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 .
The current application has the effective filing date of 11/12/2020 according to the priority chain on the record.
Claim Status
Claims 25-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/07/2025.
Groups I: Claims 1-24 and 32 are examined.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1, lines 8-10 recites “one or more acoustic sensors on the foldable arms and configured to detect an acoustic signal from a skin surface when the chest electrodes contact the skin surface”; the phrase(s) “when” (or “if”) is a contingent limitation according to the MPEP 2111.04 II:
II. CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.
See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur." Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he ExAmier did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.
The contingent limitation interpretation can be overcome by replacing “when” or “if” with “whether” or “where.”
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, 7-9, 11-12, 14-15, 20-22 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amitai et al. US 2012/0059271 A1 (hereinafter “Ami”, submitted in IDS) in view of Danteny US 2010/0174204 A1 (hereinafter “Dan”, submitted in IDS).
PNG
media_image1.png
526
569
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Ami discloses a mobile three-lead cardiac monitoring device (Fig. 2: ECG acquisition device 40. Note: Fig. 2 is an alternative embodiment which incorporates features of Fig.1: 20; see [0030” 3rd sentence]) comprising:
a casing having a front face and a rear face (see annotated Fig. 2, “casing”, “front face” and “rear face” are inherent features);
two chest electrodes (chest electrode 41, 42, 43, see [0030]);
two finger electrodes (finger electrodes 21, 22, 23, see [0020-0021]);
one foldable arm (moveable member 44) pivotably attached to the casing (see Fig. 2 and [0030:2nd to last sentence]), wherein the two finger electrodes (21, 22, 23) are disposed on the front face or edge of the casing (see Fig. 2) and one of the two chest electrodes is disposed on the foldable arm (see Fig. 2: electrode 43 and [0030] “a moveable member 44 that pivots within the Precordial electrode structure to provide additional electrodes such as electrode 43 when member 44 is deployed from its storage position within the Precordial electrode structure”); and
a processor (controller 46 and/or 26) configured to concurrent detect both heart sound signals from the one or more acoustic sensors and electrical signals from the two chest electrodes and two finger electrodes. (see [0018] regarding ECG and [0048] regarding concurrent ECG and heart sound).
Ami Fig.2 does not explicitly teach one or more acoustic sensors on the foldable arms and configured to detect an acoustic signal from a skin surface when the chest electrodes contact the skin surface. However, this is taught in an alternative embodiment, see Fig.3 and [0048] Ami discloses one or more acoustic sensors (microphone- not shown; see [0048]: “that microphone or another microphone that is disposed on the outer surface of electrode 24 and is connected to the controller can also be used to listen to the sounds of the heart in the Precordial recording mode”). Since, Ami also states that Fig.2: Precordial electrodes 41-43 are analogous to electrode 24 ([0030: 3rd sentence]), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Ami Fig.2: electrode 43 to further include the surface microphone taught in Fig.3: electrode 24; the motivation is to provide heart sound recording and ECG monitoring in the same embodiment.
Ami discloses one foldable arm 44 comprising electrode 43 thereon (Fig. 2 and [0030]). Ami does not disclose two foldable arms pivotably attached to the casing on opposing ends thereof, and the two chest electrodes are disposed on the foldable arms. However, since Ami teaches at least three chest electrodes 41, 42 and 43; it would have been a mere design choice at the time of invention to add one or more additional foldable arms for electrodes 41 and 42; the motivation would have been based on known standard configurations/placements of electrodes across a person’s chest for conventional ECG monitoring (see Ami: [0019] Precordial electrodes are attached to specific points on a patient’s chest).
Alternatively, Dan, another prior art reference in the analogous field of handheld ECG monitoring devices (Abstract, Figs. 2- 7) discloses a electrocardiograph 200 comprising a casing having a front face and a rear face (Figs. 2-7: casing is inherent, front face 211, bottom face 121); two chest electrodes (electrodes 201-206); two finger electrodes (electrodes 208 and 209; [0104]); two foldable arms pivotably attached to the casing on opposing ends thereof (arms 212 and 213), wherein the two finger electrodes are disposed on the front face or edge of the casing (as shown in Fig. 2 and 7 electrodes 208 and 209) and the two chest electrodes are disposed on the foldable arms (see Fig.4: electrodes 201 and 202 disposed on arm 213, electrodes 205 and 206 disposed on arm 212; [0101]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Ami Fig.2 to include two foldable arms pivotably attached to the casing on opposing ends, in view of Dan Figs. 2-7; the motivation for doing so is to provide a device that is relatively compact in its folded configuration, and a wide span in its unfolded configuration for proper placement of electrodes along the patient’s chest in a standard 12 lead ECG (see Ami: [0003] and Dan: [0020] and Fig.5, both references re handheld devices for standard full 12 lead ECG).
Regarding claim 7, Ami in view of Dan discloses device according to claim 1, further comprising a pair of compartments each having an opening adapted to receive a portion of one or the two foldable arms. (See Ami: [0028: 2nd to last sentence] “a moveable member 44 that pivots within the Precordial electrode structure to provide additional electrodes such as electrode 43 when member 44 is deployed from its storage position within the Precordial electrode structure”; in here the ‘storage position’ implies “compartments” in this claim. Also see modification in claim 1 that teaches two foldable arms, therefore implies two storage compartments)
Regarding claim 8, Ami in view of Dan discloses the device according to claim 1, but neither Ami nor Dan discloses wherein a length to thickness ratio of the casing is about 15 or greater and a length to width ratio is about 1.6 or greater. However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a length to thickness ratio of the casing is about 15 or greater and a length to width ratio is about 1.6 or greater because Applicant has not disclosed that a length to thickness ratio of the casing is about 15 or greater and a length to width ratio is about 1.6 or greater provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected mobile ECG device with the dimension of Ami and/or Dan, and applicant' s invention, to perform equally well with either the dimensions taught by Dan or the claimed dimensions because both mobile ECG devices would perform the same function of measuring ECG equally well considering they both measure ECG and have relatively similar dimensions. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Ami to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Ami.
Regarding claim 9, Ami in view of Dan teaches the device according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein a distance between the chest electrodes in an unfolded position is greater than about 10 cm. However, since both Ami and Dan intends to provide a device for proper placement of electrodes with respect to the patient’s chest (see Ami: [0003] and Dan: [0020] and Fig.5), it would have been a mere design choice at the time of invention to manufacture the ECG monitoring device such that the distance between the chest electrodes in an unfolded position is greater than about 10 cm as recited, so as to accommodate the chest of patients having different body types and sizes (Ami: [0028] “In ECG data acquisition device 40…having a plurality of electrodes that are spaced such that each electrode makes contact with a different Precordial location when ECG data acquisition device 40 is properly placed on the patient's chest.”).
Regarding claim 11, Ami in view of Dan teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to detect impedance. (Ami: page. 6, claim 14 “wherein said circuit comprises an impedance measuring circuit that measures an impedance between pairs of said first, second, third, and fourth electrodes.”)
Regarding claim 12, Ami in view of Dan teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to inject current into a patient from the two finger electrodes and to concurrently detect voltage from the two chest electrodes and to determine a thoracic impedance from an injected current and detected voltage. (Ami: [0018, 0029] and page. 6, claim 14 regarding injecting current and detecting impedance)
Regarding claim 14, Ami discloses a mobile three-lead cardiac monitoring device (Fig. 2: ECG acquisition device 40. Note: Fig. 2 is an alternative embodiment which incorporates features of Fig.1: 20; see [0030” 3rd sentence]) comprising:
a casing having a front face and a rear face (see annotated Fig. 2, “casing”, “front face” and “rear face” are inherent features);
two chest electrodes (chest electrode 41, 42, 43, see [0030]);
two finger electrodes (finger electrodes 21, 22, 23, see [0020-0021]);
one foldable arms (moveable member 44) pivotably attached to the casing (see Fig.2 and [0030:2nd to last sentence]), wherein the two finger electrodes (21, 22, 23) are disposed on the front face or edge of the casing (see Fig. 2) and one of the two chest electrodes are disposed on the foldable arms (see Fig. 2: electrode 43 and [0030] “a moveable member 44 that pivots within the Precordial electrode structure to provide additional electrodes such as electrode 43 when member 44 is deployed from its storage position within the Precordial electrode structure”);
a current source within the casing coupled to the two finger electrodes (“current source” is inherent because [0018] “The signals from these 10 electrodes are then processed to generate 12 graphs of voltage as a function of time that are called the ECG chart or diagram.”); and
a processor (controller 46 and/or 26) configured to inject current into a patient from the two finger electrodes and to concurrently detect voltage from the two chest electrodes and to determine a thoracic impedance from the injected current and detected voltage. (see [0018] regarding ECG and [0048] regarding concurrent ECG and heart sound)
Ami discloses one foldable arm 44 comprising electrode 43 thereon (Fig. 2 and [0030]). Ami does not disclose two foldable arms pivotably attached to the casing on opposing ends thereof, and the two chest electrodes are disposed on the foldable arm. However, since Ami teaches at least three chest electrodes 41, 42 and 43; it would have been a mere design choice at the time of invention to add one or more additional foldable arms for electrodes 41 and 42; the motivation would have been based on known standard configurations/placements of electrodes across a person’s chest for conventional ECG monitoring (see Ami: [0019] Precordial electrodes are attached to specific points on a patient’s chest).
Alternatively, Dan, another prior art reference in the analogous field of handheld ECG monitoring devices (Abstract, Figs. 2- 7) discloses a electrocardiograph 200 comprising a casing having a front face and a rear face (Figs. 2-7: casing is inherent, front face 211, bottom face 121); two chest electrodes (electrodes 201-206); two finger electrodes (electrodes 208 and 209; [0104]); two foldable arms pivotably attached to the casing on opposing ends thereof (arms 212 and 213), wherein the two finger electrodes are disposed on the front face or edge of the casing (as shown in Fig. 2 and 7 electrodes 208 and 209) and the two chest electrodes are disposed on the foldable arms (see Fig.4: electrodes 201 and 202 disposed on arm 213, electrodes 205 and 206 disposed on arm 212; [0101]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Ami Fig.2 to include two foldable arms pivotably attached to the casing on opposing ends, in view of Dan Figs. 2-7; the motivation for doing so is to provide a device that is relatively compact in its folded configuration, and a wide span in its unfolded configuration for proper placement of electrodes along the patient’s chest in a standard 12 lead ECG (see Ami: [0003] and Dan: [0020] and Fig.5, both references re handheld devices for standard full 12 lead ECG).
Regarding claim 15, Ami in view of Dan discloses the device according to claim 14, wherein each foldable arm (see modification to claim 1 above: Ami Fig. 2 would be modified to comprise two foldable arms on opposite sides such as shown in Dan Figs. 2-7: 212, 213) has a recessed tapered portion at one end that accommodates one of the chest electrodes (implicit to the above modification because both teach electrodes on an arm/extension; see Ami Fig.2: electrode 43 on arm 44, and Dan: Fig. 4: electrodes 201 and 202 disposed on arm 213, electrodes 205 and 206 disposed on arm 212). But Ami, Fig. 2, does not disclose at least one acoustic sensor for acquiring signals from the patient's chest. However, this is taught in an alternative embodiment, see Fig.3 and [0048] Ami discloses one or more acoustic sensors (microphone- not shown; see [0048]: “that microphone or another microphone that is disposed on the outer surface of electrode 24 and is connected to the controller can also be used to listen to the sounds of the heart in the Precordial recording mode”). Since, Ami also states that Fig.2: Precordial electrodes 41-43 are analogous to electrode 24 ([0030: 3rd sentence]), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Ami Fig.2: electrode 43 to further include the surface microphone taught in Fig.3: electrode 24; the motivation is to provide heart sound recording and ECG monitoring in the same embodiment.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected by Ami in view of Dan under the same rationale as discussed to claim 7 above
Regarding claim 21, this claim is rejected by Ami in view of Dan under the same rationale as discussed to claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 22, this claim is rejected by Ami in view of Dan under the same rationale as discussed to claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 32, Ami discloses a method of assessing a patient's risk of an adverse cardiac event (abstract: device for recording ECG and method of using the same), the method comprising:
deploying a mobile three-lead cardiac monitoring device (Fig. 2: ECG acquisition device 40. Note: Fig. 2 is an alternative embodiment which incorporates features of Fig.1: 20; see [0030: 3rd sentence]) from a first compact and undeployed configuration (moveable member 44 has a stored position and a deployed position as shown in Fig. 2; also see [0030] “a moveable member 44 that pivots within the Precordial electrode structure to provide additional electrodes such as electrode 43 when member 44 is deployed from its storage position within the Precordial electrode structure”) into a second deployed configuration so that one foldable arm (44) pivotably attached to a casing (see Fig.2, “casing” is inherent) is extended and placed into contact with the patient's chest (see [0030: 2nd to last sentence] electrode 43 is an precordial electrode, which is adapted to detect signals from the chest);
placing a first finger from a first hand on a first finger electrode ([0020] left index finger on electrode 23) and a second finger from a second hand a second finger electrode ([0020] right index finger on electrode 22), wherein the first and second finger electrodes are disposed on a front face or edge of the casing (see Fig. 2) and one of the two chest electrodes are disposed on the foldable arms (see Fig. 2: electrode 43 and [0030: 2nd to last sentence]);
processing electrical signals sensed from the two chest electrodes and two finger electrodes to determine an electrocardiogram (ECG) signal (see [0018] regarding ECG); and
detecting thoracic impedance from current injected into two finger electrodes and voltage sensed from the two chest electrodes. (Ami: [0018, 0029] and page. 6, claim 14 regarding injecting current and detecting impedance)
Ami Fig. 2 does not disclose detecting one or more of heart sounds from one or more acoustic sensors on the foldable arm. However, this is taught in an alternative embodiment, see Fig.3 and [0048] Ami discloses one or more acoustic sensors (microphone- not shown; see [0048]: “that microphone or another microphone that is disposed on the outer surface of electrode 24 and is connected to the controller can also be used to listen to the sounds of the heart in the Precordial recording mode”). Since, Ami also states that Fig.2: Precordial electrodes 41-43 are analogous to electrode 24 ([0030: 3rd sentence]), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Ami Fig.2: electrode 43 to further include the surface microphone taught in Fig.3: electrode 24; the motivation is to provide heart sound recording and ECG monitoring in the same embodiment.
Ami discloses one foldable arm 44 comprising electrode 43 thereon (Fig. 2 and [0030]). Ami does not teach wherein the second deployed configuration so that a pair of foldable arms pivotably attached to a casing on opposing ends thereof are extended and placed into contact with the patient's chest and two chest electrodes are disposed on the foldable arms. However, since Ami teaches at least three chest electrodes 41, 42 and 43; it would have been a mere design choice at the time of invention to add one or more additional foldable arms for electrodes 41 and 42; the motivation would have been based on known standard configurations/placements of electrodes across a person’s chest for conventional ECG monitoring (see Ami: [0019] Precordial electrodes are attached to specific points on a patient’s chest).
Alternatively, Dan, another prior art reference in the analogous field of handheld ECG monitoring devices (Abstract, Figs. 2- 7) discloses a electrocardiograph 200 comprising a casing having a front face and a rear face (Figs. 2-7: casing is inherent, front face 211, bottom face 121); two chest electrodes (electrodes 201-206); two finger electrodes (electrodes 208 and 209; [0104]); two foldable arms pivotably attached to the casing on opposing ends thereof (arms 212 and 213), wherein the two finger electrodes are disposed on the front face or edge of the casing (as shown in Fig. 2 and 7 electrodes 208 and 209) and the two chest electrodes are disposed on the foldable arms (see Fig.4: electrodes 201 and 202 disposed on arm 213, electrodes 205 and 206 disposed on arm 212; [0101]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Ami Fig.2 to include two foldable arms pivotably attached to the casing on opposing ends, in view of Dan Figs. 2-7; the motivation for doing so is to provide a device that is relatively compact in its folded configuration, and a wide span in its unfolded configuration for proper placement of electrodes along the patient’s chest in a standard 12 lead ECG (see Ami: [0003] and Dan: [0020] and Fig.5, both references re handheld devices for standard full 12 lead ECG).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ami and Dan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jones US 11,717,253 B2.
Note: Jones has the effective filing date of Nov. 22, 2019.
Regarding claim 2, Ami in view of Dan discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein each foldable arm (see modification to claim 1 above: Ami Fig. 2 would be modified to comprise two foldable arms on opposite sides such as shown in Dan Figs. 2-7: 212, 213) has a recessed tapered portion at one end that accommodates one of the chest electrodes (implicit to the above modification because both teach electrodes on an arm/extension; see Ami Fig.2: electrode 43 on arm 44, and Dan: Fig. 4: electrodes 201 and 202 disposed on arm 213, electrodes 205 and 206 disposed on arm 212). The modification to claim 1 teaches providing one acoustic sensor on the surface electrode 43 on arm 44, and does not teach each foldable arm comprising at least one acoustic sensor for acquiring signals from a patient's chest.
Jones, another prior art reference in the field of heart activity monitoring devices discloses a handheld device comprising a casing 10, coupled with a plurality of detachable bracket mechanisms 70, each bracket mechanism 70 having thereon a microphone 60 configured as an electronic stethoscope for detecting heart sound (Figs.1-3 and 5 illustrating different configurations; and see col.4, ll.13-47). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to further modify Ami, so as to include a surface microphone onto an electrode, for each of the two foldable arm, in view of Jones; because both Ami and Jones teaches mounting a microphone onto electrodes so as to simultaneously detect ECG and heart sound (see Ami: [0048] and Jones: col.4, ll.42-43); and providing said microphone and electrode on foldable and pivotable arms would further encourage proper placement of the sensors with respect to a patient’s chest (see Ami: [0020: 2nd sentence] pressing electrodes against appropriate place on the patient’s body; and Jones: col.3, ll.15-20 and col.4, ll.37-38, proper placement).
Claims 6, 10, 19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ami and Dan as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Vlaskalic et al. US 2022/0039726 (hereinafter “Vla”, submitted in IDS).
Regarding claim 6, Ami in view of Dan discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the foldable arms being disposed adjacent to or at the shorter edges of the front face along a longitudinal centerline (see modification to claim 1, and Dan: Figs. 2-4: arms 212 and 213 are at the shorter edges of the housing). Ami also discloses wherein the finger electrodes are disposed on one or more longer edges of the front face as shown in Fig.2: 21 and 23 are on longer edges. Neither Ami nor Dan discloses wherein the finger electrodes are disposed on chamfered portions of one or more longer edges of the front face, the chamfered portions being offset relative to a transverse centerline of the front face.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Vla teaches wherein the finger electrodes are disposed on chamfered portions ([0021] finger electrodes are along an edge and indented into the casing); the chamfered portions being offset relative to a transverse centerline of the front face ([0021]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ECG measuring device with electrodes on an edge and electrodes on pivoting arms which retract to create a smaller form factor when not in use as recited by Ami in view of Dan to include the electrodes on the edge indented as disclosed by Vla because the placement of electrodes in such a way allows for the application of the force applied by the fingers to ensures additional pressure on the electrodes contacting the chest forming a more stable connection ([0021]).
Regarding claim 10, Ami in view of Dan teaches the device according to claim 14, but neither Ami nor Dan teaches wherein an angle between the foldable arms in an unfolded position). However, in the same field of endeavor (medical devices), Vla teaches wherein an angle between the arms in the unfolded position is about 135 degrees ([0013, 0024]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ECG measuring device with electrodes on an edge and electrodes on pivoting arms which retract to create a smaller form factor when not in use as recited by Ami in view of Dan to include the chest electrodes at angle to each other as disclosed by Vla because the placement of electrodes based on the angle in such a way because provides the required distance for three leads in view of the curvature of the chest and location of the heart ([0004, 0013]). Additionally, combining the specific angle between chest electrodes as recited Vla with the chest electrodes on the ECG device as recited by Ami is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable result of having electrodes at a particular angle respective to each other.
Claim 19 is rejected by Ami, Dan, and in view of Vla, under the same rationale as discussed to claim 6 above.
Claim 23 is rejected by Ami, Dan, and in view of Vla, under the same rationale as discussed to claim 10 above.
Claims 13 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ami and Dan as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Frantz et al. US 2005/0215918 (hereinafter “Frantz”, submitted in IDS).
Regarding claim 13, Ami in view of Dan discloses the device of claim 12, wherein the electrodes are adapted to detect thoracic impedance (Ami: [0018, 0029] and page. 6, claim 14 regarding injecting current and detecting impedance); but neither Ami nor Dan discloses wherein the injected current is 5 mA or less. Frantz, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor for portable thoracic impedance monitor discloses a device for injecting relative high frequency (about 100KHz) and very low amperage (about 2 or less mA- current into the user to take voltage readings from chest electrodes for a period of time to calculate average thoracic impedance ([0051]). Accordingly, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Ami in view of Dan at the time of invention to inject a low amperage current for detecting thoracic impedance, the motivation for doing so is because Frantz has shown that this is an appropriate current for detecting impedance from chest electrodes. (Frantz: [0051])
Claim 24 is rejected by Ami, Dan, and in view of Frantz, under the same rationale as discussed to claim 13 above.
Claim Objection/Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 16-18 are objected to as being individually 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Darbari et al. US 2018/0116626 discloses a portable device placed over the chest for detecting ECG and heart suond; see Figs. 1 and 14.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIRLEY X JIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7374. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/SHIRLEY X JIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
November 28, 2025