that exposes the core of the mattress.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mattress of Nemoto in view of Klap and Gentry in view of Hashimoto with the cavity from Gentry for the benefit of providing proper relative positioning and structural support of the sensor system.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemoto
in view Klap in and in further view of Chen et al.: US Pub.: US 2019/0015006 A1, hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 14, a method for calculating a contactless electrocardiogram signal, the method
comprising:
calculating a first electrocardiogram signal of an object person by using the contactless electrocardiogram measurement device of claim 1 (fig. 1-2; paragraph 24-30); It is disclosed in [24] that “The bioinformation detecting device 2 includes a detecting module 100, a signal combining unit 200, a signal extracting unit 300, and a signal analyzing unit 400.” It is disclosed in [30] that “The clamping force variation detecting mechanism 50 is arranged between the pressure sensitive plate 10 and the substrate 30. Based on vibration acting on the pressure sensitive surface 12, the clamping force variation detecting mechanism 50 detects variation in a clamping force applied between the pressure sensitive plate 10 and the substrate 30.”
However, Nemoto does not teach measuring a second electrocardiogram signal of the object person by using a contact electrocardiogram including electrodes; analyzing a correlation between the first electrocardiogram signal and the second electrocardiogram signal; and correcting data by reflecting the analyzed correlation in a calculation formula of the first electrocardiogram signal.
Klap in the same field of endeavor, teaches measuring a second electrocardiogram signal of the object person by using a contact electrocardiogram including electrodes (fig. 2; paragraph 182); It is disclosed that “For some applications, upon performing such pairing, control unit 14 notifies a healthcare worker that contact sensors 60 are no longer required and that the subject can be monitored with contactless sensor 30 only, or with fewer contact sensors 60.”
analyzing a correlation between the first electrocardiogram signal and the second electrocardiogram signal (fig. 1; paragraph 184); It is disclosed that “Control unit 14 uses the information from sensor 30 to calculate respiration rate and heart rate and uses the information from the contact sensor to calculate heart rate. A correlation between the heart rate measured using the contact sensors and the heart rate measured using the sensor 30 indicates that the respiration calculated from sensor 30 is accurate as well.”
and correcting data (fig. 1; paragraph 353); It is disclosed that “The system compares the two calculated heart rates to verify that the measured heart rate is correct.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Nemoto to include the control unit of Klap for the benefit of providing more biometric data related to heartbeat to compare with the contactless electrocardiogram and increasing the accuracy of ECG data for both the contact and contactless electrocardiograms.
Chen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches correcting data by reflecting the analyzed correlation in a calculation formula of the first electrocardiogram signal (paragraph 248). It is disclosed that “the cardiac electrophysiological characteristics of the two or more frequency domain signals are compared to the databases using non-human like AI algorithms. These human like AI algorithms can include, but are not limited to, a neural network algorithm 3431 and a deep learning algorithm 3432. The neural network algorithm 3431 can include a shallow network 3433. The deep learning algorithm 3432 can include a deep network 3434.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Nemoto to include the deep learning algorithms of Chen for the benefit of correcting the ECG data for both the contact and contactless electrocardiograms to ensure appropriate diagnosis.
Regarding claim 15, Nemoto in view of Klap does not teach wherein in the correcting, the
correlation between the first electrocardiogram signal and the second electrocardiogram signal is trained using a deep learning algorithm.
Chen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein in the correcting, the
correlation between the first electrocardiogram signal and the second electrocardiogram signal is trained using a deep learning algorithm (paragraph 248). It is disclosed that “the cardiac electrophysiological characteristics of the two or more frequency domain signals are compared to the databases using non-human like AI algorithms. These human like AI algorithms can include, but are not limited to, a neural network algorithm 3431 and a deep learning algorithm 3432. The neural network algorithm 3431 can include a shallow network 3433. The deep learning algorithm 3432 can include a deep network 3434.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Nemoto in view of Klap to include the deep learning algorithms of Chen for the benefit of correcting the ECG data for both the contact and contactless electrocardiograms to ensure appropriate diagnosis.
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 THIEN J TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0486. The examiner can normally be reached M-F. 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Benjamin Klein can be reached on 571-270-5213. 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.
/T.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792