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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 1/16/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. Any non-English references that did not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information have not been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular boxes shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels, see Figs. 1-2, 4-7, 12-13 and 17. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 35, line 3 should recite similar to –the detected cardiac motion induced signal—in order to provide proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. MPEP 2161.01(I) states “[O]riginal claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.” MPEP 2161.01(J). “It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015),”. Claim 26 recites “wherein the transformation is carried out by at least one of a predetermined mathematical model and a predetermined transformation function.”, however the original disclosure provides no guidance on the particular of how the claimed “predetermined mathematical model and a predetermined transformation function” is performed. Mathematical models and transformation functions is a broad field of mathematics and/or computer science and may be carried out in a number of ways. As the specification does not describe the predetermined mathematical model and a predetermined transformation function or steps/procedure taken to perform the function with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed, the limitation “wherein the transformation is carried out by at least one of a predetermined mathematical model and a predetermined transformation function.” lacks written description.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 26, 34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 26 recites “the transformation is carried out by at least one of a predetermined mathematical model and a predetermined transformation function”, it is unclear what predetermined mathematical model(s) and a predetermined transformation function(s) applicant is intending to encompass when reciting “the transformation is carried out by at least one of a predetermined mathematical model and a predetermined transformation function”. The specification does not provide any further details regarding the at least one of a predetermined mathematical model and a predetermined transformation function, therefore it is unclear what predetermined mathematical model(s) and predetermined transformation function(s) applicant is intending to encompass, clarification is required. Claim 34 recites “a functional test of a detector” it is unclear what detector applicant is referring to. Is applicant reciting a functional test of a random detector is determined? Clarification is required. Claim 34 recites “only if a specified functional capability is detected” it is unclear what functionality applicant is intending to encompass when reciting “specified functionality capability”. It is also unclear what element the “specified functional capability” is being detected from. Is applicant stating the “specified functional capability” is detected from the previously recited “a detector”? Clarification is required. Claim 36 recites “determining an arrangement of a detector relative to a heart” it is unclear what detector applicant is referring to. Is applicant reciting that an arrangement of a random detector is determined? Clarification is required. Claim 36 recites “corresponds to a specific arrangement or deviates therefrom by less than a specific measure” it is unclear what specific arrangement(s) applicant is intending to encompass when reciting “corresponds to a specific arrangement or deviates therefrom by less than a specific measure”, clarification is required. For the purposes of examination “at least one of a predetermined mathematical model and a predetermined transformation function” has been interpreted to include any mathematical model or transformation function including machine learning models.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 21-40 are directed to “a method” (claims 21-36) and “a system” (claims 37-40) which describe one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e. a process and an apparatus (Step 1, YES).
The claim limitations within claims 21 and 37 that set forth or describe the abstract idea is/are: “transforming/transform the at least one detected cardiac motion induced signal into at least one ECG signal, wherein a plurality of channel-specific signals of a multi- channel ECG signal are determined by the transformation from the at least one SCG signal.” The reasons that the limitations is/are considered an abstract idea is/are the following: The limitations of “transforming/transform the at least one detected cardiac motion induced signal into at least one ECG signal, wherein a plurality of channel-specific signals of a multi- channel ECG signal are determined by the transformation from the at least one SCG signal.” is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor” (claim 37) nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. A claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process when “applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept.”, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). If a claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls with the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly the claims recite an abstract idea. Although not drawn to the same subject matter, the claimed limitation(s) is/are similar to the concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as: collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016), selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis in SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 126 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed Cir. 2018). Additionally or alternatively, the limitations of, “transforming/transform the at least one detected cardiac motion induced signal into at least one ECG signal, wherein a plurality of channel-specific signals of a multi- channel ECG signal are determined by the transformation from the at least one SCG signal.” cover an abstract idea that is part of mathematical concepts. “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the “mathematical concepts” grouping.”, see MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2). The specification recites the transformation being carried out by means of a predetermined mathematical model or by means of a predetermined transformation function (see specification para. [0045]). “[A] claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation.” Id. at Il. 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 step(s) of “transforming/transform the at least one detected cardiac motion induced signal into at least one ECG signal, wherein a plurality of channel-specific signals of a multi- channel ECG signal are determined by the transformation from the at least one SCG signal.” recite mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mathematical formula or equation, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly the claims recite an abstract idea. Although not drawn to the same subject matter, the claimed limitation(s) is/are similar to concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as: a formula for computing an alarm limit in Parker v. Flook 437 U.S. 584, 585, 198 USPQ 193, 195 (1978), the Arrhenius equation in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 177 n.2, 179 n.5, 191-92 (1981). Thus, the claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception and fall squarely within the realm of "abstract ideas," which is a patent-ineligible concept (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Analyzing the claim as whole for an inventive concept, the claim does not include additional elements/steps that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additionally recited element(s) appended to the abstract idea include: “detector configured to detect/detecting at least one cardiac motion induced signal, wherein the at least one cardiac motion induced signal is a seismocardiography (SCG) signal” (claims 21 and 37) and “a processor” (claim 37). The additional elements of “detector configured to detect/detecting at least one cardiac motion induced signal, wherein the at least one cardiac motion induced signal is a seismocardiography (SCG) signal” merely: add insignificant extra-solution activity and is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering a cardiac motion data) and is merely nominally, insignificantly or tangentially related to the performance of the steps, i.e. amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity). All uses of the recited judicial exception require the pre-solution activity of data gathering. The additional elements of “a processor” amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. The “a processor” is a purely general-purpose computer components recited as carrying out the general- purpose computer functions of processing data, display and storing to enable the abstract. As such, this/these recitation(s) is/are nothing more than nominal recitation(s) of a computer covering an abstract concept. See Bancorp Servs. v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 103 USPQéd 1425 (Fed. Circ. 2012). See also Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc., 101 USPQ2d 1961 (U.S. 2012), which establishes that a claim cannot simply state the abstract idea and add the words "apply it’, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Analyzing the claim as whole for an inventive concept, the claim does not include additional elements/steps that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 21 and 37 do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an inventive concept) for the same reasons as described above. e.g., all elements are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity which merely facilitate the abstract idea and/or purely general-purpose computer components recited as carrying out the general-purpose computer function of processing data and displaying to enable the abstract process. The recited additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity including receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations and storing or retrieving information in memory, see MPEP 2106.05(d). Further, the use of a detector to detect a cardiac motion induced signal that includes a seismocardiography signal is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see US 2006/0293605 to Zanetti et al. (“Seismocardiographic (SCG) devices and methods are known in the art.”, para. [0002]). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). Similarly, when considered as an ordered combination, the additional components/steps of the claim(s) add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately (Step 2B: NO). The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 22-36 and 38-40 depend directly or indirectly from claim(s) 21 and 37. Therefore, the dependent claims rely upon the same abstract idea as the independent claim(s), as set forth above. Additionally, the dependent claims do nothing more than further limiting the abstract idea while failing to qualify as "significantly more", and the specificity of an abstract idea does not make it any "less abstract" as it is still directed to concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work subject matter. The dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons: they merely a. further describe the abstract idea, wherein all the plurality of channel-specific…(claim 22), wherein the transformation is carried out by at least one of a predetermined mathematical model…(claim 26)…further comprising filtering the at least one cardiac motion induced signal…(claim 29)…prior to the transforming..performing a functional test (claim 34), prior to the transformation..determining a signal quality (claim 35), prior to the transformation…determining an arrangement of a detector relative to a heart (claim 36), wherein all the plurality of channel-specific signals…(claim 39) b. further describe the pre-solution activity (or the structure used for such activity), wherein the at least one cardiac motion induced signal…(claim 28), ..at least one cardiac motion induced signal generated by a detector (claims 30-33)…the detector is integrated into…(claim 38) c. add insignificant extra-solution activity and/or merely indicate a field of use or technological environment to apply the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2), the at least one ECG signal is displayed (claim 32), the cardiac motion induced signal is transmitted to a display of a further device (claim 33) d. amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components, the transformation is performed using a model generated by machine learning (claims 23-25 and 27), the transformation is carried out with a processor (claim 30), the cardiac induced signal is transmitted to a processor of a further device and the transformation is carried out with a processor of a further device (claim 31), the transformation is performed using a model generated by machine learning..(claim 40). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) are also not patent eligible for the reasons discussed above.
The instantly rejected claim(s) are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the interest of advancing prosecution, the examiner suggests: providing evidence, for example, delineating how the abstract idea and/or additional elements appended to the abstract idea results in an improvement to the technology/technical field, which can show eligibility and/or adding a practical application of the claimed method outside of the computer. See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of providing evidence supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration. For additional guidance, applicant is directed generally to MPEP § 2106.
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) 21-26, 28-30,32 and 37-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deep ECG Estimation Using a Bed-attached Geophone to Park et al. (Park) (cited by applicant) in view of US 2015/0038856 to Houlton et al. (Houlton).
In reference to at least claims 21-22
Park discloses a method for generating electrocardiogram (ECG) signals (e.g. “Our proposed system is a geophone sensor-based system installed on a user bed to reconstruct a user's ECG signal from the heartbeat vibrations penetrating through the mattress”, Proposed system, p. 568): comprising: detecting at least one cardiac motion induced signal (e.g. “we use the SM-24 geophone sensor, which is a widely used sensor for geological environmental monitoring”, Geophone sensor, p. 568), wherein the at least one cardiac motion induced signal is a seismocardiography (SCG) signal (e.g. “Therefore, we employ a series of filters to reduce the noise effects of the raw vibration signals collected in the geophone and applies the designed filter to the signals to leave only the SCG signal (heart generated signal)”, Filter, p. 569); and transforming the at least one detected cardiac motion induced signal into at least one ECG signal (e.g. “We train a deep learning model using the simultaneously collected SCG and ECG data and output an ECG signal that matches the input of the filtered SCG”, Prediction model, p. 569). Park discloses that it is known to extract cardiac activity using seismic sensors such as an accelerometer or geophone (e.g. “previous approaches in extracting cardiac activity using a seismic sensors (e.g., accelerometer and geophone) focused only on capturing heartbeats”, Introduction, p. 568).
However, Park does not explicitly teach wherein a plurality of channel-specific signals of a multi- channel ECG signal are determined by the transformation from the at least one SCG signal.
Houlton discloses a multi-axis accelerometer that is positioned at different locations in order to provide multiple positions for a recording of seismocardiogram (e.g. “A multiple position recording of seismocardiogram will provide an opportunity to have a more global view of the mechanical performance of the heart similar to multichannel ECG providing a better view of electrical performance of the heart.”, para. [0069]) providing a global view of the mechanical performance of the heart similar to multichannel ECG (e.g. para. [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Park to include detecting the cardiac motion induced signal using a multi-axis accelerometer that is positioned at different locations on the user chest to provide an opportunity to have a more global view of the mechanical performance of the heart, as taught by Houlton, and transforming each seismocardiogram obtained at the different locations on the user chest into ECG signals providing a plurality of channel-specific signals similar to a multichannel ECG in order to provide a global view of the mechanical and electrical performance of the heart (e.g. ‘856, para. [0069]).
In reference to at least claim 23
Park modified by Houlton renders obvious a method according to claim 21. Park further discloses wherein the transformation is performed using a model generated by machine learning (e.g. “We train a deep learning model using the simultaneously collected SCG and ECG data and output an ECG signal that matches the input of the filtered SCG.”, Prediction model, p. 569).
In reference to at least claim 24
Park modified by Houlton renders obvious a method according to claim 21. Park further discloses wherein the transformation is performed using a neural network (e.g. “Specifically, we use the recurrent neural networks (RNN) architecture, given that both the input and output signals are time series data and with repeating patterns existing in the signals.”, Prediction model, p.569).
In reference to at least claim 25
Park modified by Houlton renders obvious a method according to claim 21. Park further discloses wherein the transformation is performed using at least one of an autoencoder, a convolutional neural network, a long short- term memory (LSTM) network, and a neural transformer network (e.g. “Of the various RNN models, we choose a bi-directional lang and short term memory (Bi-LSTM) architecture.”, Prediction model, p.569).
In reference to at least claim 26
Park modified by Houlton renders obvious a method according to claim 21. Park further discloses wherein the transformation is carried out by at least one of a predetermined mathematical model and a predetermined transformation function (e.g. “We train a deep learning model using the simultaneously collected SCG and ECG data and output an ECG signal that matches the input of the filtered SCG.”, Prediction model, p. 569).
In reference to at least claim 28
Park modified by Houlton renders obvious a method according to claim 21. Park further discloses wherein the at least one cardiac motion induced signal is detected contactlessly (e.g. “The core of data collection in Heartquake is the geophone sensor attached to the bed's mattress .”, Geophone sensor, p. 568).
In reference to at least claim 29
Park modified by Houlton renders obvious a method according to claim 21. Park further discloses further comprising filtering the at least one cardiac motion induced signal prior to the transformation (e.g. “Therefore, we employ a series of filters to reduce the noise effects of the raw vibration signals collected in the geophone and applies the designed filter to the signals to leave only the SCG signal (heart generated signal) components.”, Filter, p. 569), such that the filtered cardiac motion induced signal is transformed into the at least one ECG signal (e.g. “Thus, we utilize a deep learning method to take advantage of the underlying functions inherent in the SCG signal. We train a deep learning model using the simultaneously collected SCG and ECG data and output an ECG signal that matches the input of the filtered SCG”, Prediction model, p. 569).
In reference to at least claim 30
Park modified by Houlton renders obvious a method according to claim 21. Park further discloses the at least one cardiac motion induced signal is generated by a detector of a device (e.g.” Our proposed system is a geophone sensor-based system installed on a user bed to reconstruct a user's ECG signal from the heartbeat vibrations penetrating through the mattress.” Proposed system, p. 568; ‘856 “a multi-axis accelerometer”, para. [0069]) and the transformation is carried out by a processor of the device (e.g. “Thus, we utilize a deep learning method to take advantage of the underlying functions inherent in the SCG signal. We train a deep learning model using the simultaneously collected SCG and ECG data and output an ECG signal that matches the input of the filtered SCG”, Prediction model, p. 569).
In reference to at least claim 32
Park modified by Houlton renders obvious a method according to claim 21. Park further discloses the at least one cardiac motion induced signal is generated by a detector of a device (e.g.” Our proposed system is a geophone sensor-based system installed on a user bed to reconstruct a user's ECG signal from the heartbeat vibrations penetrating through the mattress.” Proposed system, p. 568; ‘856 “a multi-axis accelerometer”, para. [0069]) and at least one ECG signal is display on a display of the device (e.g. Predicted ECG data, Fig. 2(c)).
In reference to at least claims 37 and 39
Park discloses a system for generating electrocardiogram (ECG) signals (e.g. “Our proposed system is a geophone sensor-based system installed on a user bed to reconstruct a user's ECG signal from the heartbeat vibrations penetrating through the mattress”, Proposed system, p. 568): comprising: a detector to detect at least one cardiac motion induced signal (e.g. “we use the SM-24 geophone sensor, which is a widely used sensor for geological environmental monitoring”, Geophone sensor, p. 568), wherein the at least one cardiac motion induced signal is a seismocardiography (SCG) signal (e.g. “Therefore, we employ a series of filters to reduce the noise effects of the raw vibration signals collected in the geophone and applies the designed filter to the signals to leave only the SCG signal (heart generated signal)”, Filter, p. 569); and a processor configured to transform the at least one detected cardiac motion induced signal into at least one ECG signal (e.g. “We train a deep learning model using the simultaneously collected SCG and ECG data and output an ECG signal that matches the input of the filtered SCG”, Prediction model, p. 569). Park discloses that it is known to extract cardiac activity using seismic sensors such as an accelerometer or geophone (e.g. “previous approaches in extracting cardiac activity using a seismic sensors (e.g., accelerometer and geophone) focused only on capturing heartbeats”, Introduction, p. 568).
However, Park does not explicitly teach wherein a plurality of channel-specific signals of a multi- channel ECG signal are determined by the transformation from the at least one SCG signal.
Houlton discloses a multi-axis accelerometer that is positioned at different locations in order to provide multiple positions for a recording of seismocardiogram (e.g. “A multiple position recording of seismocardiogram will provide an opportunity to have a more global view of the mechanical performance of the heart similar to multichannel ECG providing a better view of electrical performance of the heart.”, para. [0069]) providing a global view of the mechanical performance of the heart similar to multichannel ECG (e.g. para. [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Park to include using detecting the cardiac motion induced signal using a multi-axis accelerometer that is positioned at different locations on the user chest to provide an opportunity to have a more global view of the mechanical performance of the heart, as taught by Houlton, and transforming each seismocardiogram obtained at the different locations on the user chest into ECG signals providing a plurality of channel-specific signals similar to a multichannel ECG in order to provide a global view of the mechanical and electrical performance of the heart (e.g. ‘856, para. [0069]).
In reference to at least claim 38
Park modified by Houlton renders obvious a system according to claim 37. Park further discloses wherein the detector is integrated into at least one of an incubator, a bed, a vehicle seat, a pacemaker, and an animal accessory (e.g. “The core of data collection in Heartquake is the geophone sensor attached to the bed's mattress .”, Geophone sensor, p. 568). Houlton also discloses wherein the detector is integrated into at least one of an incubator, a bed, a vehicle seat, a pacemaker, and an animal accessory (e.g. “Examples of sensor devices comprising an accelerometer that are configured for internal placement are known in the art and include, for example, a micromass uniaxial acceleration sensor manufactured by Sorin Biomedical Cardio SpA (Saluggia, Italy), which is configured for placement in the pacing lead of a pacemaker device. Other types of accelerometers known in the art could be utilized for placement in or on the pacemaker housing.”, para. [0081]).
In reference to at least claim 40
Park modified by Houlton renders obvious a system according to claim 37. Park further discloses the transformation is performed using a model generated by machine learning (e.g. “We train a deep learning model using the simultaneously collected SCG and ECG data and output an ECG signal that matches the input of the filtered SCG.”, Prediction model, p. 569); and the model is based on at least one of an autoencoder, a convolutional neural network, a long short- term memory (LSTM) network, and a neural transformer network (e.g. “Of the various RNN models, we choose a bi-directional lang and short term memory (Bi-LSTM) architecture.”, Prediction model, p.569).
Claim(s) 31 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poster: Deep ECG Estimation Using a Bed-attached Geophone to Park et al. (Park) (cited by applicant) in view of US 2015/0038856 to Houlton et al. (Houlton) as applied to claim 21 further in view of US 2017/0238847 to Inan et al. (Inan).
In reference to at least claims 31
Park modified by Houlton renders obvious a method according to claim 21. Park further discloses the at least one cardiac motion induced signal is generated by a detector of a device (e.g.” Our proposed system is a geophone sensor-based system installed on a user bed to reconstruct a user's ECG signal from the heartbeat vibrations penetrating through the mattress.” Proposed system, p. 568; ‘856 “a multi-axis accelerometer”, para. [0069]) and the transformation is carried out by a processor of the device (e.g. “Thus, we utilize a deep learning method to take advantage of the underlying functions inherent in the SCG signal. We train a deep learning model using the simultaneously collected SCG and ECG data and output an ECG signal that matches the input of the filtered SCG”, Prediction model, p. 569).
However, Park modified by Houlton does not explicitly disclose the cardiac motion induced signal is transmitted to a processor of a further device and the transformation is carried out by the processor of the further device.
It was well-known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transmit monitored data to a remote computing device such as a desktop computer for further processing and analysis as evidence by Inan (e.g. desktop computer, Fig.1, para. [0072]; “The digitized signal, sampled at 120 Hz, was then wirelessly transmitted to the computer using Bluetooth and stored for post-processing and analysis.”, para. [0098]) and/or displaying as evidence by Inan (e.g. “a desktop monitor may be utilized for mirroring graphics and other information that is presented on a mobile computing device.”, para. [0076]). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Park modified by Houlton to include transmitting the signals to a processor of a further device such as a desktop computer and the transformation being carried out by the processor of the further device in order to provide further processing and analysis of the monitored signals (‘847, para. [0098]).
In reference to at least claims 33
Park modified by Houlton renders obvious a method according to claim 21. Park further discloses the at least one cardiac motion induced signal is generated by a detector of a device (e.g.” Our proposed system is a geophone sensor-based system installed on a user bed to reconstruct a user's ECG signal from the heartbeat vibrations penetrating through the mattress.” Proposed system, p. 568; ‘856 “a multi-axis accelerometer”, para. [0069]) and at least one ECG signal is display on a display of the device (e.g. Predicted ECG data, Fig. 2(c)).
However, Park modified by Houlton does not explicitly disclose the at least one cardiac motion induced signal is transmitted to a display of a further device and is displayed by the display of the further device.
It was well-known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transmit monitored data to a remote computing device such as a desktop computer for further processing and analysis as evidence by Inan (e.g. desktop computer, Fig.1, para. [0072]; “The digitized signal, sampled at 120 Hz, was then wirelessly transmitted to the computer using Bluetooth and stored for post-processing and analysis.”, para. [0098]) and/or displaying as evidence by Inan (e.g. “a desktop monitor may be utilized for mirroring graphics and other information that is presented on a mobile computing device.”, para. [0076]). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Park modified by Houlton to include transmitting to a display of a further device such as a desktop computer and displaying the signals by the display of the further device in order to provide mirroring graphics and other information presented on the device aiding in further analysis of the monitored signals (‘847, para. [0076]).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poster: Deep ECG Estimation Using a Bed-attached Geophone to Park et al. (Park) (cited by applicant) in view of US 2015/0038856 to Houlton et al. (Houlton) as applied to claim 21 further in view of US 2020/0121224 to Derkx et al. (Derkx).
In reference to at least claim 35
Park modified by Houlton renders obvious a method according to claim 21.
However, Park modified by Houlton does not explicitly teach prior to the transformation of the at least one cardiac motion induced signal, determining a signal quality of the detected signal, wherein the cardiac motion induced signal is transformed only if the signal quality is greater than or equal to a specified measure.
Derkx discloses a system for suppressing peaks in a seismocardiogram which discloses that a seismocardiograph usually includes a classifier to assess the quality of the signal (e.g. “Typically, a seismocardiograph system will include a classifier to assess the quality of the signals. For example, if the signal were to contain a large amount of movement artifacts, the classifier may classify the signal as bad.”, para. [0006]) and assessing the quality of accelerometer data to determine whether the data is bad indicating that it may not produce reliable information (e.g. “In this way, the system may assess the quality of the accelerometer data to determine whether the system contains a large amount of noise or a large number of artifacts. If the signal does contain noise or artifacts, the classifier may classify accelerometer data as bad, indicating that it may not produce reliable information, such as vital signs.”, para. [0043]). Derkx further discloses checking a quality of the signal and indicating that a signal and associated vital sign is inaccurate if the signal contains a large amount of noise or movement artifacts (e.g. “If the classifier determines that the envelope signal contains a large amount of noise or movement artifacts, it may produce a label 280 indicating that the envelope signal, and so the associated vital sign, is inaccurate.”, para. [0091]-[0092]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Park modified by Houlton to include using a classifier to determine a signal quality of the detected signal and transforming the detected signal only if the signal quality is greater than or equal to a specified measure, as taught by Derkx, in order to reduce the use of inaccurate signals containing a large amount of noise or artifacts improving heart rate detection (‘224, para. [0108]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2022/0087614 to Ko et al. which teaches non-invasive type ECG monitoring device and method. US 2024/0081662 to Hascher et al. which teaches transformation of heart-motion-induced signals into blood pressure signals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L GHAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5844. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM - 3:30PM ET.
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 on (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.
/JENNIFER L GHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796