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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Status of Claims
The amendments and remarks filed on 10DEC2025 have been entered and considered.
Claims 1-4, & 7-11 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 3, & 10 have been amended.
No claims have been added or withdrawn
Claim 6 has been canceled.
New matter has been added.
Claims 1-4 & 7-11 are under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments filed 10DEC2025 regarding the claim objections have been fully considered and are found to obviate the objections. Therefore, the claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 10DEC2025 do not address the 112(f) interpretations. Therefore, the interpretations have been maintained.
Applicant's amendments filed 10DEC2025 regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C 112b have been fully considered and are found to obviate the rejections. Therefore, the 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 10DEC2025 regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Parts deemed not persuasive discussed below:
Applicant argues (Page 11 of the Remarks):
“The acquisition of the ECG signal and the MWPPG signals by the strategically placed sensors on the conductive clothing at the specific body locations associated with the limb lead II and chest V1 leads are clearly not achievable by mere human minds nor generic computer processing.”
The examiner disagrees as the acquisition on biometric data was not indicated as a mental process and instead was identified as an additional element that amounted to the insufficient, extra-solution activity of data gathering.
Applicant argues (Page 12 of the Remarks):
“More particularly, the iterative filtering step, which combines impedance information comprising vectors of the chest V1 lead and the limb lead II, involves large number of iterations, typically from thousands to millions. This demanding computational task inherently exceeds human capabilities.”
The examiner is not persuaded as the claims do not disclose a process that a human cant perform by hand iteratively. The claim only disclose that this process is iteratively performed until a stop condition is met. This is therefore still performable by hand by a clinician as this amounts to a process that can be performed as little as twice to satisfy the limitation. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea which may be done by a clinician without the need for the invention.
Applicant argues (Pages 13-14 of the Remarks):
“The advancements presented are markedly superior to traditional wearable TAG devices and existing notch filtering and moving-average baseline filtering methods in the existing art. These steps therefore add meaningful limitations to the computer operation and therefore add significantly more to the abstract idea than mere computer implementation. The claim, when taken as a whole, does not simply describe a mathematical or computational operation, but combines the steps of acquiring, filtering and processing for diagnostic and monitoring of cardiac related conditions. By this, the claim goes beyond the mere concept of simply retrieving and combining data using a computer.”
The examiner disagree that the claims are patent eligible because the claimed solution that the invention provides is not clearly defined by the claims in a way that is more that insignificant data gathering and processing steps that only show the use of a machine learning algorithm. Since machine learning algorithms are just a mimic of the human mind, and needs a person to train it prior to being used, the addition of machine learning to perform already existing techniques with the aid of generic components is not patent eligible. The amendments amount to no more than generic parts and data processing steps which are being automated. The act of automating techniques being performable in the human mind is not an example of patent eligible material, nor is it a technical solution.
Applicant's amendments filed 10DEC2025 regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are found to obviate the rejections. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-4 & 7-11 are 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.
Regarding Claims 1 & 11:
The claims recite “Communication module” in lines 27 & 5 respectively. ¶0022 of the specification discloses that the “transmitting the obtained ECG signal and MWPPG signals to the said electronic devices through the communication module”; and the Communication module is also alluded to in Figure 9 which shows a schematic diagram of the wireless communication of external devices, ¶0068 of the Specification also discloses “transmitting the signal processing result to a user apparatus to display the signal processing result to a user; the user apparatus comprises at least one of a mobile phone, a watch and glasses”, shown in Figure 9. There appears to be no direct distinction of what comprises the Communication module outside of these examples. Therefore, the examiner is interpreting the communication module as the user devices such as a phone, watch, and glasses. and the term lacks written description.
Claims 2-4, 7-9, & 11 are additionally rejected for depending upon the rejected claim 1.
Regarding Claims 1, 7, & 10:
The claim recites “Multimodal multimodal model- based multi-task learning network in lines 25-26; 4; & 29-30 respectively. The specification provides only intended functional results with little to no details on how any of these models are constructed. There is no clear indication how the model is actually constructed to produce the specifically claimed results. Under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph as lacking adequate written description because the specification does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. As an example, if the means- (or step-) plus-function limitation is computer-implemented, and the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention , see MPEP § 2161.01
Claims 2-4, 7-9, & 11 are additionally rejected for depending upon the rejected claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7:
The claim recites “frequency domain attention based neural network” in lines 9-10. The specification provides only intended functional results with little to no details on how any of these models are constructed. There is no clear indication how the model is actually constructed to produce the specifically claimed results. Under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph as lacking adequate written description because the specification does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. As an example, if the means- (or step-) plus-function limitation is computer-implemented, and the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention , see MPEP § 2161.01
The claim recite “time domain interpretative based neural network” in line 10. The specification provides only intended functional results with little to no details on how any of these models are constructed. There is no clear indication how the model is actually constructed to produce the specifically claimed results. Under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph as lacking adequate written description because the specification does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. As an example, if the means- (or step-) plus-function limitation is computer-implemented, and the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention , see MPEP § 2161.01
The claim recites “Feature” throughout the claim. Though the specification refers to features throughout the specification, this term is never defined or further explained as to what it represents. Therefore, the term lacks written description.
The claim recites “Pooling operation” in line 14. The specification provides only intended functional results with little to no details on how any of these models are constructed. There is no clear indication how the operation is actually constructed to produce the specifically claimed results. Under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph as lacking adequate written description because the specification does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. As an example, if the means- (or step-) plus-function limitation is computer-implemented, and the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention , see MPEP § 2161.01
The claim recites “feature fusion classification process” in line 15. The specification provides only intended functional results with little to no details on how any of these models are constructed. There is no clear indication how the model is actually constructed to produce the specifically claimed results. Under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph as lacking adequate written description because the specification does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. As an example, if the means- (or step-) plus-function limitation is computer-implemented, and the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention , see MPEP § 2161.01
Regarding Claim 8:
The claim recites “arrhythmia detection result” in line 8. Though the specification refers to the arrythmia detection result in ¶0016, ¶0042, & ¶0082, this term is never defined or further explained as to what it represents, or how it is achieved. Therefore, the term lacks written description.
The claim recites “myocardial infarction detection result” in line 8. Though the specification refers to the myocardial infarction detection result in ¶0016, ¶0042, & ¶0082, this term is never defined or further explained as to what it represents, or how it is achieved. Therefore, the term lacks written description.
Regarding Claim 10:
The claim recites “Acquisition module ” in line 4. There appears to be no direct distinction of what comprises the acquisition module found in the specification outside of the reciting the acquisition module for acquiring at least one lead ECG signal and MWPPG signals in ¶0018 & ¶0074-¶0076. Therefore, the examiner is interpreting the acquisition module as a processor, and the claims lack written description.
Regarding Claims 1 & 10:
The claims recite “processing module” In lines 24 & 28 respectively. Figure 10 of the Drawings shows Processing module 102 as a nondescriptive component. ¶0088 of the specification discloses that “The processor 4001 may be a CPU (Central Processing Unit), a general-purpose processor, a DSP (Digital Signal Processor), FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array) or other programmable logic device, transistorized logic device, hardware component, or any combination thereof. It may implement or execute various exemplary logic boxes, modules, and circuits described in conjunction with the disclosure of this invention.”. There appears to be no direct distinction of what comprises the Processing module outside of these paragraphs and ¶0041 which alludes to a nondescriptive neural network possibly being the processing module. Therefore, the examiner is interpreting the Processing module as the listed processors, and the term lacks written description. Under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph as lacking adequate written description because the specification does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention, see MPEP § 2161.01
Claims 2-4, 7-9, & 11 are additionally rejected for depending upon the rejected claim 1.
Regarding Claims 1 & 10-11:
The claims recite “an AI enhanced” in Line 1. There is no support found in the specification for the recited AI. ¶0030 of the Specification recites “Basic AI technologies generally include technologies such as sensors, special AI chips, cloud computing, distributed storage, big data processing technologies, operation/interaction systems, mechatronics, etc. Artificial intelligence software technologies mainly include computer vision technology, speech processing technology, natural language processing technology, and machine learning/deep learning, autonomous driving, intelligent transportation, and other major directions.”. ¶0033 of the Specification recites “In one example, the terminal is configured with an AI model that can acquire the signals captured by the smart shirt as shown in FIG. 5 and FIG. 6 for processing.”. Finally, ¶0041 of the Specification recites “The embodiment of the present invention uses ECG signals and MWPPG signals obtained from different leads as inputs to the AI model, which can be processed by the neural network to estimate TAG signals, associated blood pressure information and heart disease information.”. None of these provide sufficient disclosure about what constitutes the AI model. Under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph as lacking adequate written description because the specification does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. As an example, if the means- (or step-) plus-function limitation is computer-implemented, and the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention , see MPEP § 2161.01
Claims 2-4, 7-9, & 11 are additionally rejected for depending upon the rejected claim 1.
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 1, 2-4, & 7-11 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.
Regarding Claim 1:
The claim recites “using the noise reduced signal as input data and the impedance information as noise reference for a next iteration” in Lines 20-22. This is unclear if it is referring to combined impedance information, as well as if this is the impedance information between the left arm and right arm or the right arm and left leg. For the purpose of examination, the examiner is interpreting this as the combined impedance information for both combinations. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-4, 7-9, & 11 are additionally rejected for depending upon the rejected claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10:
The claim recites “using the noise reduced signal and the impedance information as input data for a next iteration” in Lines 24-26. This is unclear if it is referring to combined impedance information, as well as if this is the impedance information between the left arm and right arm or the right arm and left leg. For the purpose of examination, the examiner is interpreting this as the combined impedance information for both combinations. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claims 1 & 10:
The claim recites “combining impedance information between electrode of a left arm and a right arm…” in Lines 16-17 & 21-22 respectively. This is unclear if this refers to an electrode between a left arm and a right arm, or an electrode of a left arm and an electrode of a right arm”. For the purpose of examination, the examiner is interpreting this as singular electrode. Appropriate correction is required.
The claim recites “an between electrode of a right arm and a left leg” in Lines 18 & 23 respectively. This is unclear if this refers to an electrode between a left leg and a right arm, or an electrode of a left leg and an electrode of a right arm”. For the purpose of examination, the examiner is interpreting this as singular electrode. Appropriate correction is required.
The claim recites “filtering noise from the electrocardiogram signal and the MWPPG signals, and generating a new noise reduced signal; and using the noise reduced signal and the impedance information as input data for a next iteration, filtering the noise from the electrocardiogram signal and the MWPPG signals” and the claim previously claims “filtering, via an adaptive filter, noise from the electrocardiogram signal” in Lines 27-28. This is unclear as to what the filtering process is as filtering has previously been done in the claim, and it is also unclear if the filtering is being applied to a noise reduced signal or a new signal. For the purpose of examination, the examiner is interpreting this as filtering a new signal. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-4, 7-9, & 11 are additionally rejected for depending upon the rejected claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7:
The claim recites “performing feature extraction on the MWPPG signals to obtain a second feature information” in Lines 12-13. This is unclear as to what feature extraction is occurring, and if this is the same form of extraction as the ECG signals, as well as what is being extracted by the process. For the purpose of examination, the examiner is interpreting this as performing the same feature extraction as with the ECG signals. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 8:
The claim recites “arrhythmia detection result” in Line 8. This is unclear as to how the result is obtained when there has been no discussion of detecting arrhythmia, and it has not been shown how the invention would detect this event. For the purpose of examination, the examiner is interpreting this as using the processing to determine a cardiac event has occurred. Appropriate correction is required.
The claim recites “myocardial infarction detection result” in Line 8. This is unclear as to how the result is obtained when there has been no discussion of detecting myocardial infarction, and it has not been shown how the invention would detect this event. For the purpose of examination, the examiner is interpreting this as using the processing to determine a cardiac event has occurred. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: processing module
“Processing Module” in Claims 1 & 10;
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Claim limitation “Processing Module”, has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “module” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation. Figure 10 of the Drawings shows Processing module 102 as a nondescriptive component. ¶0088 of the specification discloses that “The processor 4001 may be a CPU (Central Processing Unit), a general-purpose processor, a DSP (Digital Signal Processor), FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array) or other programmable logic device, transistorized logic device, hardware component, or any combination thereof. It may implement or execute various exemplary logic boxes, modules, and circuits described in conjunction with the disclosure of this invention.”. There appears to be no direct distinction of what comprises the Processing module outside of these paragraphs and ¶0041 which alludes to a nondescriptive neural network possibly being the processing module. Therefore, the examiner is interpreting the Processing module as the listed processors.
“Communication Module” in Claims 1 & 11;
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Claim limitation “Communication Module”, has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “module” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation. ¶0022 of the specification discloses that the “transmitting the obtained ECG signal and MWPPG signals to the said electronic devices through the communication module”; and the Communication module is also alluded to in Figure 9 which shows a schematic diagram of the wireless communication of external devices, ¶0068 of the Specification also discloses “transmitting the signal processing result to a user apparatus to display the signal processing result to a user; the user apparatus comprises at least one of a mobile phone, a watch and glasses”, shown in Figure 9. There appears to be no direct distinction of what comprises the Communication module outside of these examples. Therefore, the examiner is interpreting the communication module as the user devices such as a phone, watch, and glasses.
“Acquisition Module” in Claim 10;
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Claim limitation “Acquisition Module”, has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “module” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation. There is no direct distinction of what comprises the acquisition module found in the specification outside of the reciting the acquisition module for acquiring at least one lead ECG signal and MWPPG signals in ¶0018 & ¶0074-¶0076. Therefore, the examiner is interpreting the acquisition module as a processor.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, & 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims recite:
Claim 1 is to a method.
Claim 10 is to an apparatus.
Therefore, claims 1-4, & 7-11 are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claims 1 & 10 the limitation of “outputting, via a communication module, a signal processing result related to a tonoarteriography (TAG) information and/or related to a cardiac disease information” is a mental process. The limitations as drafted, covers performance of the limitations that can be performed by a human using a pen and paper under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. For example, determining a result related to a TAG information and/or related to a cardiac disease information encompasses nothing more than a user tracking data collected from a sensor on paper and determining if the data surpasses a threshold to consider it a disease marker. Outputting to a communication module can be simply interpreted as a person writing down the signal processing results. If claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The presence of mathematical algorithms and concepts, particularly the multimodal-model-based multitask learning networks seen within claims 1 & 10 in limitations “processing, via the processing module the obtained noise reduced electrocardiogram signal and the MWPPG signals by a multimodal model-based multi-task learning network”, “converting the noise reduced signal to obtain a noise reduced signal of the one or more additional, different, leads”, and “iteratively perform the following operations until a stop iteration condition is met: combining impedance information between electrode of a left arm and a right arm, and between electrode of a right arm and a left leg; filtering noise from the electrocardiogram signal and the MWPPG signals, and generating a new noise reduced signal; and using the noise reduced signal and the impedance information as input data for a next iteration, filtering the noise from the electrocardiogram signal and the MWPPG signals;”; as well as dependent claim 7, are also considered a judicial exception as mathematical concepts are considered laws of nature per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Step 2A, Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements of “an acquisition module for acquiring at least one lead electrocardiogram signal and MWPPG signals”; “acquiring via a plurality of multi-wavelength photoplethysmography sensors, multi-wavelength photoplethysmogram (MWPPG) signals.”; “filtering, via an adaptive filter, noise from the electrocardiogram signal to obtain a noise reduced signal” and “wherein the acquiring step comprises collecting the at least one lead electrocardiogram signal and the MWPPG signals from an electrically conductive clothing worn by the target subject” is related to data gathering and processing; and “a processing module for processing the electrocardiogram signal and the MWPPG signals by a multimodal model-based multi-task learning network” which is related to a generic computer implementation by a processor. In addition, the claimed “multimodal model-based multi-task learning network” is a machine learning model, which is a mimic of the human thinking process, and therefore is categorized as a generic computer implementation of the abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an acquisition module for acquiring at least one lead electrocardiogram signal and MWPPG signals”; “acquiring via a plurality of multi-wavelength photoplethysmography sensors, multi-wavelength photoplethysmogram (MWPPG) signals.”; “filtering, via an adaptive filter, noise from the electrocardiogram signal to obtain a noise reduced signal” and “wherein the acquiring step comprises collecting the at least one lead electrocardiogram signal and the MWPPG signals from an electrically conductive clothing worn by the target subject” is related to data gathering and processing; and “a processing module for processing the electrocardiogram signal and the MWPPG signals by a multimodal model-based multi-task learning network”. Additionally, this pre-solution activity of data processing and display is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of cardiology and all uses of the recited judicial exception require the pre-solution activity of data gathering and analysis. The additional elements of: and adaptive filter; a processing module; communication module; and electrically conductive clothing is provided with the electrocardiogram electrode and the plurality of multi-wavelength PPG sensors; are generic components in the field of art and do no more to define the inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims 2-4, 7-9 & 11, the claims recite further mathematical concepts related to using the machine learning model (claim 7), data gathering (claims 2-4), further introducing generic components/concepts (claims 8 & 11), and insignificant pre-solution activity (claims 9, & 11), and does no more to further limit the physical means for acquiring data outside of the electric conductive clothing worn by the target subject, electrocardiogram electrode, multi-wavelength photoplethysmography sensors, various types of garments the device may be implemented on, a “user apparatus which comprises at least one of a mobile phone, a watch and glasses”, a sensing module, and communication module, but these items are generic to the field and do not provide novelty or distinct structure to the claimed invention.
Therefore, claims 1-4, & 7-11 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, & 7-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action above. It is noted that the allowable subject matter is based on the claim interpretations as described in the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) section above.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or suggest combining impedance information between electrode of a left arm and a right arm comprising a chest V1 lead, and between electrode of a right arm and a left leg comprising a limb lead II; filtering noise from the electrocardiogram signal and the MWPPG signals, and generating a new noise reduced signal; and using the noise reduced signal as input data and the impedance information as noise reference for a next iteration, filtering the noise from the electrocardiogram signal and the MWPPG signals. Specifically, the prior art of record fails to suggest this processing being performed from data collected by sensors disposed on a wearable garment, using specific leads II & VI.
Examiner respectfully submits that Erdong & Zhao teaches away from this claimed limitation. Neither reference discloses the wearable garment which would enable such processing of a chest lead VI and limb lead II, nor can any new references be found alone or in combination which teaches all the claim elements. Therefore, Erdong, Zhao, and Ruder would not make for a satisfactory prior art rejection reference.
The Examiner concludes that the prior art does not provide the requisite teaching, suggestion, and motivation to suggest the recited claim limitation. Therefore, the inventive features recited in the pending claims are not disclosed by the prior art and are not suggested by an obvious combination of the most analogous prior art elements.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEGAN FEDORKY whose telephone number is (571)272-2117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-4:30.
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 M-F 9:30-4:30. 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.
/MEGAN T FEDORKY/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/ALLEN PORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796