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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/22/26 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 and 13-17 are rejected. Claim 12 is objected.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims provide improved performance of the wearable electronic device by improving the signal quality and the accuracy of the device. However, the Examiner disagrees. MPEP 2106.05(a) states:
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
The alleged improvement is directed to the abstract idea. Based on the above section from MPEP 2106.05(a), the abstract idea alone cannot provide the improvement but can be provided by the abstract idea in combination with the additional elements.
Applicant asserts that the prior art does not provide to a user such a wearing state indicating a degree of contact between a wearable device and skin of the user, wherein the wearing state indicates a degree of contact between the wearable device and skin of the user, and output[ting], through the output interface, a guide on the wearing state based on a result of the determination, wherein the guide includes a message indicating that the wearing state is an overly close contact state. Applicant further asserts that these claims are not reasonable interpreted as well-understood, routine, or conventional activity. The Examiner cites Applicant to MPEP 2106.05:
As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty."). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The limitations cited by Applicant are directed to the abstract idea. See the rejection below for further details. In addition, the output interface is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a part of a generic computer. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Applicant asserts that these claims are directed towards fixing a problem in a device and are not reasonable interpreted as a method of organizing human behavior. However, the Examiner disagrees. The claimed steps directed towards fixing a problem in a device are directed to the abstract idea as shown in the rejection below.
Applicant asserts that a specific limitation performed by an electrode of a sensor which clearly cannot reasonably be interpreted as a mental process or a method of organizing human behavior. As indicated in the rejection below, the first biometric sensor having a plurality of electrodes amounts to pre-solution activity of gathering the first electrocardiogram (ECG) signal. The limitations that follow the data gathering are directed to a mental process.
Applicant states that this application is similar to the example in MPEP 2106.04(a)(1)(iii), which is an earring comprising a sensor for taking periodic blood glucose measurements and a memory for storing measurement data from the sensor. However, this does not recite an abstract idea, while the instant application does recite an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 4/22/26, with respect to claims 1-17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claims 1-17 has been withdrawn. See the Examiner’s Note below for further details.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant is encouraged to change the limitation of “the range of the intensity of the different EMG signals” in line 7 to recite –the ranges of the intensity of the different EMG signals—to correctly match the antecedent basis in claim 6, line 4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the guides” in line 4. Based on ¶24 of the specification and Fig. 6, it is clear there are multiple guides output. However, previous claims 1 and 5-6 which claim 7 depends from, do not positively recite multiple guides being determined before “the guides” is recited in line 4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: ECG is not defined in independent claim 10. Applicant is encouraged to change “a first ECG signal” in claim 10, line 3 to recite –a first electrocardiogram (ECG) signal--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: EMG is not defined in independent claim 10. Applicant is encouraged to change “an EMG signal” in claim 10, line 7 to recite –an electromyograph (EMG) signal--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3 and 5-7 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.
In claim 3, the limitation of “the signal” in line 5 seems unclear. It remains unclear what “the signal” is referring back to. For instance, the signal could be referring back to the first ECG signal, the EMG signal, or the second ECG signal. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting “the signal” to be referring back to “the first ECG signal” as recited in claim 1, line 13.
In claim 5, the limitation of “the determination result” in line 14 seems unclear. It remains unclear whether this is referring back to “determine a re-wearing state” in claim 5, line 12, or “determine a wearing state” in claim 1, line 16. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting “the determination result” in claim 5, line 14 to be referring back to “determine a re-wearing state” in claim 5, line 12. Dependent claims 6-7 are rejected for the same deficiency in claim 5.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the intensity of the ECG signal" in claim 6, line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims only previously recite an intensity of the EMG signal, not an intensity of the ECG signal. If it is meant to be an intensity of the ECG signal, Applicant is encouraged to specify whether the first ECG signal or the second ECG signal is being referred to and change “the intensity” to “an intensity.” Otherwise, Applicant is encouraged to change “the ECG signal” to recite –the EMG signal--. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting “the intensity of the ECG signal” in claim 6, line 7 to read “a range of the intensity of the EMG signal” based on claim 6, line 4. Dependent claim 7 is rejected for the same deficiency in claim 6.
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.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-9 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 1 includes the limitation of “at least one electrode of the plurality of electrodes of the first biometric sensor while the wearable device is worn on a user's body, the at least one electrode being in contact with the user's body” see lines 9-12. As such, the limitation requires that the at least one electrode would encompass being in contact with a patient (human organism) under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Applicant should be recommended to change the claimed limitation to --at least one electrode of the plurality of electrodes of the first biometric sensor while the wearable device is worn on a user's body, the at least one electrode configured to be in contact with the user's body-- in order to overcome this 101 rejection. Dependent claims 2-9 and 16-17 are similarly rejected for the same deficiency.
Claim 5 includes the limitation of “obtain a third ECG signal using the first biometric sensor in response to the wearable device being worn on the user's body” see lines 6-7. As such, the limitation requires that the wearable device would encompass being in contact with a patient (human organism) under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Applicant should be recommended to change the claimed limitation to --obtain a third ECG signal using the first biometric sensor in response to the wearable device being configured to be worn on the user's body-- in order to overcome this 101 rejection. Dependent claims 6-7 are similarly rejected for the same deficiency.
Claim 8 includes the limitation of “obtain a photoplethysmography (PPG) signal using the second biometric sensor while the wearable device is worn on the user's body” see lines 6-7. As such, the limitation requires that the wearable device would encompass being in contact with a patient (human organism) under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Applicant should be recommended to change the claimed limitation to --obtain a photoplethysmography (PPG) signal using the second biometric sensor while the wearable device is configured to be worn on the user's body-- in order to overcome this 101 rejection.
Claims 1-11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claimed invention in claims 1-11 and 13-17 are directed to statutory subject matter as the claims recite a device and method for determining a wearing state.
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claims 1 and 10, the recited steps are directed to a mental process of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection (III)).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, the limitations of “obtain an electromyograph (EMG) signal from the first ECG signal, obtain a second ECG signal by filtering the EMG signal from the first ECG signal, determine a wearing state of the wearable device based on an intensity of the EMG signal and a quality of the second ECG signal, wherein the wearing state indicates a degree of contact between the wearable device and skin of the user and output…a guide on the wearing state based on a result of the determination, wherein the guide includes a message indicating that the wearing state is an overly close contact state” are a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional analyzing a print out of a first ECG signal to separate an electromyogram (EMG) signal from it, then further analyzing for a second ECG signal by removing outliers from the EMG signal from the first ECG signal, analyzing the EMG signal intensity and quality of the second ECG signal to determine a wearing state of the wearable device and skin of the user, and writing down a guide based on the result of the wearing state, where the guide indicates that the wearing state is an overly close contact state.
Step 2A, Prong Two
For claims 1 and 10, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1 and 10 recite “a first biometric sensor having a plurality of electrodes; an output interface; a memory, comprising one or more storage media, storing instructions, and at least one processor.” The first biometric sensor having a plurality of electrodes amounts to nothing more than pre-solution activity of data gathering. The output interface, memory, comprising one or more storage media, storing instructions, and at least one processor are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than parts of a generic computer. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into
a practical application, the additional element of a first biometric sensor having a plurality of electrodes amounts to nothing more than mere pre-solution activity of data gathering, which does not amount to an inventive concept. Moreover, the first biometric sensor having a plurality of electrodes is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as evidenced by US 20140257049 (¶16-the generation of an ECG signal based on contact with two electrodes engaged by different parts of a person's body is known in the art, such is shown for example by U.S. Pat. No. 5,316,008 incorporated by reference above, and is thus not further described herein; ¶10), US 20100042008 (¶18-in the conventional ECG measurements, 4 electrodes are attached to the patient's limbs, typically on the wrists and ankles), and US 20160270738 (¶84-the plurality of ECG sensing electrodes 120 may incorporate any electrode system, including conventional stick-on adhesive electrodes, dry-sensing capacitive ECG electrodes, radio transparent electrodes, segmented electrodes, or one or more long term wear electrodes that are configured to be continuously worn by a subject for extended periods (e.g., 3 or more days). Further, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In this case, elements of general computer are being used to implement the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 2-9, 11, and 13-17, the limitations of claims 1 and 10 further define the limitations already indicated as being directed to the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 2 recites “a housing configured to surround a display used as the output interface, wherein a first electrode among the plurality of electrodes is arranged on a bottom surface of the housing, and wherein a second electrode is arranged on a side surface or top surface of the housing.” The display and housing amount to parts of a generic computer. The first electrode and the second electrode amount to pre-solution activity of data gathering. “Wherein a first electrode among the plurality of electrodes is arranged on a bottom surface of the housing, and wherein a second electrode is arranged on a side surface or top surface of the housing” is well-understood, routine, and conventional under Step 2B as evidenced by US 20050148889 (¶9-please refer to FIG. 1 which shows a perspective view of a conventional wristwatch-typed heartbeat sensing device. As shown, the heartbeat sensing device 100a comprises a display device 10a and a first conductive contact 10b at the top surface of the casing. A second conductive contact (not shown) is formed at the bottom surface of the casing of the heartbeat sensing device 100a), US 20160192856 (Abstract-a housing including first and second electrodes on a bottom surface thereof, and a third electrode on a top surface thereof), US 20170296088 (Abstract-a housing having a top surface and a bottom surface, a first electrode disposed on the top surface of the housing, the first electrode electrically isolated from rest of the top surface, a second electrode disposed on the bottom surface of the housing), and US 20150313484 (claim 1-an electrocardiogram (ECG) sensor having a first electrode located at a front side of the housing and a second electrode located at a bottom side of the housing), US 10729347 (col. 9 and lines 35-52-a top electrode is a transparent electrode 110 and a bottom electrode is a simple electrode 116 as shown in FIG. 2. The device 100 may include any suitable number of transparent electrodes 110 in any appropriate arrangement, regardless of relative placement of any other transparent electrodes 110 or simple electrodes 116 included on a front, back, top, bottom, or lateral side of the device 100. (41) FIG. 6 shows one example of another possible arrangement of components in the device 100), and US 20160317067 (¶21-more specifically, the electrodes 106a and 106b are located on the bottom surface 114 of the housing 102, as shown in FIG. 1C, and the optional electrode 106c is optionally located on the top surface 104 of the housing 102).
Regarding claim 3, the limitations of “filter the EMG signal from the first ECG signal, and remove noise in addition to the EMG signal from the signal obtained by filtering the EMG signal, so as to obtain the second ECG signal” are a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional receiving a print out of EMG and a first ECG signal, filtering values of the EMG signal on paper to remove noise and obtain the second ECG signal. The at least one processor is recited at a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than parts of a generic computer.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation of “in case that the intensity of the EMG signal is greater than or equal to a first reference value and the quality of the second ECG signal is less than or equal to a second reference value” is a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional comparing print outs of the EMG and ECG signal to reference values. The limitation of “output a message indicating that the wearing state is the overly close contact state” amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, a medical professional verbally communicates to the patient that the wearing state is the overly close contact state.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of “output a message indicating that the wearing state is the overly close contact state and a re-measurement request message and output a guide on the re-wearing state based on the determination result” amount to certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, a medical professional verbally communicates to the patient a message about the wearing state and a guide on the re-wearing state. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 5 recites “obtain a third ECG signal using the first biometric sensor in response to the wearable device being worn on the user’s body based on a response to the re-measurement request message.” The first sensor amounts to pre-solution activity of data gathering. The first sensor has been shown to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced for claim 1. The limitations of “obtain a second EMG signal from the third ECG signal, obtain a fourth ECG signal by filtering the second EMG signal from the third ECG signal, determine a re-wearing state of the wearable device based on an intensity of the second EMG signal and a quality of the fourth ECG signal” are a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional making determinations about further ECG signals based on print outs and filtering on paper, and using these determinations to determine a re-wearing state.
Regarding claim 6, the at least one processor is recited at a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than parts of a generic computer. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea of storing information on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The limitation of “output the guide on the wearing state, among the plurality of wearing states, corresponding to a range of the intensity of the ECG signal and a range of the quality of the second ECG signal” amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, a medical professional verbally communicates to the patient one of the guides on the plurality of wearing states corresponding to the range of the intensity of different ECG signals and the range of the quality of the second ECG signal.
Regarding claim 7, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 7 recites “a memory.” The memory is recited at a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than parts of a generic computer. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Regarding claim 8, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 8 recites “a second biometric sensor having a light emitting module and a light receiving module; and obtain a photoplethysmography (PPG) signal using the second biometric sensor while the wearable device is worn on the user’s body.” The second biometric sensor having a light emitting module and a light receiving module amounts to pre-solution activity of data gathering. “A second biometric sensor having a light emitting module and a light receiving module; and obtain a photoplethysmography (PPG) signal using the second biometric sensor while the wearable device is worn on the user’s body” is well-understood, routine, and conventional under Step 2B as evidenced by US 20140257049 (¶13-the photo diode 40 and LED 44 are constructed and arranged such that the photo diode 40 only receives reflected light of the LED 44. The photo diode 40 generates a signal indicative of the reflected light from the person's skin that it receives. The photo diode 40 and LED 44 are part of a PPG circuit), US 20180035943 (¶61-the PPG's emitters and photodiodes and the ECG's electrodes, come in contact with the skin of the user), and US 20190125187 (¶19-the optical sensor 126 may comprise at least one light emitter and a photodiode, the light emitter generates light (e.g. visible or infrared light) to the left index finger of the user).
Regarding claim 9, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 9 recites “a display used as the output interface.” The display used as the output interface is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to nothing more than parts of a generic computer. Regarding the limitation “wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor of the wearable device, further cause the wearable device to provide a notification of the wearing state through a display used as the output interface,” merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Regarding claim 11, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 11 recites “wherein the wearable device comprises a housing surrounding a display used as the output interface, wherein a first electrode among the plurality of electrodes is arranged on a bottom surface of the housing, and wherein a second electrode is arranged on a side surface or top surface of the housing.” A first electrode amount the plurality of electrodes and a second electrode amounts to nothing more than pre-solution activity of data gathering. The housing and display are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to nothing more than parts of a generic computer. “Wherein the wearable device comprises a housing surrounding a display used as the output interface, wherein a first electrode among the plurality of electrodes is arranged on a bottom surface of the housing, and wherein a second electrode is arranged on a side surface or top surface of the housing” is well-understood, routine, and conventional under Step 2B as evidenced by US 20050148889 (¶9-please refer to FIG. 1 which shows a perspective view of a conventional wristwatch-typed heartbeat sensing device. As shown, the heartbeat sensing device 100a comprises a display device 10a and a first conductive contact 10b at the top surface of the casing. A second conductive contact (not shown) is formed at the bottom surface of the casing of the heartbeat sensing device 100a), US 20160192856 (Abstract-a housing including first and second electrodes on a bottom surface thereof, and a third electrode on a top surface thereof; ¶23-the housing 102 of the sensor pod 100 can optionally include a digital display), US 20170296088 (Abstract-a housing having a top surface and a bottom surface, a first electrode disposed on the top surface of the housing, the first electrode electrically isolated from rest of the top surface, a second electrode disposed on the bottom surface of the housing; ¶36-the electronic device 100 may include a display module 110), US 20200229761 (¶5-a touch-sensitive display at least partially within the housing; ¶67-the rear-facing electrode 216 may be formed (e.g., printed, plated, or otherwise deposited) on the back side housing member 206b; ¶68-the electrode(s) on the crown 210 or button 212 may be conductive surfaces of the crown 210), US 10729347 (col. 9 and lines 35-52-a top electrode is a transparent electrode 110 and a bottom electrode is a simple electrode 116 as shown in FIG. 2. The device 100 may include any suitable number of transparent electrodes 110 in any appropriate arrangement, regardless of relative placement of any other transparent electrodes 110 or simple electrodes 116 included on a front, back, top, bottom, or lateral side of the device 100. (41) FIG. 6 shows one example of another possible arrangement of components in the device 100), and US 20160317067 (¶21-more specifically, the electrodes 106a and 106b are located on the bottom surface 114 of the housing 102, as shown in FIG. 1C, and the optional electrode 106c is optionally located on the top surface 104 of the housing 102).
Regarding claim 12, the limitation of “wherein the first electrode is arranged on the display, and the second electrode is arranged on a portion of the housing” was not found to be well-understood, routine, or conventional activity. Therefore, the claims 1 and 10 would be found eligible if this specific configured was recited in the independent claims.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations of “wherein obtaining the second ECG signal comprises: passing the first ECG signal through a first filter; and passing the signal having passed through the first filter, through a second filter, and wherein the first filter and the second filter have different frequency bands” are a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional receiving a print out of the first ECG signal, filtering values from it, and filtering it a second time based on a different frequency band.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation of “wherein outputting the guide on the wearing state comprises: outputting a message on the degree of contact between the wearable device and skin of the user using at least one of sound, vibration, or screen” amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, a medical professional verbally communicates to the patient a guide on the wearing state.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations of “in case that the intensity of the EMG signal is greater than or equal to a first reference value and the quality of the second ECG signal is less than or equal to a second reference value, outputting the message indicating that the wearing state is the overly close contact state” are a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional receiving print outs of an EMG signal and an ECG signal and comparing them to reference values.
Regarding claim 16, a bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) sensor amounts to pre-solution activity of data gathering and is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as evidenced by: US 11701023 (col. 5 and lines 6-7-conventional bioimpedance sensors), US 20150157219 (¶47-conventional bioimpedance sensors), and US 20060200033 (¶129-conventional spot electrodes, which are used, e.g., in bioimpedance systems).
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “wherein the notification includes an animation including one of a traffic light or a gauge” merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-17 distinguish over the prior art. Claims 1-11 and 13-17 are still rejected under 35 USC § 101 and claims 3 and 5-7 are still rejected under 35 USC § 112.
Claim 12 is objected to as being 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of overcoming the prior art:
Applicant asserts that the cited references fail to disclose or render obvious “determine a wearing state of the wearable device based on an intensity of the EMG signal and a quality of the second ECG signal, wherein the wearing state indicates a degree of contact between the wearable device and skin of the user,” and “output to the user through the output interface, a guide on the wearing state based on a result of the determination, wherein the guide includes a message indicating that the wearing state is an overly close contact state.” This was found to be persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the present claims seek to reduce an EMG signal. Applicant further asserts that modifying Zhao and Derkx to reduce the EMG signal would render them unsuitable for their intended purposes of monitoring EMG signals. This was found to be persuasive.
The scope of obtaining an electromyograph (EMG) signal from the first ECG signal, obtaining a second ECG signal by filtering the EMG signal from the first ECG signal, determining a wearing state of the wearable device based on an intensity of the EMG signal and a quality of the second ECG signal, wherein the wearing state indicates a degree of contact between the wearable device and skin of the user and outputting, through the output interface, a guide on the wearing state based on a result of the determination, wherein the guide includes a message indicating that the wearing state is an overly close contact state were not found in the prior art alone or in combination with one another to be obvious over the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record is Derkx (EP 3381354); however it fails to recite determining a wearing state of the wearable device based on an intensity of the EMG signal and a quality of the second ECG signal, wherein the wearing state indicates a degree of contact between the wearable device and skin of the user and outputting, through the output interface, a guide on the wearing state based on a result of the determination, wherein the guide includes a message indicating that the wearing state is an overly close contact state.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20140142395: to remove ECG artifacts from an EMG useful signal, the signal paths are adapted to the signal components of the ECG signal and of the EMG signal (¶38).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA HODGE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7101. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, UNSU JUNG can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/LAURA HODGE/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights