DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to claims filed on 2/3/2026. Claims 1-26 are pending, claims 1-11 have been withdrawn by the Applicant. A first action on the merits of claims 12-26 is as follows.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/3/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 12-26 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 12 recites “one watch electrocardiograph” in line two and “one inferior lead electrocardiograph” in line three. These two devices are claimed as if they are known structures in the art, but these are not common devices in the art and do not comprise known structures. The recitation of “electrocardiograph” does not provide any specific structure to this device. It simply provides a function to the device, namely that it measures ECG. The structure for accomplishing this task is not claimed. It is unclear if these are devices or electrodes/sensors or if they are intended to have additional structure. No structure is provided in the claims for measuring the leads, wirelessly transmitting signals, or calculating the remaining leads. As currently written, there is merely a simple device claimed with no specific components, which makes it unclear how the device is intended to accomplish all of the functional steps that are recited. The examiner recommends amending the claim to state the specific components that perform the recited functions in order to rectify this issue.
Claim 12 is further rejected because it recites “a wearable device” in the preamble, but based on the specification, it is actually two devices in many embodiments. For instance, there is a “watch electrocardiograph” in Figs. 1 and 2, and then the “inferior lead electrocardiograph” is a ring or chest-patch as seen in Figs. 4 and 5. These are two wearable devices, not a single wearable device as recited in the preamble. This should be corrected to --a system-- or something similar.
Claims 13-26 are rejected due to their dependance on claim 12.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected because they claim the inferior lead electrocardiograph is a ring and a chest-patch, respectively. This is indefinite because the device is stated to be “a wearable device” which is a single device, not a watch and a ring or chest-patch as claimed in claims 14 and 15. In claims 14 and 15, two separate wearable devices are claimed. The inconsistencies render the claims indefinite because the structure of the device is unclear.
Claim 16 is rejected because the “frequency response characteristics” are not defined in the claim and the specification is also unclear to what defines these characteristics. It is unclear if it is simply meaning that they are filtered to the same frequency, have the same amplitude or phase, or if all three are intended to be the same. The specification states that “the frequency response requirement during testing with a sine wave is as follows: the amplitude response in the frequency range 0.67Hz to 40Hz is required to be within 140% and 70% of the amplitude response at 5Hz” on pages 32-33. The specification further narrows this range on page 33. However, it is still unclear if the frequency response characteristics are intended to be this amplitude response, or another response at a certain frequency.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected because they contain the trademark/trade name Bluetooth Low Energy. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe wireless transmission and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 21 is further rejected because “the Bluetooth” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 22 is rejected due to its dependance on claim 21.
Claim 23 is rejected because “the connection event” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 24 is rejected because it states the calculation or display are performed on a smartphone. Claim 12 states that the calculation is done by the wearable device. This is indefinite because the device is stated to be “a wearable device” which is a single device, not a watch and a smartphone as claim 24 requires. The inconsistencies render the claims indefinite because the structure of the device is unclear.
Claim 26 is rejected because there is no structure claimed for performing the function of generating a start command after a current sensor detects contact with the electrodes. It is unclear how the watch electrocardiograph is intended to send the start command if the electrodes on the inferior electrocardiograph are touched. The way claim 12 is written, communication does not start until the start command is sent, so contacting the electrodes on the inferior lead would have no bearing on starting the ECG since the devices are not in communication. Furthermore, claim 12 is clear that the watch electrocardiograph starts the ECG measurement, not the inferior lead ECG. Claim 26 then contradicts this statement by saying that the inferior lead could send the start command. It is unclear if this would be the same start command or a separate start command initiated by the inferior lead ECG. Without claiming the structures that carry out these various functions, it is unclear how the device is intended to operate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 12-15 and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (hereinafter ‘Liang’, US 20210244337 A1) in view of Hwang (WO 2019108044 A1).
Regarding independent claim 12, Liang discloses a wearable device (wearable device in Figs. 7, 8, 9 – this is consistent with the instant application which shows multiple wearable devices working together) and comprising:
one wrist-worn electrocardiograph in a body ([0025]: the electrodes are embedded on the housing) to measure lead I (master device 31 in Fig. 9; [0150]: the master device receives ECG signals from the slave devices and combines it with the signal acquired by itself to process the data into the three electrocardiograph data of the three limb leads; [0148]: the master device may be disposed on any of the two hands and the left leg – “to measure lead I” is a functional limitation that is simply determined by the placement of the electrode and the master device measures an ECG signal lead which can be lead I); and
one inferior lead electrocardiograph (slave device 32 in Fig. 9) for measuring one of lead II or lead III according to an installed position ([0150]: the master device receives ECG signals from the slave devices and combines it with the signal acquired by itself to process the data into the three electrocardiograph data of the three limb leads – “to measure lead II or III” is a functional limitation that is simply determined by the placement of the electrode and the slave device measures an ECG signal lead which can be lead II or III depending on placement), wherein
the watch electrocardiograph wirelessly transmits a command for starting electrocardiogram measurement (electrocardiogram measurement start command) to the one inferior lead electrocardiograph ([0054]: the master device has a wireless transmission circuit; [0131]: the wireless transmission circuit 202 of the slave device is capable of receiving signals; [0099]: in the system, the master device is started firstly, then the slave device is started – this is a functional limitation as claimed and the claim does not require a controller or processor to perform this step; the master device is capable of sending a start command and the slave device is capable of receiving said command; furthermore, there is an inherent start command sent at that allows the slave device to start collection after the master device has started collection),
the watch electrocardiograph measures lead I ([0150]: the master device receives ECG signals from the slave devices and combines it with the signal acquired by itself to process the data into the three electrocardiograph data of the three limb leads; [0148]: the master device may be disposed on any of the two hands and the left leg – “measures lead I” is a functional limitation that is simply determined by the placement of the electrode and the master device measures an ECG signal lead which can be lead I),
the one inferior lead electrocardiograph wirelessly receiving the electrocardiogram measurement start command measures one of lead Il or lead III ([0131]: the wireless transmission circuit 202 of the slave device is capable of receiving signals; [0099]: in the system, the master device is started firstly, then the slave device is started – this is a functional limitation as claimed and the claim does not require a controller or processor to perform this step; the master device is capable of sending a start command and the slave device is capable of receiving said command; furthermore, there is an inherent start command sent at that allows the slave device to start collection after the master device has started collection; [0150]: the master device receives ECG signals from the slave devices and combines it with the signal acquired by itself to process the data into the three electrocardiograph data of the three limb leads – “measures lead II or III” is a functional limitation that is simply determined by the placement of the electrode and the slave device measures an ECG signal lead which can be lead II or III depending on placement), and
the one inferior lead electrocardiograph wirelessly transmits the measured one of leads II or lead III to the watch electrocardiograph ([0035]: the wireless transmission circuit receives an electrocardiographic voltage from the second electrocardiograph acquisition device), so that the wrist worn electrocardiograph wirelessly receives the transmitted one of the lead II or lead III, so as to acquire two electrocardiogram lead signals ([0084]: the electrocardiograph acquisition circuit is an electrocardiograph acquisition circuit of a master device and the master device calculates the electrocardiograph index by its own detection and the data reported from the slave devices – thus the master device is receiving the measured voltages from the slave devices to acquire two lead signals) measured in a same time band ([0063]: the first and second acquisition times, which are the time bands of signal detection, are synchronized); and
four electrocardiogram lead signals are additionally calculated by using the two electrocardiogram lead signals measured in the same time band, so as to acquire six limb lead signals including Lead I, Lead II, Lead III, Lead aVR, Lead aVL, and Lead aVF ([0058]: the control circuit is configured to obtain an electrocardiograph index signal by processing the first ECG voltage and the second ECG voltage – again, this is claimed as a functional limitation with no structure provided for performing the calculation and the processor of the device is capable of performing the calculations necessary to calculate the limb leads).
While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, or elsewhere in a claim, then it meets the claim.
However, Liang does not explicitly state the wrist-worn device is a watch and is also silent to the measured and calculated leads.
Hwang teaches a wearable ECG measurement system ([Abstract]). The wearable device is a smart-watch device with electrodes connected to it ([Page 16 of translation]). Embedding the ECG device of Liang into a smart watch is an obvious modification to make sense the master device of Liang is worn on the wrist. Combining with a watch would simply provide the obvious benefit of time-keeping. Hwang further teaches that two limb leads should be collected simultaneously for more accurate and convenient measurement ([Page 3 of translation]). This is similar to the device of Liang which measures the limb voltages synchronously. Once the two limb leads are measured, the four remaining limb leads are calculated ([Page 7 of translation]). Hwang further defines the calculation of the remaining limb leads from the measured leads I and II ([Page 7 of translation]). The calculations are simply addition, subtraction, and division that are routinely implanted in electrocardiogram signal processing ([Page 7 of translation]). Measuring two limbs and calculating the remaining four leads is convenient and allows for an ECG to be obtained with a small number of electrodes ([Page 12 of invention]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the watch and calculations taught by Hwang with the system of Liang such that the master device is embedded in a watch to allow for time-keeping and so the electrocardiogram index calculated by Liang includes the four additional limb leads to gain a more accurate and complete ECG profile.
Regarding claim 13, the Liang/Hwang combination discloses the wearable device of claim 12 as described above.
However, the device of Liang discloses the slave device as a second, separate device similar to the ring and chest patch embodiments of the instant application.
Hwang further teaches that a lead can be measured by two electrodes 111 and 112 that are disposed on the inner and outer surfaces of a watch band connected to a watch electrode (Fig. 16 and Page 7 of translation). While Hwang states that the second electrode 112 is configured to touch the other hand of the user, it could easily be placed against the knee or ankle as that is simply intended use. Modifying the location of the inferior electrocardiograph of Liang is simply a rearrangement of parts. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It is simply consolidating the electrodes and processing of a separate band device into the bottom of the master device. Two leads can still be accurately measured as taught by Hwang and the electrocardiograph index can still be accurately calculated. Furthermore, the instant application does not provide criticality to this embodiment as the inferior electrocardiograph can be in the watch band, ring, or chest patch as evidenced by Figs. 2, 4, and 5.
Regarding claim 14, the Liang/Hwang combination discloses the wearable device of claim 12. Liang further discloses that the master and slave devices are separate devices as seen in Fig. 9.
However, Liang is silent to the slave device being a ring.
Hwang further teaches that a lead can be measured by two electrodes 111 and 112 that are disposed on a ring as seen in Fig. 17. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the inferior electrocardiograph of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, in this case into a ring. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Two leads can still be accurately measured as taught by Hwang and the electrocardiograph index can still be accurately calculated. Furthermore, the instant application does not provide criticality to this embodiment as the inferior electrocardiograph can be in the watch band, ring, or chest patch as evidenced by Figs. 2, 4, and 5.
Regarding claim 15, the Liang/Hwang combination discloses the wearable device of claim 12 as described above. Liang further discloses that the master and slave devices are separate as shown in Fig. 9.
However, Liang is silent to the inferior electrocardiograph being a chest patch.
Hwang further teaches that a lead can be measured by two electrodes 111 and 112 that are disposed on a chest patch as seen in Figs. 1 and 3. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the inferior electrocardiograph of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, in this case into a chest patch. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Two leads can still be accurately measured as taught by Hwang and the electrocardiograph index can still be accurately calculated. Furthermore, the instant application does not provide criticality to this embodiment as the inferior electrocardiograph can be in the watch band, ring, or chest patch as evidenced by Figs. 2, 4, and 5.
Regarding claim 20, the Liang/Hwang combination discloses the wearable device of claim 12, wherein a wireless type for communicating between the watch electrocardiograph and one inferior lead electrocardiograph includes Bluetooth Low Energy (Liang [0085]: the wireless transmission circuit utilizes Bluetooth).
Regarding claim 21, the Liang/Hwang combination discloses the wearable device of claim 12, wherein the one inferior lead electrocardiograph, after connection of the Bluetooth Low Energy is established, samples the electrocardiogram lead signal during one connection interval, and transmits the sampled data during one connection event following the sampling (Liang [0085]: the wireless transmission circuit utilizes Bluetooth; [0005]: a wireless transmission circuit receives the ECG voltage from the second acquisition device – this claim is entirely functional as there is no structure claimed for performing this function and it is disclosed that when the two devices are connected via Bluetooth the measured voltage is transmitted to the master device following sampling; the “connection interval” is completely undefined in the claim and is simply interpreted as the sampling period of the ECG signal).
Regarding claim 22, the Liang/Hwang combination discloses the wearable device of claim 21, wherein the connection interval is an integral multiple of a sampling period when the one inferior lead electrocardiograph samples one electrocardiogram lead signal (the connection interval is simply interpreted as the same as the sampling period of the inferior lead ECG sample since every number is an integral multiple of itself; [0005]: a wireless transmission circuit receives the ECG voltage from the second acquisition device – the sampling period is inherently the period in which the ECG voltage is sampled; again, there is no structure claimed for setting or determining this limitation and a sampling period is an inherent part of sampling a signal prior to transmission).
Regarding claim 23, the Liang/Hwang combination discloses the wearable device of claim 12, wherein the watch electrocardiograph and the one inferior lead electrocardiograph sample each electrocardiogram lead signal at the same time by sampling each electrocardiogram lead signal after the same amount of time has elapsed from the connection event ([0023]: a control circuit is configured to output a first clock signal, wherein the phase of the first clock signal based on the first time difference received by the wireless transmission circuit is adjusted to enable the first clock signal to be synchronized with a second clock signal, wherein the second clock signal is a clock signal of the second electrocardiograph acquisition device; [0134]: the synchronization of the clock signals can cause the synchronization of the data acquisition times – thus the clock signals are synchronized to ensure the signals are synchronized and measured after the same amount of time has elapsed – again, this limitation is entirely functional since there has not been any controller or processor claimed that performs the claimed synchronization and the device of the Liang/Hwang combination is capable of collecting the signals at the same time after the connection event where the clocks have synchronized).
Regarding claim 24, the Liang/Hwang combination discloses the wearable device of claim 12, wherein an operation of additionally calculating the four electrocardiogram lead signals, or an operation of displaying six limb lead signals is performed on an external device ([0143]: the signal may be sent to a separate computer for displaying the data)
However, Liang is silent to the external device being a smartphone.
Hwang further teaches that the signal can advantageously be communicated to a smartphone for display and processing ([Pages 12 and 14 of translation]). Smartphones are convenient as almost all individuals carry them and they are capable of wireless communication and provide a good display ([Page 2 of translation]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transmit the data of Liang to a smartphone since Liang is capable of transmitting to external devices and smartphones are a convenient method of display for the user since most people carry them.
Regarding claim 25, the Liang/Hwang combination discloses the wearable device of claim 12 as described above.
However, Liang is silent to the ECG detection starting in response to an alarm from a PPG sensor.
Hwang further teaches that when an electrocardiogram measuring apparatus is implemented as a watch, it is suitable to also include a PPG sensor ([Page 16 of translation]). PPG sensors detect blood volume changes in the bed of the tissue using light. Hwang further states it is convenient to detect the occurrence of arrhythmia by installing an optical system on the watch or ring. The optical volume meter and the electrocardiogram measuring device can be installed together on the watch such that when the optical volume meter detects the occurrence of the arrhythmia symptom, the alarm signal is generated, which can then be used to trigger the electrocardiogram ([Page 16 of translation]). This is an obvious benefit because it allows the measurement to occur during a cardiac related event, thus allowing the physician to see exactly what is occurring during the abnormality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the PPG sensor of Hwang with the device of Liang such that when the PPG detects the occurrence of an arrythmia, the ECG measurement can be initiated and the start command sent to the slave device in order to provide an electrocardiogram during the cardiac related event.
Regarding claim 26, the Liang/Hwang combination discloses the wearable device of claim 12 as described above. Liang further teaches that the device includes a battery for operation ([0141]).
However, Liang is silent to the ECG starting when a current sensor detects contact with electrodes on the inferior lead.
Hwang further teaches that device can comprise a current sensor that detects a minute current when both hands touch the electrodes on the device ([Page 13 of translation]). When the user touches the electrodes, the current sensor generates an output signal and the ECG measurement is started ([Page 13 of translation]). This allows for only the current sensor to be operating while the remaining circuits are in a sleep mode to increase the battery life of the device ([Page 13 of translation]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the current sensor of Hwang with the device of Liang such that the device can be in a sleep mode until the current sensor detects electrode contact, thus starting the ECG measurement, in order to increase the life of the battery.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Liang/Hwang combination as applied to claim 12 as described above, in further view of International Standard IEC 60601-2-47 (https://mdcpp.com/doc/materialDownload/IEC_60601-2-47-2012.pdf).
Regarding claim 16, the Liang/Hwang combination discloses the wearable device of claim 12 as described above. Liang further discloses the electrocardiographic voltages are synchronized facilitating synchronization processing ([0061]) and the frequencies of the clock signals output by the control circuits of the master and slave devices are the same ([0134]).
However, the Liang/Hwang combination is silent to the two electrocardiogram lead signals measured in the same time band having the same frequency response characteristics.
This limitation is a functional limitation. There has not been an controller, processor, amplifier, or filter claimed that would result in the signals having the same frequency response. The IEC 60601-2-47 states the requirement for the frequency response is the amplitude response to sinusoidal signals within the frequency range of 0.67 Hz to 40 Hz shall be between 104% and 70% of the response at 5 Hz (Page 35). This is consistent with page 32-33 of the instant application which seems to state that having the same frequency response characteristics is determined by the amplitude response falling within the standard percentage or better. It would be of routine skill in the art to modify the amplifiers and ADCs of Liang to ensure that the lead signals sampled have the same frequency response characteristics as defined by the international standards since that is a known standard to which ECG measurement devices must conform. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the frequency response characteristics to the same value, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 17, the Liang/Hwang combination discloses the wearable device of claim 12 as described above.
However, the combination is silent to the gain characteristics of the signals.
This limitation is a functional limitation. There has not been an controller, processor, amplifier, or filter claimed that would result in the signals having the same frequency response. The IEC 60601-2-47 states the requirement for the for the gain accuracy means that all possible gain settings shall be reproduced with a maximum amplitude error of +/- 10% (Page 35). This is consistent with page 31 of the instant application which seems to state that having the same gain characteristics is determined by the maximum amplitude error percentage. It would be of routine skill in the art to modify the amplifiers of Liang to ensure that the lead signals sampled have the same gain characteristics as defined by the international standards since that is a known standard to which ECG measurement devices must conform and reducing the amplitude error ensures better gain accuracy and stability (Page 34 of IEC standards). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the gain characteristics to the same value, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Liang/Hwang combination as applied to claim 12 as described above, in further view of Vogel et al. (hereinafter ‘Vogel’, US 20070244669 A1).
Regarding claim 18, the Liang/Hwang combination discloses the wearable device of claim 12 as described above.
However, the combination is silent to the amplitude error of the signals.
This limitation is a functional limitation. There has not been an controller, processor, amplifier, or filter claimed that would result in the signals having the same frequency response.
Vogel teaches a signal processing system allowing for reconstruction of non-uniformly sampled analog signals for implementation into an electrocardiogram monitoring device ([Abstract]). A signal processing system that minimizes amplitude error improves the quality of the output and increase performance ([0037]). Modifying the amplifiers of the Liang combination to reduce amplitude error is an obvious benefit to the system and is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the minimize the amplitude error as taught by Vogel such that it is the claimed 5%, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Liang/Hwang combination as applied to claim 12 as described above, in further view of Jernigan (US 20220071535 A1).
Regarding claim 19, the Liang/Hwang combination discloses the wearable device of claim 12 as described above. Liang further discloses that the ADC is configured to obtain a digital voltage signal by periodically sampling the analog voltage under the control of the clock signal ([0087]). In order to ensure the synchronization of the electrocardiographic signals acquired by the acquisition devices, the clock signals of the acquisition circuits of the various electrocardiograph acquisition devices adopt a uniform frequency ([0088]).
However, the combination is specifically silent to the sampling rates being the same.
Jernigan teaches a system that measures heart rate, breathing, and other data of a user to a variety of contact or contactless sensors ([Abstract]). Some of the modules taught by Jernigan are configured to capture and process ECG signals, similar to the system of the Liang/Hwang combination ([0092]). Jernigan further teaches that when using different sensors for the same type of data, there can be challenges integrating the signals into a single model if the sampling rate of each signal is different ([0203]). The system of the Liang/Hwang combination utilizes multiple ECG sensors to collect different limbs of the ECG. Ensuring they sample the signal at the same rate is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as taught by Jernigan. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure the master and slave devices have the same sampling rate to ensure they can be easily incorporated into the same model and do not require additional processing for a complete and accurate ECG signal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM E MOSSBROOK whose telephone number is (703)756-1936. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Linda Dvorak can be reached at (571)272-4764. 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.
/LINDA C DVORAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/W.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3794