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 Status: Claims 16-41 are pending.
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 16-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a system.
To determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility, the claim is evaluated according to a stepwise process as described in MPEP 2106(III) and 2106.03-2106.04.
The instant claims are evaluated according to such analysis.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, Claim 16 is directed towards a system.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the judicial exception relied upon by the instantly claimed invention is an abstract idea, and the limitation that sets forth or describes the abstract idea is: generate a waveform pattern based at least in part on the signal of (a), and determine a jugular vein pressure pattern based at least in part on the generated waveform pattern, wherein the presence or the risk of the cardiovascular abnormality is determined based at least in part on the jugular vein pressure pattern.
The reason that the above limitations are abstract idea is because they are directed to mental process (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Please see the following analogous types of data manipulations that courts have found to be abstract ideas (all taken from MPEP § 2106.04):
collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
The steps of data collection and usage carried out in Applicant's claims are akin to a mental process because they are the type of calculations that could theoretically be carried out mentally, but are merely implemented using generic collection technology. The 2019 revised§ 101 guidance makes clear that the "mental process" category of abstract ideas does not only apply to steps actually carried out mentally; it also applies to the types of processes that could be carried out mentally, but are instead carried out using generic processing/collection technology
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, claim 16 recites an additional element “a motion sensor configured to generate a motion signal …”, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
It is noted that merely collecting the necessary data using known, generic sensors (or other data gathering components) only amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity; see MPEP § 2106.05(g). Applicant's claimed invention does not affect/change the functionality of the technology being used. Rather, Applicant's claimed invention uses the claimed technology for its standard, well-known purpose, e.g. known sensors are used to collect data which they are known to be capable of collecting, known generic processing circuitry is used to perform data calculations/ comparisons, etc. Applicant's invention does not result in improved performance of the sensors, the processing circuitry, etc.
The following are relevant examples of similar limitations which courts have found not to constitute improvements to computers or improvements to other technology or technical field:
Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TIJ Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48.
Claim 16 recites “one or more processors” which can be interpreted as a generic computer. The processing device and the programmable processor do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because it is merely using a generic processor as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, claim 16 recites an additional element “a motion sensor configured to generate a motion signal …”. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because it is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Therefore, the claim 16 is not patent eligible.
With regards to the instantly rejected dependent claims 17-31, these claims when analyzed as a whole are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to a judicial exception and/or do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claims 32-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method.
To determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility, the claim is evaluated according to a stepwise process as described in MPEP 2106(III) and 2106.03-2106.04.
The instant claims are evaluated according to such analysis.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, Claim 32 is directed towards a method.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the judicial exception relied upon by the instantly claimed invention is an abstract idea, and the limitation that sets forth or describes the abstract idea is: generating a motion signal based at least in part on (i) a detected motion of a jugular vein of an individual or (ii) a detected motion of skin of the individual adjacent to the jugular vein of the individual, or (iii) both; generating a waveform pattern based at least in part on the movement signal of (a); determining a jugular vein pressure pattern based at least in part on the generated waveform pattern; and determining the presence or the risk of the cardiovascular abnormality based at least in part on the jugular vein pressure pattern.
The reason that the above limitations are abstract idea is because they are directed to mental process (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Please see the following analogous types of data manipulations that courts have found to be abstract ideas (all taken from MPEP § 2106.04):
collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
The steps of data collection and usage carried out in Applicant's claims are akin to a mental process because they are the type of calculations that could theoretically be carried out mentally, but are merely implemented using generic collection technology. The 2019 revised§ 101 guidance makes clear that the "mental process" category of abstract ideas does not only apply to steps actually carried out mentally; it also applies to the types of processes that could be carried out mentally, but are instead carried out using generic processing/collection technology
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, Claim 32 recites “computer” which is interpreted as a generic computer. The processing device and the programmable processor do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because it is merely using a generic processor as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, there is no additional element.
Therefore, the claim 32 is not patent eligible.
With regards to the instantly rejected dependent claims 33-41, these claims when analyzed as a whole are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to a judicial exception and/or do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim Objections
Claim 36 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 39. Claim 39 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 36. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 24, 32-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re Claim 32, the limitation “generating a waveform pattern based at least in part on the movement signal of (a)” in claim 32 is/are indefinite, because it is unclear whether the movement signal of (a) is referring to “a motion signal”, “a detected motion of a jugular vein”, “a detected motion of skin of the individual adjacent to the jugular vein”, or both of “a detected motion of a jugular vein” and “a detected motion of skin of the individual adjacent to the jugular vein” in claim 32.
For the purpose of examination, “the movement signal of (a)” in claim 32 has been interpreted as “the motion signal”.
Indefiniteness of independent claim 32 render their dependent claims indefinite.
Re Claim 24, the limitation “the first time integral” is indefinite, because it lacks antecedent basis. Note that claim 21 recites “a first time interval” but “integral” is different than “interval”.
For the purpose of examination, “the first time integral” has been interpreted as the “first time interval”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 16-19, 25-30, and 32-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wagle et al. (US 2017/0027457).
Re Claim 16, Wagle discloses a system for determining a presence or a risk of a cardiovascular abnormality in an individual, the system comprising:
(a) a motion sensor (para. [0044], accelerometer 108) configured to generate a motion signal based at least in part on (i) a detected motion of a jugular vein of the individual or (ii) a detected motion of skin of the individual adjacent to the jugular vein of the individual, or (iii) both (para. [0044], monitoring a change in amplitude of each pulse between pulses and/or between or among accelerometer(s) 108. The amplitude and the decay in amplitude may be used to determine the height of the jugular venous pulsation.); and
(b) one or more processors configured to (i) generate a waveform pattern based at least in part on the signal of (a) (para. [0044], monitoring a change in amplitude of each pulse between pulses and/or between or among accelerometer(s) 108. The amplitude and the decay in amplitude may be used to determine the height of the jugular venous pulsation; para. [0045], The processor 104 may be operable to receive the signal provided by the accelerometer(s) 108 (e.g. the pulse amplitude and/or patient angle) and translate the signal into a display 112, such as a waveform), and (ii) determine a jugular vein pressure pattern based at least in part on the generated waveform pattern (para. [0031], Jugular venous pressure (JVP) can be determined by monitoring the highest position of the pulse, or the pulse height, in the internal jugular vein; para. [0045], the device 100 may determine a plurality of CVP measurements in real-time to monitor such data over a period of time),
wherein the presence or the risk of the cardiovascular abnormality is determined based at least in part on the jugular vein pressure pattern (para. [0039], The JVP monitoring system allows for prompt recognition and monitoring of JVP fluctuations, which may be very useful for treatment of patients with conditions having a correlation to a fluctuation in JVP, jugular venous pressure, and/or CVP, central venous pressure, such as heart failure, hypervolemia, and the like.).
Re Claim 17, Wagle discloses that the one or more processors are further configured to determine a presence or a risk of a cardiovascular disorder based at least in part on the determination of the presence or the risk of the cardiovascular abnormality (para. [0039], The JVP monitoring system allows for prompt recognition and monitoring of JVP fluctuations, which may be very useful for treatment of patients with conditions having a correlation to a fluctuation in JVP, jugular venous pressure, and/or CVP, such as heart failure, hypervolemia, and the like.).
Re Claim 18, Wagle discloses that the cardiovascular abnormality comprises pulmonary artery hypertension (PAH) or heart failure (HF) (para. [0039], The JVP monitoring system allows for prompt recognition and monitoring of JVP fluctuations, which may be very useful for treatment of patients with conditions having a correlation to a fluctuation in JVP, jugular venous pressure, and/or CVP, such as heart failure, hypervolemia, and the like.).
Re Claim 19, Wagle discloses that the one or more processors are configured to generate the waveform pattern based at least in part on the detected motion of the jugular vein of the individual in a direction perpendicular to a surface of the skin of the individual (para. [0044], monitoring a change in amplitude of each pulse between pulses and/or between or among accelerometer(s) 108. The amplitude and the decay in amplitude may be used to determine the height of the jugular venous pulsation; para. [0045], The processor 104 may be operable to receive the signal provided by the accelerometer(s) 108 (e.g. the pulse amplitude and/or patient angle) and translate the signal into a display 112, such as a waveform).
Re Claim 25, Wagle discloses one or more electrodes configured to be in contact with the skin area of the individual to generate an electrocardiogram (ECG) signal (fig. 3, para. [0042], The patch 120 supports the electronic component of optional ECG sensor).
Re Claim 26, Wagle discloses that the one or more processors are further configured to map the ECG signal to at least a portion of the jugular vein pressure pattern (para. [0054], The ECG sensor 102 may aid the determination of CVP by gating (or synchronizing) the ECG (e.g., electrical activity of the heart) with the corresponding jugular venous pulsations. Said differently, the ECG may aid a user in identifying the carotid artery versus the jugular vein(s) from a particular waveform.).
Re Claim 27, Wagle discloses that the one or more processors are further configured to determine the presence or the risk of the cardiac abnormality of the individual based at least in part on the mapped ECG signal and the at least portion of the jugular vein pressure pattern (para. [0054], The ECG sensor 102 may aid the determination of CVP by gating (or synchronizing) the ECG (e.g., electrical activity of the heart) with the corresponding jugular venous pulsations. Said differently, the ECG may aid a user in identifying the carotid artery versus the jugular vein(s) from a particular waveform; para. [0005], Based upon JVP and CVP measurements/estimations, healthcare professionals may infer information regarding hemodynamic events in the right atrium and/or diagnose diseases and abnormalities related to the heart and/or lungs; para. [0039], The JVP monitoring system allows for prompt recognition and monitoring of JVP fluctuations, which may be very useful for treatment of patients with conditions having a correlation to a fluctuation in JVP, jugular venous pressure, and/or CVP, central venous pressure, such as heart failure, hypervolemia, and the like.).
Re Claim 28, Wagle discloses that the motion sensor comprises an inertial sensor in contact with a body surface of the individual (fig. 1, para. [0040], The sensing device 100 may have at least one accelerometer 108 therein. The device 100 may include a patch or platform 120 for placement on a patient at an external site in the vicinity of a cardiac blood vessel.).
Re Claim 29, Wagle discloses that the inertial sensor comprises one or more of: a gyroscope, an accelerometer, or an inertial measurement unit, or any combination thereof (para. [0040], The sensing device 100 may have at least one accelerometer 108 therein).
Re Claim 30, Wagle discloses a wearable patch or a handheld device comprising the motion sensor (fig. 1, para. [0040], The sensing device 100 may have at least one accelerometer 108 therein. The device 100 may include a patch or platform 120 for placement on a patient at an external site in the vicinity of a cardiac blood vessel.).
Re Claim 32, Wagle discloses a computer-implemented method for determining a presence or a risk of a cardiovascular abnormality, the method comprising:
(a) generating a motion signal based at least in part on (i) a detected motion of a jugular vein of an individual or (ii) a detected motion of skin of the individual adjacent to the jugular vein of the individual, or (iii) both (para. [0044], monitoring a change in amplitude of each pulse between pulses and/or between or among accelerometer(s) 108. The amplitude and the decay in amplitude may be used to determine the height of the jugular venous pulsation.);
(b) generating a waveform pattern based at least in part on the movement signal of (a) (para. [0044], monitoring a change in amplitude of each pulse between pulses and/or between or among accelerometer(s) 108. The amplitude and the decay in amplitude may be used to determine the height of the jugular venous pulsation; para. [0045], The processor 104 may be operable to receive the signal provided by the accelerometer(s) 108 (e.g. the pulse amplitude and/or patient angle) and translate the signal into a display 112, such as a waveform);
(c) determining a jugular vein pressure pattern based at least in part on the generated waveform pattern (para. [0031], Jugular venous pressure (JVP) can be determined by monitoring the highest position of the pulse, or the pulse height, in the internal jugular vein; para. [0045], the device 100 may determine a plurality of CVP measurements in real-time to monitor such data over a period of time); and
(d) determining the presence or the risk of the cardiovascular abnormality based at least in part on the jugular vein pressure pattern (para. [0039], The JVP monitoring system allows for prompt recognition and monitoring of JVP fluctuations, which may be very useful for treatment of patients with conditions having a correlation to a fluctuation in JVP, jugular venous pressure, and/or CVP, central venous pressure, such as heart failure, hypervolemia, and the like.).
Re Claim 33, Wagle discloses that the motion signal is generated utilizing a motion sensor (para. [0044], accelerometer 108).
Re Claim 34, Wagle discloses that the motion sensor comprises an inertial sensor in contact with a body surface of the individual (fig. 1, para. [0040], The sensing device 100 may have at least one accelerometer 108 therein. The device 100 may include a patch or platform 120 for placement on a patient at an external site in the vicinity of a cardiac blood vessel.).
Re Claim 35, Wagle discloses that the inertial sensor comprises one or more of: a gyroscope, an accelerometer, or an inertial measurement unit, or any combination thereof (para. [0040], The sensing device 100 may have at least one accelerometer 108 therein).
Re Claim 36, Wagle discloses determining a presence or a risk of a cardiovascular disorder based at least in part on the determination of the presence or the risk of the cardiovascular abnormality (para. [0039], The JVP monitoring system allows for prompt recognition and monitoring of JVP fluctuations, which may be very useful for treatment of patients with conditions having a correlation to a fluctuation in JVP, jugular venous pressure, and/or CVP, such as heart failure, hypervolemia, and the like.).
Re Claim 39, Wagle discloses determining a presence or a risk of a cardiovascular disorder based at least in part on the determination of the presence or the risk of the cardiovascular abnormality (para. [0039], The JVP monitoring system allows for prompt recognition and monitoring of JVP fluctuations, which may be very useful for treatment of patients with conditions having a correlation to a fluctuation in JVP, jugular venous pressure, and/or CVP, such as heart failure, hypervolemia, and the like.).
Re Claim 37, Wagle discloses mapping an ECG signal pertaining to the individual to at least a portion of the jugular vein pressure pattern (para. [0054], The ECG sensor 102 may aid the determination of CVP by gating (or synchronizing) the ECG (e.g., electrical activity of the heart) with the corresponding jugular venous pulsations. Said differently, the ECG may aid a user in identifying the carotid artery versus the jugular vein(s) from a particular waveform.).
Re Claim 38, Wagle discloses determining the presence or the risk of the cardiac abnormality of the individual based at least in part on the mapped ECG signal and the at least portion of the jugular vein pressure pattern (para. [0054], The ECG sensor 102 may aid the determination of CVP by gating (or synchronizing) the ECG (e.g., electrical activity of the heart) with the corresponding jugular venous pulsations. Said differently, the ECG may aid a user in identifying the carotid artery versus the jugular vein(s) from a particular waveform; para. [0005], Based upon JVP and CVP measurements/estimations, healthcare professionals may infer information regarding hemodynamic events in the right atrium and/or diagnose diseases and abnormalities related to the heart and/or lungs; para. [0039], The JVP monitoring system allows for prompt recognition and monitoring of JVP fluctuations, which may be very useful for treatment of patients with conditions having a correlation to a fluctuation in JVP, jugular venous pressure, and/or CVP, central venous pressure, such as heart failure, hypervolemia, and the like.).
Re Claim 40, Wagle discloses that the cardiovascular abnormality comprises pulmonary artery hypertension (PAH) or heart failure (HF) (para. [0039], The JVP monitoring system allows for prompt recognition and monitoring of JVP fluctuations, which may be very useful for treatment of patients with conditions having a correlation to a fluctuation in JVP, jugular venous pressure, and/or CVP, such as heart failure, hypervolemia, and the like.).
Re Claim 41, Wagle discloses that the waveform pattern is generated based at least in part on the detected motion of the jugular vein of the individual in a direction perpendicular to a surface of the skin of the individual (para. [0044], monitoring a change in amplitude of each pulse between pulses and/or between or among accelerometer(s) 108. The amplitude and the decay in amplitude may be used to determine the height of the jugular venous pulsation; para. [0045], The processor 104 may be operable to receive the signal provided by the accelerometer(s) 108 (e.g. the pulse amplitude and/or patient angle) and translate the signal into a display 112, such as a waveform).
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.
Claims 20-24 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagle et al. (US 2017/0027457) in view of Meriheina et al. (US 2016/0220152).
Re Claims 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24, Wagle discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 16.
Wagle is silent regarding wherein the motion signal comprises an angular rotation signal, wherein the angular rotation signal comprises a measure of a rotational motion over a first time interval, wherein the motion signal comprises an angular acceleration signal, wherein the angular acceleration signal comprises a measure of the angular rotation signal over a second time interval, and wherein the jugular vein pressure pattern is generated based at least in part on the angular acceleration signal, the first time integral, and the second time interval.
Meriheina discloses a heart monitoring system (abstract) and teaches a sensor device that obtains ballistocardiograph data indicative of heart motion of the subject (para. [0006], Ballistocardiograph data indicates the extent of mechanical movements of a body that take place in response to the myocardial activity of the heart. This ballistocardiograph data is then used to process data that is indicative of heart motion of the subject; para. [0010], [0036], an angular ballistocardiograph signal that is indicative of rotational recoil movement on the chest in response to cardiac operation of the subject within the chest). Meriheina teaches that the sensor for ballistocardiograph is a MEMS gyroscope (para. [0039], para. [0051], gyrocardiogram, para. [0076], angular ballistocardiograph signal generated with a multi-axial gyroscope), wherein the motion signal comprises an angular rotation signal (para. [0033], a sensor of angular motion configured to obtain an angular ballistograph signal that is indicative of rotational movement of a chest of a subject), wherein the angular rotation signal comprises a measure of a rotational motion over a first time interval (para. [0069], a parameter may be indicative of radial orientation of the heart, angular velocity of the heart, or angular acceleration of the heart during the twisting motion. This output parameter may correspond to a measured, conditioned, and filtered angular ballistocardiograph signal Sam shown in FIG. 7 or 9.), wherein the motion signal comprises an angular acceleration signal (para. [0069], angular acceleration), wherein the angular acceleration signal comprises a measure of the angular rotation signal over a second time interval (para. [0069], a parameter may be indicative of radial orientation of the heart, angular velocity of the heart, or angular acceleration of the heart during the twisting motion. This output parameter may correspond to a measured, conditioned, and filtered angular ballistocardiograph signal Sam shown in FIG. 7 or 9.), and wherein the pressure pattern is generated based at least in part on the angular acceleration signal, the first time integral, and the second time interval (fig. 12, para. [0076], angular ballistocardiograph signal generated with a multi-axial gyroscope (y-axis); fig. 15 and fig. 16, angular ballistocardiogram during atrial fibrillation).
For the purpose of examination, “the first time integral” has been interpreted as the “first time interval”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wagle, by adding a multi-axial gyroscope, wherein the motion signal comprises an angular rotation signal, wherein the angular rotation signal comprises a measure of a rotational motion over a first time interval, wherein the motion signal comprises an angular acceleration signal, wherein the angular acceleration signal comprises a measure of the angular rotation signal over a second time interval, and wherein the jugular vein pressure pattern is generated based at least in part on the angular acceleration signal, the first time integral, and the second time interval, as taught by Meriheina, for the purpose of accounting for rotational movement of the tissue of the subject, from which the sensor is measuring, in this case the neck (abstract, para. [0010], [0033], [0037]).
Re Claim 31, Wagle discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claims 16 and 30.
Wagle is silent regarding a handheld device comprising the motion sensor, wherein the handheld device comprises a mobile phone.
However, Meriheina discloses a heart monitoring system (abstract) and teaches a handheld device comprising a motion sensor, wherein the handheld device comprises a mobile phone (para. [0051], [0054], fig. 4, a smartphone comprising sensor unit and control unit, sensor unit comprising a gyroscope and an accelerometer; para. [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wagle, by configuring a handheld device to comprise the motion sensor, wherein the handheld device comprises a mobile phone, as taught by Meriheina, for the purpose of integrating sensor unit and the user device into one physical device (para. [0033]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VYNN V HUH whose telephone number is (571)272-4684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9 am to 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, 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.
/JONATHAN T KUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/V.V.H./Vynn Huh, January 7, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 3792