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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, claims 1-6 and 20-23, in the reply filed on April 29, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Species II-VII, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on February 8, 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
NPL reference Search Report 112137060 is not listed.
The information disclosure statement filed on February 8, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
NPL TW 201422204 does not have an English translation.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the original differential signal (claims 1, 23), calibration sequence (claims 1, 23), compensated calibration sequence (claims 1, 23) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 20, and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 23, “obtain” (claim 1, lines 5, 6, 9, 11, 13; claim 23, lines 6, 8, 14, 16, 18) should be – generate --.
Claim 20, “obtaining” (claim 20, lines 6, 8, 10) should be – generating --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: impedance front-end circuit module (claims 1, 23), dynamic signal matching module (claims 1, 23); processing system (claim 23).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-6 and 20-23 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.
Claims 1, 20, and 23, the difference between the calibrated sequence and the compensated calibrated sequence is unclear since the calibrated sequence and the compensated calibrated sequence are both based on the first impedance, second impedance, and original differential signal. Examiner interprets that the calibrated sequence and the compensated calibrated sequence are the same sequence.
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 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claim 20 recites an abstract idea of “obtaining a calibration sequence according to the first impedance, the second impedance and the original differential signal” (mental process), “obtaining a compensated calibration sequence according to the calibration sequence and the original differential signal” (mental process).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the claim limitations are not integrated into a practical application.
[D]etecting a first impedance of a first electrode, detecting a second impedance of a second electrode, obtaining a first sensing signal, obtaining a second sensing signal, obtaining an original differential signal according to the first sensing signal and the second sensing signal are directed to insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
[D]etecting a first impedance of a first electrode, detecting a second impedance of a second electrode, obtaining a first sensing signal, obtaining a second sensing signal, obtaining an original differential signal according to the first sensing signal and the second sensing signal are well-understood, routine and conventional activities known in the industry (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim 21 does not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, claim 20 and its dependent claim 21 are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 22 is integrated into a practical application. Thus, claim 22 is patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Note Regarding 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.
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claims 1 and 23 recite an abstract idea of “obtain a calibration sequence according to the first impedance, the second impedance and the original differential signal” (mental process), “obtain a compensated calibration sequence according to the calibration sequence and the original differential signal” (mental process).
Under step 2A, prong 2, claims 1 and 23 recite a particular machine of a first electrode, a second electrode, a reference electrode, an impedance front-end circuit module, configured to detect a first impedance of the first electrode and a second impedance of the second electrode, and obtain an original differential signal according to the first sensing signal and the second sensing signal. Thus, the claims are indicative of integration into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Accordingly, claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-6 and claim 23 are patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bossetti et al. (US 2020/0077954) in view of Hwang et al. (US 20180116545).
.
Regarding claim 20, Bossetti et al. discloses a physiological signal measurement method (Abstract), comprising:
obtaining a first sensing signal (signal from electrode 402, Fig. 4A);
obtaining a second sensing signal (signal from electrode 404, Fig. 4A);
obtaining an original differential signal according to the first sensing signal and the second sensing signal (paragraph 0051, lines 52-55).
However, Bossetti et al. does not disclose:
detecting a first impedance of a first electrode;
detecting a second impedance of a second electrode;
obtaining a calibration sequence according to the first impedance, the second impedance and the original differential signal; and
obtaining a compensated calibration sequence according to the calibration sequence and the original differential signal.
Hwang et al. discloses:
detecting a first impedance of a first electrode (obtaining impedance corresponding to two electrodes, Abstract, lines 2-3);
detecting a second impedance of a second electrode (Abstract, lines 2-3);
obtaining a calibration sequence according to the first impedance, the second impedance and the original differential signal (the two electrodes are differential-operated to generate a signal for obtaining impedance is subjected to a calibration process, Abstract, lines 5-11); and
obtaining a compensated calibration sequence according to the calibration sequence and the original differential signal (Abstract, lines 5-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Bossetti et al. with a calibration sequence as suggested by Hwang et al. for the purpose of reducing noise (Abstract, lines 9-10).
Regarding claim 21, Bossetti et al. discloses the step of obtaining the calibration sequence according to the first impedance, the second impedance and the original differential signal includes:
analyzing a magnification difference between the first impedance and the second impedance (differentiate-operating the amplified signals, Abstract, line 7);
obtaining a corrected differential signal according to the first sensing signal, the second sensing signal and the magnification difference (the differentiate-operating signal is subjected to a calibration process, Abstract, lines 7-9); and
obtaining the calibration sequence according to the original differential signal and the corrected differential signal (the two sensing electrodes are differential operated to obtain a signal, the signal is subjected to a calibration process, the calibration process is based on imbalance between the electrodes, Abstract, lines 9-11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 22 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.
Reasons For Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The combination as claimed wherein a physiological signal measurement system and method, comprising obtain an original differential signal according to the first sensing signal and the second sensing signal, where the first electrode and the reference electrode are used to obtain a first sensing signal, and the second electrode and the reference electrode are used to obtain a second sensing signal (claims 1, 23) or filling the original differential signal between the first correction index point and the second correction index point of the calibration sequence to obtain the compensated calibration sequence (claim 22) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 June 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights