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 .
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 1-5, 7-15, 17-21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 11 follows.
STEP 1
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites a series of steps or acts, including detecting a sleep breathing disorder event. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The step of detecting a sleep breathing disorder event based on the biometric information and reference condition sets forth a judicial exception. This step describes a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 11 recites an output interface for providing information on the sleep breathing disorder, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The provided sleep breathing disorder information does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the method does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the information, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
STEP 2B
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional steps of obtaining biometric data while wearing a device, determine a reference AHI index, and adaptively changing the threshold. Obtaining data, determining a threshold, and adaptively changing the threshold is well-understood, routine and conventional activity for those in the field of medical diagnostics. Further, the acquiring, retrieving, and comparison steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the obtaining and comparing steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 1 and 21, the device recited in the claim is a generic device comprising generic components configured to perform the abstract idea. The recited biometric sensor is a generic sensor configured to perform pre-solutional data gathering activity, the output device is a generic interface device configured to perform output of the sleep disorder information, and the computer system is configured to perform the Abstract Idea. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they generally recite method steps pertaining to data gathering and the display of data. The comparing and calculating steps recited in the independent claims maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
It is noted, ¶[0252] of the instant specification seems to provide some teachings that the user can be recommended to follow instructions on how to improve a sleep disorder. However, this does not seem to require being above a specific AHI, instead, it is on if the user belongs to a risk group.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 1 recites the limitation “ through the biometric sensor of the wearable electronic device worn by the user” in lines 11-12, which incorporates a human organism and has been construed by the examiner that a human body surface is a component of the device. It is suggested that Applicant amend claim 1 to recite --through the biometric sensor of the wearable electronic device configured to be worn by the user-- in order to remove the recitation of human tissue. The same issue is seen in claim 21 (lines 10-11).
Claims not listed are rejected by virtue of claim dependency.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiron et al. (US 20220007965- previously cited) in view of Bhat et al. (US 20170027527- previously cited) and Qaseem (Diagnosis of Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Adults: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of Physicians-2015), hereinafter Qareem.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Tiron teaches an electronic device comprising: communication circuitry; a biometric sensor configured to measure a biometric signal that indicates a physiological state from a user’s body (¶[0032-33], sensors for generating active and passive signals are incorporated); and
an output interface comprising an audio interface (¶[0131], “an audio signal may be generated and transmitted towards a user”)
at least one processor memory storing instructs, that cause the wearable device to: obtain through the biometric sensor of the wearable device, biometric information of the user during the user's sleep (¶[0033], respiratory signals, motion signals, etc., are obtained when the user is sleeping to determine sleeping disorders. ¶[0372], “an example processing device or system of the present technology may provide a computer and audio processing hardware that is readily available such as a device people carry and use daily, and may locate on beside at night such as a smartphone or smart speaker, a smart TV, a smart watch, band, necklace, or patch. An advantage of such a system is that it can operate by executing an application (such as a downloadable application (app) on any smartdevice” (emphasis added));
In separate embodiments, the device is configured to determine a reference condition for detecting a sleep breathing disorder event, based on underlying disease information of the user (¶[0055-56,0065,0097,0184,0234-38,0331-340,0359,0366,0377,0385,0396,0467] and figs. 8,15 and 34, “illustrating a risky sleeper assessment of SDB risk,” “developing a classifier (such as a logistic regression model classifier) to estimate an AHI from those features,” “The system can provide an estimate of AHI,” “The output of the system can be combined with other risks factors—age, BMI, race, income, comorbidities, alcohol intake—in order to calculate and overall “risky sleep” index. This may be input to and characterized by the classifier(s) described herein,” An AHI estimate is determined based on the features and factors that aid in providing a more complete picture to achieve an overall AHI (the output). ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Tiron, such that the reference condition, as an AHI threshold, for detecting a sleep breathing disorder event, is based on underlying disease information of the user, as taught by Tiron, to aid in calculating an inclusive AHI estimate of the user for sleep score determination (see. Fig 8 and ¶[0234-238]).
detect the sleep breathing disorder event, based on the biometric information and the reference condition (¶[0033,0039,0048,0321] and figs. 8A-8D, biometric information (active and passive signals) from sensors and AHI estimation in each embodiment is used to determine sleep breathing disorder identification (SDB)); and
provide, through the output interface or the communication circuitry, information on the sleep breathing disorder event as the sleep breathing disorder event is detected (figs. 14-25), but fails to teach a haptic interface, the biometric information is obtained by the device being worn by the user, and that the reference condition is adjusted adaptively in response to a change in the underlying disease information.
First, providing a haptic interface on wearable device is well known in the field of wearable electronics. Tiron discusses that their technology can be used on any Apple system and Apple operating device (¶[0372]). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that haptic interfaces are widely implemented in these device and therefore satisfies the teachings of the limitation.
Second, Bhat teaches a wearable watch device (¶[0060,0070-1], capable of detecting apnea-hypopnea index) and method for detecting an event using a variable threshold (abstract). The device is configured to combine a plurality of physiologic information into individual indexes or values, when the estimate of the physiologic information exceeds its index/value threshold an alert period can be initiated, and subsequently adjust the threshold for different physiologic information estimates that are lower or higher to aid in avoiding a series of short alert periods when an index value remains close to an onset threshold value (¶[0060-63,0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Tiron, such that the biometric information is obtained while being worn, as taught by Bhat, to aid in identifying and managing health risk events to avoid unnecessary medical intervention and reduce healthcare costs (¶[0006] of Bhat). Moreover, the combination leads to a device that travels with the user and/or monitors the user even when attached to the user.
Tiron-Bhat fail to teach that the AHI is adjusted adaptively in response to a change in underlying disease information of the user. However, Tiron does teach that the threshold can “be adjusted to 10 or 5, for example, or to be higher or lower as desired,” but is silent on that it is based on the disease information.
Qaseem explicitly states “The AHI is used to diagnose and assess the severity of OSA. The American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) sets a threshold of 15 events per hour with or without symptoms or 5 events per hour with symptoms for OSA diagnosis (29, 30). The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimburses for OSA treatment with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) devices for patients with an AHI score of at least 15 events per hour or those with at least 5 events per hour and symptoms, such as daytime somnolence, fatigue, insomnia, mood disorders, and cognitive impairment, or cardiovascular comorbid conditions, such as hypertension, ischemic heart disease, or prior stroke” (emphasis added) (see pg. 211, ¶[1]). That is, it is recognized to one of ordinary skill in the art that underlying disease states will impact AHI threshold for diagnosing OSA.
Additionally, Bhat teaches that thresholds can be adaptively adjusted to improve therapy regimens when threshold criteria is met (¶[0035,0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Tiron-Bhat, such that the AHI is adjusted adaptively in response to a change in underlying disease information of the user, as taught by Bhat and Qaseem, because Tiron requires adjusting the AHI threshold, but fails to provide details. Bhat teaches that adaptive threshold aids in improving therapy regimens when threshold criteria is met, and Qaseem teaches that an AHI threshold can be changed based on underlying disease information.
Regarding claims 2, 12, and 21, Tiron teaches identify whether or not the user has an underlying disease, based on the underlying disease information (¶[0013,0056, 0235,0358-59], the device is configured to also monitor coughing that can be associated with sleeping disorder, “chronic cough (which is more prevalent in women) can be the sole presenting symptom for patients with obstructive sleep apnea,” and users are categorized with an illness based on the cough); and adjust the reference condition from a preconfigured first condition to a second condition (¶[0238], “a clinical threshold of SDB events (e.g., AHI greater than a threshold such as 15). This threshold could be adjusted to 10 or 5, for example, or to be higher or lower as desired”), and Tiron-Bhat-Qaseem teach that the adjustment is based on whether or not the user has the underlying disease (see pg. 211, ¶[1] of Qaseem).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Tiron-Bhat-Qaseem teaches wherein a case that the user has the underlying disease, an apnea-hypopnea index threshold value included in the reference condition is lowered from a first value to a second value (¶[0238] of Tiron, “a clinical threshold of SDB events (e.g., AHI greater than a threshold such as 15). This threshold could be adjusted to 10 or 5, for example, or to be higher or lower as desired.” See pg. 211, ¶[1] of Qaseem).
Regarding claims 22-23, Tiron teaches wherein the reference condition is an AHI threshold value and wherein the at least one sensor is configured to monitor biometric information of the user during a period of sleep; and assign an AHI value to the biometric information and to detect a sleep breathing disorder event in response to the AHI value exceeding the changed AHI threshold value (¶[0238], passive and active sensor signals are obtained to compute the AHI value and when it exceeds the threshold).
Claims 4-6, 10, 14-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiron in view of Bhat and Qaseem, as applied to claims 1 and 11, and further in view of An et al. (US 20170281095- previously cited).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Tiron teaches wherein at least one processor is configured to:
determine a risk level of a sleep breathing disorder, based on the underlying disease information (¶[0238], “Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA), a form of Sleep Disordered Breathing (SDB), is characterized by events including occlusion or obstruction of the upper air passage during sleep” and “system performs an assessment of the SDB risk”), but fails to teach adjusting the reference condition from a preconfigured first condition to a second condition, based on the risk level.
An teaches a system and method for monitoring patients with multiple chronic diseases (abstract). The system is configured to adjust the reference condition threshold from a first threshold to a second threshold based on the risk of developing the disease associated with the threshold (¶[0074], “the alert threshold generator 310 may increase the alert threshold if the first or second risk indication indicates a low risk of developing the first or second disease, or decrease the alert threshold if the first or second risk indication indicates a high risk of developing the first or second disease”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Tiron-Bhat-Qaseem, such reference condition is adjusted based on the risk level, as taught by An, to aid in timely detection of worsening health conditions with lower false positive detections (¶[0030], “fewer false positive detections are provided, device battery life can be extended, fewer unnecessary drugs and procedures may be scheduled, prescribed, or provided, and an overall system cost savings may be realized”). Moreover, Tiron requires adjusting AHI threshold, but fails to provide details, and An teaches that thresholds of reference conditions can be adjust based on a risk level.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Tiron-Bhat-Qaseem-An teach lowing an AHI threshold value (¶[0238] of Tiron teaches adjusting the AHI in view of An (¶[0074] of An as combined above) included in the reference condition from a first value to a third value, based on the risk level (¶[0074] of An, the reference condition adjusted from a first value to higher or lower values (second/third));
and detect the sleep breathing disorder event, based on the case where the AHI value from the biometric information exceeds the third value (¶[0238,0337] Tiron, “ The output risk probability of an apnea/hypopnea count being greater than a threshold” indicates that as long as the AHI is above any of the thresholds, a determination of a SDB event can be output).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Tiron-Bhat-Qaseem fail to teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to: adjust the reference condition as the underlying disease information is updated; and detect the sleep breathing disorder event, based on the adjusted reference condition.
An teaches that the adjusted reference condition thresholds for each disease is updated based on the progression and/or historical information that is input (therefore updated), and continue to detect the health disorder, based on the adjusted reference condition thresholds (¶[0058-59,0098]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Tiron-Bhat-Qaseem-An, such that the reference condition is adjusted based on updated underlying disease information and detecting a sleep disorder event based on the refence condition, as taught by An, to aid in timely detection of worsening health conditions with lower false positive detections.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Tiron-Bhat-Qaseem fail to teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to detect the sleep breathing disorder event by further considering a user's previous sleep record, and wherein the previous sleep record comprises at least one piece of: first sleep data related to a user's past sleep activity repeated a specified number of times or more; second sleep data related to the user's past sleep activity during a recent predetermined period; and sleep breathing disorder analysis result data based on the first sleep data or the second sleep data.
An teaches “the risk stratifier circuit that may be configured to determine the first or second risk indication based on a medical history of the patient” (¶[0021]). The risk indications are “at least based on clinical indications or medical history of the patient, such as exacerbation of recent chronic disease, a previous medical procedure, a clinical lab test result, patient medication intake or other treatment undertaken, or other clinical information relevant to the patient risk of developing a future disease.” Therefore, An teaches that the historical information during a recent predetermined period (post-surgery, recent disease state determination) is important to account for due to higher and/or lower risk of a physiological event occurring (¶[0051,0058-59], “the impedance acquisition and analysis session may be programmed to exclude certain time periods, such as night time, or when the patient is asleep,” “The patient medical history may have time-varying effect on the patient risk of developing a future disease. For example, a more recent disease state or a surgery may put the patient at higher risk for developing a cardiac, pulmonary, or renal disease than a more remote historical disease in patient medical history”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Tiron-Bhat-Qaseem-An, such that the physiological event is detected by considering a user’s history during a recent predetermined period, as taught by An, to aid in timely detection of worsening health conditions with lower false positive detections.
Therefore, the combination arrives to claimed invention because the physiological event is the sleep breathing disorder event of Tiron (abstract) in view of processing the historical record of the user in An (¶0087] of An).
Claims 7-9 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiron in view of Bhat and Qaseem, as applied to claims 1 and 11, and further in view of Patel et al. (US 20160249174- previously cited).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Tiron-Bhat-Qaseem fail to teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine whether or not to deactivate a sleep breathing disorder notification function, based on temporary state information of the user; and deactivate the sleep breathing disorder notification function, based on the determination whether or not to deactivate a sleep breathing disorder notification function.
Patel teaches an electronic monitoring device configured to deactivate/activate sensors and/or alarms of the device based on location sensing, to aid in conserving resources of the device, e.g. battery life (abstract and ¶[0140]). Therefore, the device is capable of deactivating notifications that are sent via audio, visual, or tactile means based on the determine location of the user (¶[-156-176]).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Tiron-Bhat-Qaseem, such that the notification function is deactivated/activated based on temporary state information of the user, as taught by Patel, to aid in conserving resources of the medical monitoring device. Additionally, the modification is merely using a known technique (deactivating/activating notification based on temporary user state) to improve similar device (medical monitoring devices) in the same way.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Tiron-Bhat-Qaseem fails to teach wherein the processor is configured to skip at least one of determining the reference condition, detecting the sleep breathing disorder event, or providing the user interface as the sleep breathing disorder notification function is deactivated.
However, Patel teaches wherein the processor is configured to skip detecting physiological events or providing notifications to the user interface when deactivating the components (¶[0055,0139-140,0202], “additional components for performing one or more additional sensor modalities, such as, but not limited to, heart rate measurements, electrical signal measurements (e.g., EKG, EMG, ECG), hydration level measurements, neural activity measurements, conductance measurements, and/or pressure measurements” and “the automatic determination of location, the wearable device 100 can change its operating mode, such as by enabling and/or disabling additional components of the wearable device.” The device would therefore not be able to display any of the information due to the deactivation of display and/or sensors for a particular metric.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Tiron-Bhat-Qaseem, such that detecting a physiological event or providing a notification of to the user interface, as taught by Patel, to aid in conserving resources of the medical monitoring device.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Patel teaches wherein the temporary state information is of at least location (¶[0140]).
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiron in view of Bhat and Qaseem, as applied to claim 21, and further in view of Farrell et al. (US 20070161913- previously cited).
Regarding claim 24, Tiron fails to teach teaches wherein determining the underlying disease state includes identifying the user as one of an attention-required having symptoms of having a sleep breathing disorder or a general user excluding the symptoms of a sleep breathing disorder. However, Qaseem does teach that identifying that subject has hypertension is grounds for changing the AHI threshold (pg. 211 ¶[1] of Qaseem).
Farrell teaches monitoring and/or detecting sleep breathing disorder, SDB, (abstract). The system is configured to obtain inputs of a user including symptoms of SBD by providing a questionnaire that can be combined with AHI test (¶[0055-66], “Do you have a history of hypertension?”. The user’s response are tallied based on the positive responses to generate the SDB index, therefore, identification of a user having a symptom or not is executed (attention required or general user based on the tallies or amount of tallies) (¶[0055-66]).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Tiron, such that determining the underlying disease state includes identifying the user as one of having or one of not having symptoms of a sleep breathing disorder, as taught by Farrell, to aid in conducting a more detailed assessment of SDB, and providing an urgent notification to the patient with the higher likelihood of SDB based on the information gathered (¶[0055] of Farrell). Moreover, Qaseem requires adjusting the AHI threshold based on whether the subject has hypertension, and Farrell teaches how to obtain such a determination and how it helps with alerting the subject.
Regarding claim 25, Qaseem teaches wherein the underlying disease state includes a user experiencing hypertension (pg. 211 ¶[1] of Qaseem).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 05/09/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims have been fully considered and some persuasive. Therefore, particular rejections has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicants contends that Tiron teaches away from using wearables and therefore not applicable prior art for rejection, on page 12 of the Remarks. Examiner disagrees. Tiron merely teaches that there are some disadvantages to body worn sensors. The disclosure of disadvantages does not constitute teaching away where the reference does not indicate that the proposed modification would be inoperative for its intended purpose.
Applicant arguments related to Bhat are moot due to the rejection rationale changing based on the amended limitation and in view of Qaseem.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gowda teaches the system may output one or more of the percentage of temporal windows classified as being breathing disturbed, the number of breathing disturbances per hour (or per night), the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), and a sleep apnea severity score (e.g., normal for AHI below 5, mild for AHI of 5 or greater and below 15, moderate for AHI of 15 or greater and below 30, and severe for AHI of 30 or above). US 20190053754
Berthon-Jones teaches an adjustment or change to the sensitivity of the apparatus may be implemented by changing obstruction response thresholds as a function of an index of sleep arousals. Those skilled in the art will recognize that a change by either an increase or decrease in the threshold amount may be associated with either an increase or decrease in sensitivity. It is noted, the sleep arousal is not based on underlying disease information, rather, it is based on heart rate, sweating rate, respiratory rate, etc. US 20070142741
Shelly teaches the OSA risk factor determined at, further information may be provided to the user (in numerical, graphical, or other suitable form(s)), such as, without limitation, a correlation between the OSA risk factor and a user's AHI (e.g., see FIG. 2B), a target value for the OSA risk factor to reduce the user's AHI to or below a predetermined threshold (e.g., see FIG. 3B), and/or a projected time at which the projected OSA risk factor target value may be reached. US 20220016371
Alshaer teaches accelerometeric data may be correlated to interrupts received from the accelerometer which, when equipped with configurable thresholds, can be adjusted to provide appropriate resolution, as will be appreciated by the skilled artisan. US 20160045161
Perschbacher teaches the algorithm adjuster circuit may adjust the first detection algorithm by reducing the first threshold value to a lower second threshold value. The resulting second detection algorithm, associated with the reduced threshold, is more sensitive to the target medical event than the first detection algorithm. US 20190231207
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN NATHAN ORTEGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:10 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571) 272-3672. 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.
/MARTIN NATHAN ORTEGA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /TSE CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights