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 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 1 to 12 and 15 to 17 (independent Claims 1, 6, 11, 12, and 15 to 17, and their dependent claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are drawn to a gaming machine and a method and so are statutory classes under 101. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following reasons. Independent Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below; the abstract idea is underlined and the structural limitations are not. The dependent claims have no more structure than the independent claim and fail 101 for similar reasons.
A data processing apparatus comprising circuitry configured to:
receive a signal indicating a simulated cardiogram of a character in a video game, the simulated cardiogram being generated using one or more attributes of the character; (receive input from a player, process data according to the rules of a game)
determine one or more heart rate variability, HRV, parameters of the character using the simulated cardiogram; and (receive input from a player, process data according to the rules of a game)
control an occurrence in the video game using the one or more HRV parameters. (receive input from a player, process data according to the rules of a game, present the output of the processing to the player)
The claims taken together or individually do not represent an improvement to the abstract idea in an ordered combination. It is unclear what type of game is being played outside of the fact that is simulates some type of heart characteristics such as heart rate variability, root mean square of successive differences between heartbeats (RMSSD), and percentage of successive NN intervals that differ by more than 50 milliseconds (PNN50). Is the game diagnostic, therapeutic, educational, or entertaining in nature? Does the game use actual medical devices to acquire game input? How is the resulting data presented to the player—via a display, a three-dimensional holographic projection, translucent augmented reality goggles, etc.? Are the data acquired from actual game player medical data, records of historical medical data, simulated medical data generated by the game, etc.? What are the thresholds and magnitudes of the dependent claims such as Claim 2, and how are these used to calculate the game output? No formulas, equations, inequalities, constants, variables, statistical distributions, flow charts, lookup tables, decision trees, algorithm steps, etc. are cited. The claims do not cite how a conduction abnormality or a probabilistic cardiac arrest is detected based on the acquired data (dependent Claim 4). The claims do not define the machine learning such as cited in dependent Claim 7. What type of machine learning is used—supervised learning (classification, regression), unsupervised learning (clustering, dimensionality reduction, association rule learning), reinforcement learning (positive RL, negative RL), semi-supervised learning, self-supervised learning, etc.? This machine learning is presumably trained on large data sets of medical data, but the sources and types of these medical data are not cited. The claims do not cite specific processor or memory structures for processing data in memory according to the rules of a game. The claims do not cite specific input structures such as touchscreens, touchpads, directional pads, joysticks, trackballs, keyboards, mice, cameras, or microphones. The claims do not cite specific output structures such as screens, displays, or speakers. The claims do not represent an improvement in the functioning of a computing device or gaming device since they do not represent an improvement in processor speed, memory management, random number generation, thermal management, ergonomics, network speed and management (such as load balancing or rerouting of packets), bus speed and management, authentication, encryption, graphics rendering, or reduced instruction sets for carrying out complex operations (such as RISC processors). Applying an abstract idea to a computer is not patent-eligible (Alice, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf, page 12). Electronic recordkeeping, obtaining data, adjusting balances, issuing automated instructions, creating and maintaining accounts are typical computer functions (Alice, page 15). Requiring the use of a computer to implement the claim does not make it patent-eligible (pages 14 & 15). Communications controllers, data storage units, and data processing systems are typical computer structures (Alice, page 16). Calculation, storage, and transmission are basic computer functions (Alice, page 16). Claims cannot simply be a draftsman’s art (Alice, pages 14 & 16).
Cloud Satchel quoting Bancorp: “To salvage an otherwise patent-ineligible process, a computer must be integral to the claimed invention, facilitating the process in a way that a person making calculations or computations could not.” In Bancorp, the independent claims did not require a computer (at 1431). In Bancorp, the system and method claims were equivalent for patentability under 101 (at 1432). Bancorp’s method claims did not require a computer and were not 101-compliant (at 1433). A computer must be integral to the claimed invention (Bancorp at 1433). A computer used in the claim only for its most basic functions does not make the claim 101-eligible (Bancorp at 1433). Bancorp’s use of computers to track, reconcile, and administer insurance policies only used a computer’s most basic functions, adding nothing to 101 compliance (1434). Limiting the claims to a particular field of use, such as the insurance market, does not fail to preempt the abstract idea (Bancorp at 1434 & 1435). In Amdocs (113 USPQ2d 1565) at 1571, the fact that the claims cannot be carried out by a human being alone does not mean that they are not an abstract idea under 101 (citing Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2359-60 and Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351).
The examiner points the applicants to Claim 33 of U.S. patent 5,970,479 A which was the representative claim in the Alice decision. These claim limitations are carried out on presumably a general purpose computer although such is not explicitly cited. The claims are certainly not carried out by specific hardware.
A method of exchanging obligations as between parties, each party holding a credit record and a debit record with an exchange institution, the credit records and debit records for exchange of predetermined obligations, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) creating a shadow credit record and a shadow debit record for each stakeholder party to be held independently by a supervisory institution from the exchange institutions;
(b) obtaining from each exchange institution a start-of-day balance for each shadow credit record and shadow debit record;
(c) for every transaction resulting in an exchange obligation, the supervisory institution adjusting each respective party’s shadow credit record or shadow debit record, allowing only these transactions that do not result in the value of the shadow debit record being less than the value of the shadow credit record at any time, each said adjustment taking place in chronological order, and
(d) at the end-of-day, the supervisory institution instructing on[e] of the exchange institutions to exchange credits or debits to the credit record and debit record of the respective parties in accordance with the adjustments of the said permitted transactions, the credits and debits being irrevocable, time invariant obligations placed on the exchange institutions.
The examiner points the applicants to representative Claim 19 of U.S. patent 7,818,399 B1 which was at issue in the DDR Holdings case. This claim in the DDR Holdings case was 101-compliant because it improved the functioning of the computer itself, namely rendering web pages in a web browser. The claims in DDR Holdings cited what was done, and specific steps for how it was done, thus not invoking a judicial exception by preempting all possible ways of what the claim is trying to do. The claims met the second step of the Alice analysis by improving on how web page rendering transactions were carried out over a network such as the Internet, versus how such transactions had been done before.
A system useful in an outsource provider serving web pages offering commercial opportunities, the system comprising:
(a) a computer store containing data, for each of a plurality of first web pages, defining a plurality of visually perceptible elements, which visually perceptible elements correspond to the plurality of first web pages;
(i) wherein each of the first web pages belongs to one of a plurality of web page owners;
(ii) wherein each of the first web pages displays at least one active link associated with a commerce object associated with a buying opportunity of a selected one of a plurality of merchants; and
(iii) wherein the selected merchant, the outsource provider, and the owner of the first web page displaying the associated link are each third parties with respect to one other;
(b) a computer server at the outsource provider, which computer server is coupled to the computer store and programmed to:
(i) receive from the web browser of a computer user a signal indicating activation of one of the links displayed by one of the first web pages;
(ii) automatically identify as the source page the one of the first web pages on which the link has been activated;
(iii) in response to identification of the source page, automatically retrieve the stored data corresponding to the source page; and
(iv) using the data retrieved, automatically generate and transmit to the web browser a second web page that displays: (A) information associated with the commerce object associated with the link that has been activated, and (B) the plurality of visually perceptible elements visually corresponding to the source page.
The examiner finds that wagering games are all rather similar: accepting a wager, playing the game according to the rules comprising generating random outcomes according to rules, determining winning outcomes, determining how much is to be paid for a winning outcome, and paying out the winnings. This breakdown of the wagering claim language is similar to that in precedential case in re Smith (in re Smith (Fed. Cir. 2016), appeal 2015-1664, U.S. patent application 12/912,410).
Claim 1 at hand in in re Smith is as follows:
1. A method of conducting a wagering game comprising:
[a]) a dealer providing at least one deck of physical playing cards and shuffling the physical playing cards to form a random set of physical playing cards;
[b]) the dealer accepting at least one first wager from each participating player on a player game hand against a banker’s/dealer’s hand;
[c]) the dealer dealing only two cards from the random set of physical playing cards to each designated player and two cards to the banker/dealer such that the designated player and the banker/ dealer receive the same number of exactly two random physical playing cards;
[d]) the dealer examining respective hands to determine in any hand has a Natural 0 count from totaling count from cards, defined as the first two random physical playing cards in a hand being a pair of 5’s, 10’s, jacks, queens or kings;
[e]) the dealer resolving any player versus dealer wagers between each individual player hand that has a Natural 0 count and between the dealer hand and all player hands where a Natural 0 is present in the dealer hand, while the dealer exposes only a single card to the players;
[f]) as between each player and the dealer where neither hand has a Natural 0, the dealer allowing each player to elect to take a maximum of one additional card or standing pat on the initial two card player hand, while still having seen only one dealer card;
[g]) the dealer/banker remaining pat within a first certain predetermined total counts and being required to take a single hit within a second predetermined total counts, where the first total counts range does not overlap the second total counts range;
[h]) after all possible additional random physical playing cards have been dealt, the dealer comparing a value of each designated player’s hand to a final value of the banker’s/dealer’s hand wherein said value of the designated player’s hand and the banker’s/dealer’s hand is in a range of zero to nine points based on a pre-established scoring system wherein aces count as one point, tens and face cards count as zero points and all other cards count as their face value and wherein a two-digit hand total is deemed to have a value corresponding to the one’s digit of the two-digit total;
[i]) the dealer resolving the wagers based on whether the designated player’s hand or the banker’s/dealer’s hand is nearest to a value of 0.
Similarly to the present claims, the claim at hand in in re Smith accepted wagers from players (steps a & b), played the game according to the rules of the game comprising generating random outcomes (steps c to g), determining what the winning conditions are and how much to pay out (step h), and making the winning payouts (step i). The card game of in re Smith would be identical played in a card and table format or in an electronic format.
The examiner points the applicants to the representative claim at hand in non-precedential Planet Bingo. The hardware limitations of the CPU, memory, I/O terminal, and printer are only cited in clause (a). The rest of the claim is functional claim language describing a bingo game that would occur identically in paper ticket format or computerized format with the play of the game and the game results being identical in either format. The court held that the claims in Planet Bingo were ineligible under 101.
A method for playing a game of Bingo which comprises the steps of:
(a) providing a system for managing a game of Bingo which comprises: a computer with a central processing unit (CPU) and with a memory and with a printer connected to the CPU; an input and output terminal connected to the CPU and memory of the computer; and a program in the computer enabling:
(i) input of at least two sets of Bingo numbers which are preselected by a player for repetitive play in games of Bingo over a period of time;
(ii) storage of the sets of Bingo numbers which are preselected by the player as a group in the memory of the computer;
(iii) assignment of a player identifier unique to the player for the group having the sets of Bingo numbers which are preselected by the player wherein the player identifier is assigned to the group for multiple sessions of Bingo;
(iv) retrieval of the group using the player identifier;
(v) selection from the group by the player of at least one of the sets of Bingo numbers preselected by the player and stored in the memory of the computer as the group for play in a selected game of Bingo in a specific session of Bingo wherein a number of sets of Bingo numbers selected for play in the selected game of Bingo is less than a total number of sets of Bingo numbers in the group;
(vi) addition by the computer of a control number for the set of Bingo numbers which is selected by the player for play in the selected game of Bingo;
(vii) output of a receipt with the control number, the set of Bingo numbers which is selected for play in the selected game of Bingo, a price for the set of Bingo numbers which is selected for play in the selected game of Bingo, a date of the selected game of Bingo and optionally a computer identification number; and
(viii) output for verification of a winning set of Bingo numbers by means of the control number which is input into the computer by a manager of the game of Bingo;
(b) playing the game of Bingo using the set of Bingo numbers wherein the player signals a Bingo to indicate the set of Bingo numbers which is selected for play in the selected game of Bingo is the winning set of Bingo numbers; and
(c) verifying the winning set of Bingo numbers with the control number with the program.
The Bascom decision is relevant to the present claims (U.S. CAFC, 2015-1763, decided June 27th, 2016). The Bascom decision required that the ordered limitations of the claims taken together add something "significantly more" to the abstract idea even though the individual limitations were known in the prior art. The claim at hand in Bascom was found to comply with 101 in light of Alice. Page 15 of Bascom:
“However, we disagree with the district court’s analysis of the ordered combination of limitations. In light of Mayo and Alice, it is of course now standard for a § 101 inquiry to consider whether various claim elements simply recite “well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies].” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359. The district court’s analysis in this case, however, looks similar to an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103, except lacking an explanation of a reason to combine the limitations as claimed. The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. As is the case here, an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.” Page 20 of Bascom: “While the claims of the ’606 patent are directed to the abstract idea of filtering content, BASCOM has adequately alleged that the claims pass step two of Alice’s two-part framework. BASCOM has alleged that an inventive concept can be found in the ordered combination of claim limitations that transform the abstract idea of filtering content into a particular, practical application of that abstract idea. We find nothing on this record that refutes those allegations as a matter of law or justifies dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). We therefore vacate the district court’s order granting AT&T’s motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6) and remand so that the case may proceed.”
The McRO decision (U.S. CAFC, 2015-1080 to 2015-1101, decided Sept. 13th, 2016) is relevant to the present claims. The McRO decision stated that an ordered combination of claim limitations can meet the requirements of 101 in light of the Alice decision by improving over what has been already done in the prior art without preempting an abstract idea. Pages 25 and 26 of McRO: “The limitations in claim 1 prevent preemption of all processes for achieving automated lip-synchronization of 3-D characters. McRO has demonstrated that motion capture animation provides an alternative process for automatically animating lip synchronization and facial expressions. Even so, we have recognized that “the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The narrower concern here is whether the claimed genus of rules preempts all techniques for automating 3-D animation that rely on rules. Claim 1 requires that the rules be rendered in a specific way: as a relationship between subsequences of phonemes, timing, and the weight to which each phoneme is expressed visually at a particular timing (as represented by the morph weight set). The specific structure of the claimed rules would prevent broad preemption of all rules-based means of automating lip synchronization, unless the limits of the rules themselves are broad enough to cover all possible approaches. There has been no showing that any rules-based lip synchronization process must use rules with the specifically claimed characteristics.” Page 27 of McRO: “Here, the structure of the limited rules reflects a specific implementation not demonstrated as that which “any [animator] engaged in the search for [an automation process] would likely have utilized.” Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2119–20 (quotation marks omitted). By incorporating the specific features of the rules as claim limitations, claim 1 is limited to a specific process for automatically animating characters using particular information and techniques and does not preempt approaches that use rules of a different structure or different techniques. See Morse, 56 U.S. at 113. When looked at as a whole, claim 1 is directed to a patentable, technological improvement over the existing, manual 3-D animation techniques. The claim uses the limited rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (citing Diehr, 450 U.S. at 177). Claim 1 of the ’576 patent, therefore, is not directed to an abstract idea.” The claim limitations individually or taken together add nothing significantly more in an ordered combination to the abstract idea.
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, 3, 5 to 8, 10 to 12, and 15 to 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khare, et al. (WIPO publication WO 2022/251371 A2, application PCT/US2022/030939, published Dec. 1st, 2022, filed May 22nd, 2022).
As to Claims 1, 6, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 17: Khare teaches a data processing apparatus comprising circuitry configured to (sensors detecting cardiogram data, Paras. 67 and 68):
receive a signal indicating a simulated cardiogram of a character in a video game (Para. 69 discusses the sensors being incorporated into a video game or augmented reality controller),
the simulated cardiogram being generated using one or more attributes of the character (Para. 171 discusses the data being used to create a profile of an individual user);
determine one or more heart rate variability, HRV (heart rate variability is acquired at Para. 5; the method of calculating the HRV is discussed at Para. 6; HRV can be calculated in the time domain or the frequency domain, Para. 68; Para. 70 describes a baseline HRV being acquired and calculated for a subject at rest; acquired data can be used to calculate a model and predict HRV outcomes for a subject, Para. 170),
parameters of the character using the simulated cardiogram (other parameters are acquired and taken into consideration, Paras. 49 to 65, notably GBI or heartrate intervals, PPG or photoplethysmogram, RMSSD or root mean square of successive differences between heartbeats, etc.); and
control an occurrence in the video game (Paras. 37 and 38 discuss using simulated cardiogram data in a virtual universe or virtual video game environment; video game embodiment Paras. 66 and 69; Para. 171 discusses recommended actions for the subject to take to mitigate his or her actual or simulated cardiac risk) using the one or more HRV parameters (as discussed above). These limitations are carried out by computing subsystem 22 or a first data processing apparatus (Fig. 1, Paras. 117 to 119 and 125 to 127). Khare also teaches a second data processing as claimed (Paras. 131 to 135).
The examiner is interpreting the gaming aspects of this claim as a statement of intended use. The claims do not cite that input is accepted from a player via an input device, that the input from the player is processed with other data according to the rules of a game, and that the resulting output or game outcome is displayed to the player via a display device. Any simulated cardiogram that involves these parameters will anticipate this claim. A simulated cardiogram is a “game” in the sense that real or simulated heart parameters are detected or generated and an output is displayed to a patient or his or her doctor indicating health precautions to take regarding the patient’s player’s actual health or the patient’s players simulated health for teaching or preventative purposes. The examiner is interpreting the claims as broadly as he believes he reasonably can.
As to Claim 3: Khare teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to: receive data indicating a characteristic of the character in addition to the signal indicating the simulated cardiogram (Para. 121, other medical information besides cardiogram information acquired: medication history, medical history, medical records, health records, genetic-derived data, genomic-derived data, (e.g., including information related to one or more medical conditions, traits, health risks, inherited conditions, drug responses, DNA sequences, protein sequences, and structures), biological fluid-derived data (e.g., blood type), drug/prescription records, allergies, family history, health history (including mental health history), manually-inputted personal data, physical shape (e.g. body shape), historical personal data, training regimen, nutritional history, and the like);
and control an occurrence in the video game using the one or more HRV parameters and the data indicating the characteristic of the character (Paras. 37 and 38 discuss using simulated cardiogram data in a virtual universe or virtual video game environment; video game embodiment Paras. 66 and 69; Para. 171 discusses recommended actions for the subject to take to mitigate his or her actual or simulated cardiac risk).
As to Claim 5: Khare teaches wherein the one or more HRV parameters are determined over the short term (ST) or ultra-short term (UST) (cardiac data organized over the short term, Para. 203).
As to Claim 7: Khare teaches wherein the simulated cardiogram is generated by inputting a value of the one or more attributes of the character into one or more trained machine learning models to generate one or more values defining a portion of the simulated cardiogram corresponding to one heartbeat of the character (the acquired cardiogram data are processed according to machine learning or artificial intelligence, Paras. 163 to 165).
As to Claim 8: Khare teaches wherein the one or more attributes of the character comprise one or more of a stress level (physical and mental stress, Paras. 68, 71, and 121), physical activity level (activity including exercise Paras. 118 to 121) and mental activity level (mental health considered, Para. 121) of the character.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khare.
As to Claim 2: Khare lacks specificity as to wherein the one or more HRV parameters comprise one or more of RMSSD and pNN50; if a value of RMSSD or pNN50 exceeds a first threshold or a magnitude of a rate of increase of a value of RMSSD or pNN50 exceeds a first threshold, control an occurrence in the video game to increase a difficulty level of the video game; and if a value of RMSSD or pNN50 falls below a second threshold or a magnitude of a rate of decrease of a value of RMSSD or pNN50 exceeds a second threshold, control an occurrence in the video game to reduce a difficulty level of the video game. Khare, however, does teach the analogous limitations of recommending a course of action to the subject based on his or her cardiac profile (Paras. 39, 179, 184, & 185). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made these modifications to Khare since it is known in the art to make recommendations to a patient based on his or her medical condition, and that patients with more severe medical conditions will have more difficult behavior modifications such as exercise and diet than patients that have less sever medical conditions. The advantage of this modification would be to customize the patient’s recommended course of action to his or her medical condition for optimal health outcomes.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khare in view of Felix, et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0133227 A1).
As to Claim 4: Khare teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to: determine, using the one or more HRV parameters, whether the HRV indicates a heart conduction abnormality (HRV used to detect current heart and medical conditions, Paras. 192 and 193); and if the HRV indicates a conduction abnormality, control, as an occurrence in the video game (Paras. 37 and 38 discuss using simulated cardiogram data in a virtual universe or virtual video game environment; video game embodiment Paras. 66 and 69; Para. 171 discusses recommended actions for the subject to take to mitigate his or her actual or simulated cardiac risk). Khare does not teach a medical condition being a probabilistic cardiac arrest of the character. Felix, however, teaches this limitation (heart rate variability (HRV) is used to predict the likelihood of a heart attack, Paras. 19 to 23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Felix’s prediction of a heart attack based on HRV to the game of Khare. Felix’s invention can be implemented as a game (Para. 13), similar to Khare as discussed above, so the two references are similar in field of use and mode operation. The advantage of this modification would be to inform the user if he or she is likely to have a heart attack and to recommend a course of action such as drugs, diet, and exercise to prevent such.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khare in view of Nagai, et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2008/0027339 A1).
As to Claim 9: Khare teaches all of the limitations of this claim, but lacks specificity as to wherein the one or more values defining a portion of the simulated cardiogram corresponding to one heartbeat of the character comprise one or more of values of an RR interval, a PR interval, a QT interval, an ST interval and a QRS interval. Nagai, however, teaches a typical electrocardiogram waveform as having ST, QT, ant RR intervals (Para. 149). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have applied Nagai’s wave form to the simulated electrocardiogram game of Khare, since both references are similar in field of use and mode of operation. The advantage of this modification would be to ensure that the measured or simulated waveform is accurate.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang, Lei (Chinese patent publication CN 115844405 A, published Mar. 28th, 2023) and Wang, Yong-Gang (Chinese patent publication CN 119679416 A, published Mar. 25th, 2025) teach determining whether RMSSD and pNN50 exceed or fall below respective thresholds. Li, et al. (Chinese patent publication CN 101899058 A, published Dec. 1st, 2010) discusses how patients with poor heart condition will be correspondingly more difficult to treat (Para. 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HOEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5961. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 A.M.-4:30 P.M..
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, David Lewis can be reached at (571) 272-7673. 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.
/M.D.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715 /DAVID L LEWIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights