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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-6) in the reply filed on 08 August 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that independent claims 7 and 15 have been amended to be dependent on claim 1. Applicant also argues that the unity of invention requirement is not applicable, as the present application is a non-provisional utility application under 35 USC 111(a).
Examiner appreciates Applicant’s courtesy in directing the Examiner to the error in the restriction requirement. Applicant’s amendments have also rendered moot the previous restriction requirement. Therefore, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office Action dated 10 June 2025 is hereby withdrawn, and claims 1-20 are pending and under consideration for patentability.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and under consideration for patentability; claims 7 and 15 have been amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements submitted on 20 January 2023 and 20 April 2023 have been acknowledged and considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Douglas et al. (US 2010/0219847 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Douglas describes a coupled physiological signal measuring device ([0011]), comprising
at least two measuring electrodes used to obtain a real-time physiological signal through measurement ([0004] describes the use of capacitive sensors, [0011] describes an electrode for sensing the physiological signal)
a signal processing unit ([0011], processing circuit elements), comprising
a discharge control element, used to output a discharge control signal if an electrostatic surge of the real-time physiological signal meets a condition ([0011]: “monitoring the amplified output signal to detect an error in a measurement that is greater than a preset value caused by charge buildup on the electrode”)
a multiplex feedback circuit unit, used to discharge the measuring electrodes according to the discharge control signal ([0011]: “the conditioning circuit elements are configured to be activated for discharging the electrode when the error in the measurement is detected by the monitoring circuit elements”)
Regarding claim 2, Douglas describes wherein an amplitude of the electrostatic surge exceeds a predetermined amplitude ([0059]; figure 4, problem areas P1 and P2).
Regarding claim 5, Douglas describes
at least one ground electrode ([0018])
a switch, disposed between the ground electrode and the measuring electrodes ([0018])
wherein the multiplex feedback circuit unit controls the switch according to the discharge control signal, so that the measuring electrodes are electrically connected to the ground electrode ([0018], [0054])
Regarding claim 6, Douglas describes wherein the measuring electrodes are electrically connected to the ground electrode for a predetermined time ([0054], [0011], the switch opens and the measuring electrodes are no longer connected to ground when the charge buildup is no longer detected).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas.
Regarding claim 3, Douglas describes the coupled physiological signal measuring device according to claim 2 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined amplitude is 1.5V. However, as Douglas provides examples of various physiological signals which may be measured, including electrocardiograms, electroencephalograms, and electromyograms ([0042]) and provides examples of how the voltage thresholds may be set by the user ([0059], example levels of V1, V2, V3, and V4), the Examiner respectfully submits that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the predetermined amplitude which serves as the threshold for the error condition, in a manner similar to that recited, as doing so would be a matter of optimizing a result-effective variable through routine experimentation (please see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 4, although Douglas does not explicitly disclose wherein the condition is that an occurrence frequency of the electrostatic surge exceeds a predetermined frequency value, the Examiner respectfully submits that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a frequency-based assessment in addition to the amplitude-based assessment described by Douglas, as an electrostatic surge that occurs at a high frequency may also lead to a charge buildup on the electrodes or a charge buildup within the overall system.
Claims 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas in view of Herrala et al. (US 2015/0165269 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Douglas describes the coupled physiological signal measuring device according to claim 1, including at least one ground electrode ([0018], [0054]) and a switch disposed between the measuring electrodes and the at least one ground electrode ([0018], [0054]). Douglas does not explicitly disclose wherein the ground electrode surrounds the measuring electrodes. However, Herrala also describes a physiological signal measuring device ([0001]), including the use of a ground electrode that surrounds measuring electrodes ([0059]; figures 3e and 3f). As Herrala is also directed towards a physiological signal measuring device and is in a similar field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a configuration similar to that described by Herrala when using the device described by Douglas, as doing so advantageously allows the resulting system to be configured as necessary in order to optimally acquire the physiological signal.
Regarding claim 8, Herrala describes wherein a quantity of the at least one ground electrode is two and each of the ground electrodes surrounds one of the measuring electrodes ([0055], [0059]; please see MPEP 2144.04 regarding duplicating the ground electrode).
Regarding claim 9, Herrala suggests wherein each of the measuring electrodes is a circular structure, and each of the ground electrodes is an annular structure (figures 3a-3f). The Examiner respectfully submits that the shape of the ground electrode in figures 3e and 3f may be considered “annular.” However, to the extent that any modification to the shape of the ground electrode described by Herrala is necessary, the Examiner respectfully submits that such modifications would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of changing the size, shape, and/or proportion of a known element (please see MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 10, Herrala suggests wherein a circumference of each of the measuring electrodes and a circumstance of one of the ground electrodes are concentric circles (figure 3b depicts a concentric configuration; [0055], [0059] describe arranging the measuring electrodes and ground electrodes as necessary).
Regarding claim 11, Herrala describes wherein a quantity of the at least one ground electrode is one, and the ground electrode surrounds all of the measuring electrodes (figures 3e and 3f).
Regarding claim 12, Herrala suggests wherein each of the measuring electrodes is a circular structure (figures 3a-3f) and each of the at least one ground electrode is an elliptical annular structure (figures 3e and 3f depict ground electrodes surrounding the measuring electrodes; please see MPEP 2144.04 regarding changes in size/shape and the note above in reference to claim 9).
Regarding claim 13, Herrala describes wherein a center of the ground electrode is located at a middle point of a connection line connecting two centers of the measuring electrodes (figures 3e and 3f, the center of the ground electrode is located at a middle point of a line connecting the left-side and right-side electrodes or the diagonally corresponding electrodes).
Regarding claim 14, Herrala describes wherein each of the measuring electrodes and the at least one ground electrode are separated by a gap (figures 3e and 3f).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas in view of Hong (US 2021/0166577 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Douglas describes the coupled physiological signal measuring device according to claim 1, but Douglas does not explicitly disclose wherein the signal processing unit further comprises an active noise cancellation element, used to perform active noise cancellation on the real-time physiological signal to obtain a real-time denoised physiological signal according to a noise extraction data set, wherein the noise extraction data set is obtained through a machine learning model. However, Douglas also describes a physiological signal measuring device ([0005]), including a signal processing unit comprising an active noise cancellation element ([0498]), used to perform active noise cancellation on the real-time physiological signal to obtain a real-time denoised physiological signal according to a noise extraction data set ([0498] - [0499]), wherein the noise extraction data set is obtained through a machine learning model ([0473], the second algorithm processing part is a component of the artificial intelligence electroencephalography headband; [0007]). As Hong is also directed towards measuring physiological signals and is in a similar field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate an active noise cancellation element similar to that described by Hong when using the device described by Douglas, as doing so advantageously allows the resulting device to use the highest fidelity data for further processing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest wherein a plurality of sample physiological signals are inputted to the machine learning model to obtain a plurality of sample predicted physiological signals, and differences between each of the sample physiological signals and each of the sample predicted physiological signals are recorded to the noise extraction data set.
Claim 17 is dependent on claim 16 and contains at least the same allowable subject matter as claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest an R wave comparison element, used to compare a plurality of R wave characteristics of the real-time denoised physiological signal with a plurality of R wave characteristics of a real-time denoised predicted physiological signal to obtain a comparison result, and a compensation element, used to compensate the real-time denoised physiological signal to obtain a real-time corrected physiological signal according to the comparison result.
Claims 19 and 20 depend on claim 18 and contain at least the same allowable subject matter as claim 18.
Statement on Communication via Internet
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. Where a written authorization is given by the applicant, communications via Internet e-mail, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used. USPTO employees are NOT permitted to initiate communications with applicants via Internet e-mail unless there is a written authorization of record in the patent application by the applicant. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please refer to MPEP 502.03 for guidance on Communications via Internet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Ankit D. Tejani, whose telephone number is 571-272-5140. The Examiner may normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30AM through 5:00PM EST. 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, Carl Layno, can be reached by telephone at 571-272-4949. 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 at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/Ankit D Tejani/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796