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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 1, 2, 4, 12, 13, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patel et al (US 6,073,046).
Regarding claim 1, Patel discloses a display control apparatus, comprising:
an acquisition part that acquires a feature value indicating electric activity of the heart of a person to be analyzed, the feature value being extracted from electrocardiogram data of the person to be analyzed, see col. 17 lines 57-66; and
a display control part that causes a display part to display a plurality of points corresponding to a plurality of feature values measured in a target period, wherein a distance between a predetermined reference point and each of the plurality of points corresponds to the feature value corresponding to the point, and a direction of a vector 202 from the reference point to each of the plurality of points rotates clockwise or counterclockwise about the reference point in the order of times at which the plurality of feature values are measured, see col. 8 lines 50-65 and Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 2, Patel discloses the display control part causes the display part to display a polygonal line generated by connecting two adjacent points among the plurality of points with a line 16, see col. 7 lines 58-64 and Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 4, Patel discloses the display control part causes the display part to display a plurality of concentric circles 15 arranged at predetermined intervals centered around the reference point together with the plurality of points, see col. 7 lines 41-42 and Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 12, Patel discloses an angle 17 between two points relative to the reference point is an angle proportional to the feature value corresponding to one of the two points, see col. 7 line 61 to col. 8, line 4 and Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 13, Patel discloses the display control part causes the display part to sequentially display the points corresponding to the feature values in response to the feature values being measured, see col. 8, lines 1- 4 and Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 18, Patel discloses a display control method executed by a processor and comprising:
acquiring a feature value indicating electric activity of the heart of a person to be analyzed, the feature value being extracted from electrocardiogram data of the person to be analyzed, see col. 17 lines 57-66; and
causing a display part to display a plurality of points corresponding to a plurality of feature values measured in a target period, wherein a distance between a predetermined reference point and each of the plurality of points corresponds to the feature value corresponding to the point, and a direction of a vector 202 from the reference point to each of the plurality of points rotates clockwise or counterclockwise about the reference point in the order of times at which the plurality of feature values are measured, see col. 8 lines 50-65 and Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 19, Patel discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that causes a computer to function as:
an acquisition part that acquires a feature value indicating electric activity of the heart of a person to be analyzed, the feature value being extracted from electrocardiogram data of the person to be analyzed, see col. 17 lines 57-66; and
a display control part that causes a display part to display a plurality of points corresponding to a plurality of feature values measured in a target period, wherein a distance between a predetermined reference point and each of the plurality of points corresponds to the feature value corresponding to the point, and a direction of a vector 202 from the reference point to each of the plurality of points rotates clockwise or counterclockwise about the reference point in the order of times at which the plurality of feature values are measured, see col. 8 lines 50-65 and Fig. 2.
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 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al (US 6,073,046) in view of Weinstein et al (US 2019/0046038).
Regarding claim 15, Patel meets all of the claimed features except for a detection part that detects a tap event indicating that the person to be analyzed tapped a device for measuring the electric activity, on the basis of acceleration measured by a sensor provided in the device, the device being worn by the person to be analyzed; and a selection part that selects, as the target period, a period based on a time at which the tap event is detected from a period during which the electric activity is measured.
Weinstein teaches incorporating a tap detection feature using an accelerometer 422 into a physiological monitoring system, see paragraph [0093].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the tap detection teaching of Weinstein with the display control apparatus of Patel because the device of Patel is a physiological monitoring system similar to the type of device intended to benefit from the tap detection feature put forth by Weinstein. Therefore, by combining the tap detection feature as disclosed in Weinstein, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to include a detection part that detects a tap event indicating that the person to be analyzed tapped a device for measuring the electric activity, on the basis of acceleration measured by a sensor provided in the device, the device being worn by the person to be analyzed; and a selection part that selects, as the target period, a period based on a time at which the tap event is detected from a period during which the electric activity is measured.
Regarding claim 17, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the detection part to detect the tap event on condition that the sensor measures acceleration equal to or greater than a threshold value which is greater than acceleration generated in the sensor by the electric activity to avoid detecting the tap as a physiological event.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-11, 14 and 16 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George Manuel whose telephone number is (571) 272-4952.
The examiner can normally be reached on regular business days.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/George Manuel/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit: 3792
9/5/2025