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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/13/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim recites a specific PPG device which samples a mixed light signal and an ambient light to obtain different digital values. This represents applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment as it is a physical device which ties the abstract idea to a specific measurement device. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments see Remarks, filed 02/13/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Ferreira teaches a photoplethysmography device that samples an ambient light signal and a mixed signal which are filtered using adaptive filtering. (Abstract) They also teach using a FIR filter. (Section 4.2) John teaches that the order of a FIR filter is (N-1) where N is the total number of samples. Therefore, the FIR filter of Ferreira would have to have an order of (M+N-1) as Ferreira teaches the two signals and the two signals would represent the total number of samples. Furthermore, John does not teach that the input Samples have to be from the same source to follow the rule.
Stanley is not used to teach two unique sampling sources. Stanley teaches that two different data streams if input into a FIR filter would multiply the respective data by the number of coefficients for that data and sum the different values to generate an output. It is irrelevant what sampling source the data streams come from as they will still be mathematically treated as claimed if input into a FIR filter. Therefore, if applied to the FIR filter of Ferreira which does teach two unique sampling sources the limitation in the claim is taught.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferreira (Ambient light contribution as a reference for motion artefacts reduction in photoplethysmography; 2020) in view of John (Audio Fir Filtering; 2019) and Stanley (US 12224729 B1).
With respect to claim 1,
Ferreira teaches,
sample a mixed-light signal M time(s) in turn to obtain M mixed-light digital value(s) and is configured to sample an ambient-light signal N time(s) in turn to obtain N ambient-light digital value(s), (Section 2.2 teaches “As a first step, both LEDs are driven on, and after a short settling time, a sample from the photodiode is acquired and integrated during the time TINT. Then, LEDs are turned off and a new sample representative of the ambient light is acquired from the photodiode. This process is repeated periodically every TSAMP.” (i.e. the LEDs turned on represents the mixed signal M and the LEDs turned off are viewed as the ambient sample N.) Section 4.2 teaches “In a first approach, the spectral content of both ambient light and PPG recording during motion events are analysed. All signals are band-pass filtered from 0.5 to 10 Hz using a 4th order FIR, to remove high frequency noise present on ambient signal.” (i.e. the signals are digital values))
Ferreira does not explicitly teach,
preparing a digital filter, wherein a number of an order of the digital filter is (M+N−1);
using the digital filter to multiply the M mixed-light digital value(s) by M coefficient(s) respectively in accordance with a sequence of the M mixed-light digital value(s) being obtained, and thereby generating M value(s); using the digital filter to multiply the N ambient-light digital value(s) by N coefficient(s) respectively in accordance with a sequence of the N ambient-light digital value(s) being obtained, and thereby generating N value(s); and using the digital filter to add up the M value(s) and the N value(s), and thereby generating an output value.
John teaches,
preparing a digital filter, wherein a number of an order of the digital filter is (M+N−1); (Pg. 8 Section 2 teaches “The following diagram shows the signal flow for a general FIR filter. The coefficients (C0 to CN-1) are the “taps” and so for a N length FIR filter there are N taps and N-1 sample delay elements. The filter order is N-1” (i.e. N represents the sample number and M+N would equal the total sample number.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ferreira with preparing a digital filter, wherein a number of an order of the digital filter is (M+N−1) such as that of John. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify John, because a seen in section 4.2 of Ferreira states “In a first approach, the spectral content of both ambient light and PPG recording during motion events are analysed. All signals are band-pass filtered from 0.5 to 10 Hz using a 4th order FIR.” Since a FIR is used in Ferreira the order of the FIR must be equal to the total samples -1 according to John and is a known relationship.
Stanley teaches,
using the digital filter to multiply the M mixed-light digital value(s) by M coefficient(s) respectively in accordance with a sequence of the M mixed-light digital value(s) being obtained, and thereby generating M value(s); using the digital filter to multiply the N ambient-light digital value(s) by N coefficient(s) respectively in accordance with a sequence of the N ambient-light digital value(s) being obtained, and thereby generating N value(s); (Abstract teaches “The processing element is configured to receive a first data stream comprising a plurality of digital values where each value represents a sample of an analog signal. The processing element is further configured to receive a second data stream comprising a series of digital values where each value represents a sample of the analog signal.” (i.e. M and N are viewed as a first and second data stream.) Col. 6 Ln(s). 34-47 teaches “The multiplication elements 44A multiply the digital samples by coefficients, A.sub.0, A.sub.1, A.sub.2, A.sub.3, A.sub.4, A.sub.5, A.sub.6, A.sub.7 . . . . A.sub.N-1. The coefficients A.sub.0, A.sub.1, A.sub.2, A.sub.3, A.sub.4, A.sub.5, A.sub.6, A.sub.7 . . . . A.sub.N-1 are based on the order (N) of the FIR filters 40A. The multiplication circuits 44A are configured to receive a digital sample and multiply the digital sample by their corresponding coefficient A.sub.0, A.sub.1, A.sub.2, A.sub.3, A.sub.4, A.sub.5, A.sub.6, A.sub.7 . . . . A.sub.N-1. The outputs of the multiplication elements 44A are the product of the digital sample and the corresponding coefficient A.sub.0, A.sub.1, A.sub.2, A.sub.3, A.sub.4, A.sub.5, A.sub.6, A.sub.7 . . . . A.sub.N-1. The outputs of the multiplication elements 44A are sent to the FIR adder elements 46A” (i.e. multiplying both M and N values by coefficients. Where Fir is the digital filter.)
and using the digital filter to add up the M value(s) and the N value(s), and thereby generating an output value. (Col.6 Ln(s). 45- 53 teach “The FIR adder elements 46A are provided for adding the outputs of the multiplication elements 44A. The FIR adder elements 46A enable a current digital sample to be weighted with any preceding digital samples to produce the output of the FIR filter 40A.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ferreira and John with using the digital filter to multiply the M mixed-light digital value(s) by M coefficient(s) respectively in accordance with a sequence of the M mixed-light digital value(s) being obtained, and thereby generating M value(s); using the digital filter to multiply the N ambient-light digital value(s) by N coefficient(s) respectively in accordance with a sequence of the N ambient-light digital value(s) being obtained, and thereby generating N value(s); such as that of Stanley. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Ferreira and John, because as seen in John page 2 “a time-domain digital filter takes the current input sample and some previous input samples, scales (or multiplies) the samples by defined numbers, called filter coefficients, and sums the scaled samples to create an output sample.” Therefore, it is known that a digital filter performs similar / the same steps as above. Furthermore, Stanley teaches “Therefore, conventional computing devices employing conventional filtering methods are unable to filter out the distortion in real-time or close-to-real-time.” So, the method of Stanley would allow the method to filter out distortion in close to real time.
With respect to claim 3,
Ferreira does not explicitly teach,
The digital filtering method of claim 1, wherein the M coefficient(s) is/are predetermined and/or the N coefficient(s) is/are predetermined.
Stanley teaches,
The digital filtering method of claim 1, wherein the M coefficient(s) is/are predetermined and/or the N coefficient(s) is/are predetermined. (Col. 10 Ln(s). [8-9] “provided for multiplying the digital samples by predetermined coefficients”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ferreira, John, and Stanley, wherein the M coefficient(s) is/are predetermined and/or the N coefficient(s) is/are predetermined such as that of Stanley. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Ferreira, John, and Stanley, because predetermining the coefficients would decrease the amount of processing power required and the time required to make the calculations. Furthermore, Stanley teaches “Therefore, conventional computing devices employing conventional filtering methods are unable to filter out the distortion in real-time or close-to-real-time.” So, the method of Stanley would allow the method to filter out distortion in close to real time.
With respect to claim 4,
Ferreira does not explicitly teach,
The digital filtering method of claim 1, wherein the M coefficient(s) is/are adjustable and/or the N coefficient(s) is/are adjustable.
Stanley teaches,
The digital filtering method of claim 1, wherein the M coefficient(s) is/are adjustable and/or the N coefficient(s) is/are adjustable. (Col. 2 Ln(s). 31-33 teach “using a first set of coefficients consistent with a finite impulse response (FIR) filter with an order of N to produce a first set of M sums;” (i.e. the values must be adaptable since they are consistent with the FIR filter of an order N.))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ferreira, John, and Stanley, wherein the M coefficient(s) is/are adjustable and/or the N coefficient(s) is/are adjustable such as that of Stanley.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Ferreira, John, and Stanley, because the order of the FIR filter may be of any order as seen in Col. 9 ln. 7. of Stanley. Therefore, the number of coefficients must change to compensate for the different orders.
With respect to claim 6,
Ferreira further teaches,
The digital filtering method of claim 1, wherein the M is equal to the N. (Section 3.1 teaches “A clear matching between PPG and ambient light recordings during motion events can be observed.”)
With respect to claim 7,
Ferreira further teaches,
The digital filtering method of claim 6, wherein each of the M and the N is greater than one; (Section 3.1 teaches “In a first approach, both ambient and PPG signals were recorded while doing multiple, periodic and wide amplitude motions such as arm shaking;” (i.e. more than one measurement. Also see Fig.3) on a timeline, at least one ambient-light digital value of the N ambient-light digital values is between two closest mixed-light digital values of the M mixed-light digital values, (Fig. 6 shows that the ambient light value is between two measurements for motion type 4.)
With respect to claim 8,
Ferreira further teaches,
The digital filtering method of claim 1, wherein the M is not equal to the N. (Section 4.3 teaches “ambient light signal features a high degree of correlation with PPG during MA events.” (A high degree of correlation is seen as close but not the same. Therefore, the values are different.)
With respect to claim 9,
Ferreira further teaches,
The digital filtering method of claim 8, wherein the M is greater than one; (Figure 8 shows that the ppg signal is greater than 1.) or the M mixed-light digital values are consecutive. (Fig. 6 shows that the ppg signal is taken over time and is therefore consecutive.)
With respect to claim 10,
Ferreira further teaches,
The digital filtering method of claim 8, wherein the N is greater than one; (Figure 8 shows that the ambient signal is greater than 1.) or the N ambient-light digital values are consecutive (Fig. 6 shows that the ambient signal is taken over time and is therefore consecutive.)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferreira (Ambient light contribution as a reference for motion artefacts reduction in photoplethysmography; 2020) in view of John (Audio Fir Filtering; 2019) and Stanley (US 12224729 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rundo (US 20220273183 A1).
With respect to claim 2,
The combination of Ferreira, John, and Stanley, does not explicitly teach,
The digital filtering method of claim 1, wherein the digital filter is a high pass filter.
Rundo teaches,
The digital filtering method of claim 1, wherein the digital filter is a high pass filter. (Para. [0120] teaches “In one or more embodiments, the PPG raw signal filter block 702 may include e.g., a FIR pass-band scheme (low-pass filter plus high-pass filter) which facilitates a filter-assessment of the raw signal in relevant frequency ranges of the PPG waveform.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ferreira, John, and Stanley, with the digital filtering method of claim 1, wherein the digital filter is a high pass filter such as that of Rundo. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Ferreira, John, and Stanley, because a fir filter is known to be a combination of a high-pass filter and a low pass filter as seen in Para. [0120] Rundo. Furthermore, Para. [0053] of Rundo teaches “high-speed computation facilitated by pattern recognition mechanisms based on i-D signal data analysis; low complexity of data analysis; training algorithms or self-tuning of system parameters can be avoided.”
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferreira (Ambient light contribution as a reference for motion artefacts reduction in photoplethysmography; 2020) in view of John (Audio Fir Filtering; 2019) and Stanley (US 12224729 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Adams (US 20220273183 A1).
With respect to claim 5,
The combination of does not explicitly teach,
The digital filtering method of claim 1, wherein the M coefficient(s) is/are of a first sign, the N coefficient(s) is/are of a second sign, the first sign is a positive sign or a negative sign, and the second sign is opposite to the first sign.
Adams teaches,
The digital filtering method of claim 1, wherein the M coefficient(s) is/are of a first sign, the N coefficient(s) is/are of a second sign, the first sign is a positive sign or a negative sign, and the second sign is opposite to the first sign. (Para. [0074] teaches “Applying the coefficients determined in step 606 identifies contributions in the first signal that are attributable to the motion of the heart rate sensor. Since such contributions are not related to the heartbeat, but, rather, are motion-related artifacts in the first signal, the result of step 608 is then subtracted from the first signal (step 610) to generate a filtered first signal where the amount of noise is reduced by eliminating or at least reducing noise due to the motion of the heart rate sensor. (i.e. Subtraction is equivalent to an opposite sign.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ferreira, John, and Stanley, wherein the M coefficient(s) is/are of a first sign, the N coefficient(s) is/are of a second sign, the first sign is a positive sign or a negative sign, and the second sign is opposite to the first sign such as that of Adams. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Ferreira, John, and Stanley, because according to Para. [0043] it would allow the method to “As a result, identification/tracking of the heartbeat signal from a noisy sensor signal is improved.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSHUA L FORRISTALL whose telephone number is 703-756-4554. The examiner
can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM- 5 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, Andrew Schechter can be reached on 571-272-2302. 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.
/JOSHUA L FORRISTALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights