DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Regarding the 101 rejection, the amendments are sufficient to resolve the 101 issues.
Regarding Gillberg, Applicant asserts Gillberg merely discloses placing electrodes around the chest, and that the rejection does not explain how Gillberg inherently meets the recited electrode axis placement. However, Gillberg discloses the plurality of sensors surrounds the heart (Paragraph 72). The plurality of sensors includes many sensors, as shown in Figures 5-6 (see also Paragraph 71: sensors could include at least 256 sensors). When these many sensors surround the heart, then at least one observation axis would pass through a cardiac apex part or ventricle anterior wall.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gillberg (US 2015/0157225).
PNG
media_image1.png
456
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
361
324
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 6-8, Gillberg discloses the same invention as claimed (Figures 5-6 shown above for example), including an electrode arrangement method for arranging a first-axis positive electrode and a first-axis negative electrode that is an electrode different from the first-axis positive electrode (abstract; Figures 5-6) comprising: arranging the first-axis positive electrode on a body surface of a wearer (e.g. Figure 1A: 20; Figure 6: 620; Paragraph 60: a reference electrode which can be on posterior of patient torso), and arranging the first-axis negative electrode on the body surface of the wearer (e.g. Figures 1A, 6: an anterior measurement electrode) so that a first observation axis, which is a straight line connecting the first-axis positive electrode and the first-axis negative electrode, passes through a cardiac apex part or a ventricle anterior wall of the wearer (Figures 5-6; Paragraph 72; plurality of sensors surrounds heart such that at least one observation axis would pass through a cardiac apex part or ventricle anterior wall).
Regarding claim 2, Gillberg discloses a plurality of non-parallel observation axes (Figure 6).
Further regarding claim 8, Gillberg discloses a garment as recited (Figures 5-6).
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillberg (US 2015/0157225) in view of Masuda (US 2019/0282821).
Regarding claim 3, Gillberg does not disclose using a measurement vector parallel to the electromotive force vector of the heart. However, Masuda teaches arranging several orthogonal measurement vectors (Paragraphs 94-95; one would be substantially parallel to the electromotive force vector), in order to more easily derive the electromotive force of the heart. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gillberg as taught by Masuda to include a measurement vector as recited, in order to more easily derive the electromotive force of the heart.
Regarding claim 4, the orthogonal arrangement of Gillberg and Masuda appears to satisfy the recited condition since no particular threshold is required.
Regarding claim 5, Gillberg discloses the positive electrodes can be the same electrode (Figure 1A: 20; Figure 6: 620; Paragraph 72: unipolar measurements uses same reference electrode).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rowlandson (US 2008/0312522) shows a garment with arrays of electrodes.
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 Eugene T Wu whose telephone number is (571)270-5053. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carl Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (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.
/Eugene T Wu/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796