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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in application 18/447128.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 365(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 365(c) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/147396, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Independent Claims 1, 11, and 12 all recite the deriving a spatiotemporal data set from the plurality of parameter measurements, detecting noise or disturbances in the spatiotemporal data set, and adjusting, based on the plurality of parameter measurements, the baseline measurement with respect to the noise or disturbances. However, neither PCT/US2002/015823 nor US Provisional Application No. 63/147,396 discloses deriving or analyzing spatiotemporal data.
Therefore, the portions of the claims containing the use or analysis of spatiotemporal data will be examined below with the priority date of 8/9/2023 (18/447,128 Application Date).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 rejection of Claims 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention, is withdrawn due to Applicant’s claim amendments (Applicant Claim Amendment, 2/11/2026).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Addison et al. (US 2012/0136605 A1), is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments and arguments (Applicant Claim Amendment and Applicant Arguments, 2/11/2026).
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 1-3, 7-8, 11-13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sackelleres et al. (US 2015/0088024 A1) in view of Khodamoradi et al. (A. Khodamoradi and R. Kastner, "O(N)O(N)-Space Spatiotemporal Filter for Reducing Noise in Neuromorphic Vision Sensors," in IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 15-23, January 1, 2018).
As per independent Claims 1, 11, and 12, Sackelleres discloses a system (100) for tracking a measured signal and utilizing spatiotemporal data to adjust the measured signal (See at least Para 0018), the system (100) comprising:
a. a sensor array (200) comprising a plurality of sensors, each sensor (201) capable of measuring one or more parameters (See at least Para 0013);
b. an electronic board (300) communicatively coupled to the sensor array (200) for transmitting a plurality of parameter measurements from the sensor array (200) to a computing device (400) (See at least Para 0014 and Para 0050); and
c. the computing device (400) communicatively coupled to the electronic board (300) for detecting a change to the sensor array (200) based on the plurality of parameter measurements (See at least Para 0105):
wherein the change to the sensor array (200) is detected by measuring an increased parameter reading or a decreased parameter reading from one or more sensors of the plurality of sensors (See at least Para 0149).
Sackelleres fails to expressly disclose tracking a measured signal and utilizing spatiotemporal data to adjust the measured signal; the change to the sensor array is detected by measuring an increased parameter reading or a decreased parameter reading from one or more sensors of the plurality of sensors compared to a baseline measurement; and the computing device is capable of deriving a spatiotemporal data set from the plurality of parameter measurements, the spatiotemporal data set comprising changes in a spatial surface over time; detecting noise or disturbances in the spatiotemporal data set, and adjusting, based on the plurality of parameter measurements, the baseline measurement with respect to the noise or disturbances
However, the analogous art of Khodamoradi discloses a novel spatiotemporal filter for reducing background activity noise in neuromorphic vision sensors. The pixels in a such sensor are considered as an array of sensors. Khodamoradi discloses tracking a measured signal and utilizing spatiotemporal data to adjust the measured signal; the change to the sensor array is detected by measuring an increased parameter reading or a decreased parameter reading from one or more sensors of the plurality of sensors compared to a baseline measurement (Each pixel independently and in continuous time quantizes local relative intensity changes to generate spike events. If changes in light intensity detected by a pixel since the last event exceed the upper threshold, pixel will generate an ON event and if these changes pass the lower threshold pixel will generate an OFF event. A Pixel will not generate an event otherwise. By this mechanism, DVS128 only generates events if there is a change in light intensity, therefore, sensor's output stream only includes the detected changes in sensed signal and does not carry any redundant data (page 16)); and the computing device is capable of deriving a spatiotemporal data set from the plurality of parameter measurements, detecting noise or disturbances in the spatiotemporal data set, and adjusting, based on the plurality of parameter measurements, the baseline measurement with respect to the noise or disturbances (Such a filter is a spatiotemporal correlation filter. To process an event, a spatiotemporal filter searches the event's spatial neighborhood for events with timestamps closer than a dT to the processing event's time-stamp (Figure 1 ). If there exists an event with a time-stamp closer than the dT to the processing event's time-stamp, the processing event has support and can pass the filter. The processing event will be filtered out otherwise (page 16)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have included wherein the computing device is capable of deriving a spatiotemporal data set from the plurality of parameter measurements, the spatiotemporal data set comprising changes in a spatial surface over time, detecting noise or disturbances in the spatiotemporal data set, and adjusting, based on the plurality of parameter measurements, the baseline measurement with respect to the noise or disturbances, as disclosed by Khodamoradi in the system disclosed by Sackelleres, for the advantage of providing a method/system for tracking a measured signal and utilizing spatiotemporal data to adjust the measured signal and filter out noise efficiently (See KSR [127 S Ct. at 1739] “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
As per Claims 2 (1) and 13 (12), Sackelleres and Khodamoradi disclose wherein one or more sensors of the plurality of sensors comprise: a pressure sensor, an electromagnetic sensor, a capacitive sensor, a resistive sensor, or a combination thereof (Sackelleres: See at least Para 0042, EEG Sensor).
As per Claim 3 (2), Sackelleres and Khodamoradi disclose wherein the one or more parameters measured by each sensor (201) of the plurality of sensors is an electrical or analog-to-digital signal selected from a group comprising a capacitance measurement, a radar measurement, an optical measurement, or a combination thereof (Sackelleres: See at least Para 0042, EEG Sensors measure electrical activity, which can be collected via direct conductive electrodes or capacitive-based electrodes, and converted to digital signals).
As per Claims 7 (1) and 17 (12), Sackelleres and Khodamoradi disclose wherein the electronic board (300) transmits the plurality of parameter measurements to the computing device (400) through low-energy Bluetooth transmissions (Sackelleres: See at least Para 0015).
As per Claims 8 (1) and 18 (12), Sackelleres and Khodamoradi disclose wherein the electronic board (300) further comprises an adaptive filter for subtracting noise, creep, hysteresis, motion, or a combination thereof from the plurality of parameter measurements (Khodamoradi: See at least Pg.16, Spatiotemporal filter).
Claims 4-6, 9-10, 14-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sackelleres et al. (US 2015/0088024 A1), in view of Khodamoradi et al. (A. Khodamoradi and R. Kastner, "O(N)O(N)-Space Spatiotemporal Filter for Reducing Noise in Neuromorphic Vision Sensors," in IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 15-23, January 1, 2018) , and further in view of Farringdon et al. (US 2005/0113703 A1).
As per Claims 4 (3) and 14 (13), Sackelleres and Khodamoradi fail to expressly disclose wherein the computing device (400) is further capable of converting the capacitance measurement into a blood pressure measurement.
However, the analogous art of Farringdon discloses a computing device capable of converting the capacitance measurement into a blood pressure measurement (See at least Fig.7, Para 0003, Para 0024, Para 0081-0082, Para 0091-0092, Para 0133 - Table 1, and Para 0106).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have included wherein the computing device (400) is further capable of converting the capacitance measurement into a blood pressure measurement, as disclosed by Farringdon, in the system disclosed by Khodamoradi, in the system disclosed by Sackelleres, for the advantage of providing a method/system for tracking a measured signal and utilizing spatiotemporal data to adjust the measured signal, with the ability to improve system/ method efficiency and effectiveness by incorporating a variety of data measurements and conversions (See KSR [127 S Ct. at 1739] “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
As per Claims 5 (4) and 15 (14), Sackelleres, Khodamoradi, and Farringdon disclose an attachment component connected to the sensor array (200) for attaching the sensor array (200) to an external surface, wherein the attachment component is selected from a group comprising a strap and an adhesive (Sackelleres: See at least Para 0009, electrodes attached to the scalp) (Farringdon: See at least Fig.13, Para 0012-0013, Para 0023, and Para 0181).
As per Claims 6 (5) and 16 (15), Sackelleres, Khodamoradi, and Farringdon disclose wherein the external surface is a portion of skin of a patient covering an artery or another layer such as surgical dressing disposed on a portion of skin of the patient (Sackelleres: See at least Para 0009) (Farringdon: See at least Para 0012-0013).
As per Claims 9 (1) and 19 (12), Sackelleres and Khodamoradi fail to expressly wherein the computing device (400) is further capable of measuring pulse transit time between a first sensor of the plurality of sensors and a second sensor of the plurality of sensors.
However, the analogous art of Farringdon discloses a computing device capable of measuring pulse transit time between a first sensor of the plurality of sensors and a second sensor of the plurality of sensors (See at least Para 0100-0101).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have included wherein the computing device (400) is further capable of measuring pulse transit time between a first sensor of the plurality of sensors and a second sensor of the plurality of sensors, as disclosed by Farringdon, in the system disclosed by Khodamoradi, in the system disclosed by Sackelleres, for the advantage of providing a method/system for tracking a measured signal and utilizing spatiotemporal data to adjust the measured signal, with the ability to improve system/ method efficiency and effectiveness by incorporating a variety of data measurements and conversions (See KSR [127 S Ct. at 1739] “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
As per Claims 10 (1) and 20 (12), Sackelleres and Khodamoradi fail to expressly wherein the computing device (400) is further capable of analyzing a pulse wave gathered by one or more sensors of the plurality of sensors.
However, the analogous art of Farringdon discloses a computing device capable of analyzing a pulse wave gathered by one or more sensors of the plurality of sensors (See at least Fig.1, Para 0003, Para 0005, and Para 0100-0101).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have included wherein the computing device (400) is further capable of analyzing a pulse wave gathered by one or more sensors of the plurality of sensors, as disclosed by Farringdon, in the system disclosed by Khodamoradi, in the system disclosed by Sackelleres, for the advantage of providing a method/system for tracking a measured signal and utilizing spatiotemporal data to adjust the measured signal, with the ability to improve system/ method efficiency and effectiveness by incorporating a variety of data measurements and conversions (See KSR [127 S Ct. at 1739] “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 2/11/2026, with respect to Claims 1-20, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The Applicant’s arguments are addressed in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN P OUELLETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6807. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda C Jasmin, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-6782. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
March 23, 2026
/JONATHAN P OUELLETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629