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 with traverse of Species B in the reply filed on 1/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that optical and photoacoustic sensors are similar sources of light. This is found persuasive. Therefore, only claim 7 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/23/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/26/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
In Claim 27 the “means for obtaining one or more first measurements at a first location of a user via a first sensor; means for obtaining one or more second measurements at a second location of the user via a second sensor” are being interpreted as set forth at para. [0157] of the printed publication of the instant application, and “means for determining a physiological parameter of the user based on the one or more first measurements, the one or more second measurements, and a distance between the first location and the second location, the distance between the first location and the second location determined based on acoustic communication between the first sensor and the second sensor” are being interpreted as set forth at para. [0157] of the printed publication of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 5 and 6 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.
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation “wherein the second sensor is further configured to obtain the first measurement” renders the claim indefinite. In Claim 1 the first sensor obtains the first measurement and the second sensor obtains the second measurement, however, Claim 5 appears to now be claiming that the second sensor obtains the first measurement, therefore, it unclear if the second sensor obtains the first or second measurement. Does this mean the second sensor is also obtaining the first measurement, replaying them, or reobtaining them? For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim that the second sensor is obtaining the first measurement from the first sensor.
Regarding Claim 29, the limitation “wherein the apparatus comprises the first sensor, the first sensor configured to obtain, via wireless data communication with the first sensor, the one or more second measurements” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how a first sensor would be in communication with itself to obtain a second measurement. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim that the first sensor is in wireless data communication with the second sensor.
Claims 1-6 and 8-30 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.
Each of Claims 1-6 and 8-30 have been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-6 and 8-30 recites at least one step or instruction for determining a distance between sensors by using results from RF and/or acoustic communication, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1-6 and 8-30recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, independent Claims 1, 21, 27 and 30 recite first and second sensors that use RF and/or acoustic communication to determine a distance between the sensors alongside taking physiological measurements from each of the sensors (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
Further, dependent Claims 2-6, 8-20, 22-26, 28, and 29 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1, 21, 27 and 30 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-6, 8-20, 22-26, 28, and 29 is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements including sensors, RF and ultrasonic transmitters, computer hardware components and mobile devices are generically recited computer elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., sensors, RF and ultrasonic transmitters, computer hardware components and mobile devices are generically recited computer elements as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1, 21, 27 and 30 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1, 21, 27, and 30 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims1-6 and 8-30 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: sensors, RF and ultrasonic transmitters, computer hardware components and mobile devices are generically recited computer elements.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
In light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed terms including sensors, RF and ultrasonic transmitters, computer hardware components and mobile devices are generically recited computer elements are reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the sensors, RF and ultrasonic transmitters, computer hardware components and mobile devices are generically recited computer elements. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-6 and 8-30 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatuses, systems and methods of Claims 1-6 and 8-30 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 1-6 and 8-30 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 21, 27 and 30 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-6 and 8-30 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-6 and 8-30 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-6 and 8-30 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8, 10-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016/123069 A1 to Melodia et al. (hereinafter, Melodia) in view of “Development of Limb Volume Measuring System” to Bhagat et al. (hereinafter, Bhagat).
Regarding Claims 1, 21, 27 and 30, Melodia discloses a synchronized sensor system, method, apparatus (p. 12, ll. 2-4 “A ultrasonic communication system and method are provided to interconnect a network of intra-body implantable devices and wearable devices, provide an Internet of Medical Things (IoMT) capability, and enhance the configurability of the devices.”) and non-transitory computer-readable apparatus comprising a storage medium, the storage medium comprising a plurality of instructions configured to, when executed by one or more processors (see all of 6.3 Access Point Node beginning at p. 50), cause the system, method, apparatus to comprise inter alia:
a first sensor (implantable slave and/or master nodes, page 21, lines 8-16) disposed at a first location of a user (p. 12, ll. 19-21 “… nodes… deployed along the body of the patient.”) obtaining first measurements associated with the user at the first location (p. 12, ll. 18-10 “Each node comprises… one or more sensors…”) (pg. 12, ll. 9-12 “…measuring, storing, and delivering out-the-body vital biological parameters of the patient as measured by a variety of implantable sensors…”); and
a second sensor (gateway node, p. 48, ll. 25 to p. 49, ll. 20) disposed at a second location of the user (p. 12, ll. 19-21 “… nodes… deployed along the body of the patient.”) obtaining second measurements associated with the user at the second location (p.12, ll. 18-10 “Each node comprises… one or more sensors…”) (p. 12, ll. 9-12 “…measuring, storing, and delivering out-the-body vital biological parameters of the patient as measured by a variety of implantable sensors…”), the second sensor (e.g., gateway node) performing acoustic communication with the first sensor (e.g., implantable slave/master nodes) (p. 12, ll. 19-21 “…nodes can communicate through ultrasound with one or more gateway nodes, each comprising an ultrasonic device…”) and
the second sensor (e.g., gateway node) performing radio frequency (RF) data communication with:
the first sensor (e.g., implantable slave/master nodes) (p. 49, ll. 16-17 “The gateway node also can embed a low-power RF transceiver that enables communication via RF with the… node(s).”) (p. 45, l. 10 “The implantable node can embed a RF transceiver…”) (p. 12, l. 30-32 “…the communications system employs ultrasonic transmissions for communication between implantable and wearable devices… accompanied by radio frequency transmissions.”),
a host device (e.g., access point node) (p. 49, ll. 16-17 “The gateway node also can embed a low-power RF transceiver that enables communication via RF with the access point node.”) (pg. 12, ll. 21-23 “The gateway nodes enable communication from the intra-body network to access point nodes, each comprising an ultrasonic device, through ultrasound … radio frequency-based technologies.”), or
a combination thereof (p. 12, ll. 30-32 “…system employs ultrasonic transmissions for communication between implantable and wearable devices… accompanied by radio frequency transmission.”),
wherein at least a portion of the RF data communication determines, by the second sensor (e.g., gateway node) or the host device (e.g., access point node), of a physiological parameter associated with the user based on the first measurements associated with the user at the first location, the second measurements associated with the user at the second location (The citations above have established that the first sensor (e.g., implantable slave/master nodes), the second sensor (e.g., gateway node), and the host device (e.g., access point node) communicate with one another using both ultrasound and RF communication – this transferred data is the sensor data collected from each node, see p. 48, ll. 20-23 and p. 50, ll. 4-6);
(Claims 2 and 22) where the first sensor and second sensor (p. 12, ll. 18-10 “Each node comprises… one or more sensors…”) (pg. 12, ll. 9-12 “…measuring, storing, and delivering out-the-body vital biological parameters of the patient as measured by a variety of implantable sensors…”) obtain the first measurements comprising electrical measurements (ECG, p. 25, l. 32), acoustic measurements (ultrasonic networking operations, p. 25, l. 25), inertial measurements (accelerometer, p. 25, l. 32), or a combination thereof at the first and second locations (incorporate several sensors, p. 25, l. 31);
(Claims 3, 4 and 25) wherein the physiological parameter comprises blood pressure of the user (blood pressure sensor, pg. 45, l. 31), the blood pressure of the user determined based on a physiological characteristic of a blood vessel of the user, the physiological characteristic of the blood vessel determined based on the first measurements associated with the user obtained at the first location and the second measurements associated with the user obtained at the second location (p. 12, ll. 18-10 “Each node comprises… one or more sensors…”) (pg. 12, ll. 9-12 “…measuring, storing, and delivering out-the-body vital biological parameters of the patient as measured by a variety of implantable sensors…”), wherein the physiological characteristic of the blood vessel comprises a pulse wave velocity (PWV) of the blood vessel, the PWV determined based on a pulse transmit time (PTT), the PTT determined based on a time of the first measurements associated with the user obtained at the first location and a time of the second measurements associated with the user obtained at the second location (Melodia discloses a proximal timing (e.g. the first sensor measurement synchronized by the master node, distal timing (e.g., the second sensor measurement at a different location, transit time (propagation delay, p. 15, ll. 16-23 and synchronization peak, p. 16, ll. 12-21) and acoustic localization of sensors (p. 13, ll. 30-33), using sensors including cardiac rhythm, heart rate, pulse and blood pressure (p. 45, ll. 30-31));
(Claims 5, 28 and 29 – Partial) wherein the second sensor (e.g., gateway node) obtains the first measurements (e.g., from slave/master nodes) (e.g., implantable slave/master nodes) (p. 12, ll. 19-21 “…nodes can communicate through ultrasound with one or more gateway nodes, each comprising an ultrasonic device…”), and perform RF data communication with the host device (e.g., access point node) to transmit the first measurements and the second measurements (The citations above in Claims 1, 21, 27 and 30 have established that the first sensor (e.g., implantable slave/master nodes), the second sensor (e.g., gateway node), and the host device (e.g., access point node) communicate with one another using both ultrasound and RF communication – this transferred data is the sensor data collected from each node, see p. 48, ll. 20-23 and p. 50, ll. 4-6);
(Claim 6) wherein the host device comprises a mobile user device (Apple iPhone smart phone, p. 32, ll. 11),
(Claim 8) wherein the first sensor, the second sensor, or a combination thereof interface with a skin of the user via direct contact (p. 49, ll. 2-3 “…node[s] can be packaged such to offer a slim form factor that can be attached to stick-on skin patches.);
(Claims 10) wherein the acoustic communication comprises ultrasound communication; the first sensor comprises an ultrasound transmitter; and the second sensor comprises an ultrasound receiver receiving ultrasound signals (p. 12, ll. 19-23 “…nodes can communication through ultrasound… each comprising an ultrasonic device, deployed along the body of the patient.”);
(Claim 11) wherein the first sensor performs the acoustic communication with the second sensor via the ultrasound transmitter (p. 12, ll. 19-23 “…nodes can communication through ultrasound… each comprising an ultrasonic device, deployed along the body of the patient.” which implies all sensors have both a ultrasonic device and receiver, since they all communication with one another via ultrasound), and the second sensor performs the RF data communication with the host device (The citations above in Claims 1, 21, 27 and 30 have established that the first sensor (e.g., implantable slave/master nodes), the second sensor (e.g., gateway node), and the host device (e.g., access point node) communicate with one another using both ultrasound and RF communication – this transferred data is the sensor data collected from each node, see p. 48, ll. 20-23 and p. 50, ll. 4-6), at least a portion of the RF data communication with the host device comprising a transmission of one or more timestamps to the host device (p. 19, ll. 16-19 “Fine synchronization is achieved by correlating the received signal with a local copy of the preamble, i.e., a sequence that precedes each packet, which outputs a peak corresponding to the first sample of the packet.”);
(Claims 12 and 26) further comprising a third sensor (implantable slave and/or master nodes, page 21, lines 8-16, meaning multiple nodes are disclosed) disposed at a third location of the user (p. 12, ll. 19-21 “… nodes… deployed along the body of the patient.”) obtaining third measurements associated with the user at the third location (p. 12, ll. 18-10 “Each node comprises… one or more sensors…”) (pg. 12, ll. 9-12 “…measuring, storing, and delivering out-the-body vital biological parameters of the patient as measured by a variety of implantable sensors…”) wherein the ultrasound signals comprise broadband signals modulated using orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) (p. 14, ll. 22-24 “For example, two signaling schemes (GMSK and orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM), discussed further below) can be suitably used because of their high spectral efficiency and resilience to multipath.”);
(Claim 13) wherein the second sensor or the host device determines the physiological parameter associated with the user based on the first measurements, the second measurements, and the third measurements (The citations above in Claims 1, 21, 27 and 30, in view of the understanding that there may be multiple nodes, has established that the first sensor and a third sensor (e.g., implantable slave/master nodes), alongside the second sensor (e.g., gateway node), and the host device (e.g., access point node), all communicate with one another using both ultrasound and RF communication – this transferred data is the sensor data collected from each node, see p. 48, ll. 20-23 and p. 50, ll. 4-6);
(Claims 14 and 23) wherein the first sensor and the second sensor each perform the RF data communication with the host device via a Bluetooth protocol (p. 50, ll. 4-5 “The RF chip can implement wireless short range or local area network communication standards, such as Bluetooth…”), at least a portion of the RF data communication comprising a temporal synchronization of a clock of the first sensor and a clock of the second sensor (p. 19, ll. 13-19, also see PN-sequence mode and Chirp-based modes that follow);
(Claim 15) further comprising a control system (e.g., microcontroller), wherein the control system determines the physiological parameter of the user (p. 2, ll. 30-33 “the core unit of one or both of the implantable node and the gateway node comprises a microcontroller unit and a field programmable gate array (FPGA) operative to execute communication, processing and networking tasks.”);
(Claim 16) wherein the control system resides in the second sensor or the host device (p. 2, ll. 30-33 “…the core unit of one or both of the implantable node and the gateway node comprises a microcontroller unit and a field programmable gate array (FPGA) operative to execute communication, processing and networking tasks.”);
(Claim 17 – Partial) further comprising a data interface communicating with a control system (e.g., microcontroller), the control system determining the physiological parameter of the user based on the first measurements, the second measurements (p. 2, ll. 30-33 “the core unit of one or both of the implantable node and the gateway node comprises a microcontroller unit and a field programmable gate array (FPGA) operative to execute communication, processing and networking tasks.”);
(Claim 18 – Partial) further comprising a third sensor (implantable slave and/or master nodes, page 21, lines 8-16, meaning multiple nodes are disclosed) disposed at a third location of the user (p. 12, ll. 19-21 “… nodes… deployed along the body of the patient.”) obtaining third measurements associated with the user at the third location (p. 12, ll. 18-10 “Each node comprises… one or more sensors…”) (pg. 12, ll. 9-12 “…measuring, storing, and delivering out-the-body vital biological parameters of the patient as measured by a variety of implantable sensors…”), the third sensor comprising an ultrasound transmitter (p. 12, ll. 19-23 “…nodes can communication through ultrasound… each comprising an ultrasonic device, deployed along the body of the patient.”); wherein the second sensor performs acoustic communication with the third sensor (p. 12, ll. 19-23 “…nodes can communication through ultrasound… each comprising an ultrasonic device, deployed along the body of the patient.” which implies all sensors have both a ultrasonic device and receiver, since they all communication with one another via ultrasound);
(Claim 19) wherein the second sensor further comprises an ultrasound receiver receiving ultrasound signals (p. 12, ll. 19-23 “…nodes can communication through ultrasound… each comprising an ultrasonic device, deployed along the body of the patient.”), the third sensor performs the acoustic communication with the second sensor via an ultrasound transmitter (p. 12, ll. 19-23 “…nodes can communication through ultrasound… each comprising an ultrasonic device, deployed along the body of the patient.” which implies all sensors have both a ultrasonic device and receiver, since they all communication with one another via ultrasound), and the second sensor performs the RF data communication with the host device (The citations above in Claims 1, 21, 27 and 30 have established that the first sensor (e.g., implantable slave/master nodes), the second sensor (e.g., gateway node), and the host device (e.g., access point node) communicate with one another using both ultrasound and RF communication – this transferred data is the sensor data collected from each node, see p. 48, ll. 20-23 and p. 50, ll. 4-6), at least a portion of the RF data communication with the host device comprising a transmission of one or more timestamps to the host device (p. 19, ll. 16-19 “Fine synchronization is achieved by correlating the received signal with a local copy of the preamble, i.e., a sequence that precedes each packet, which outputs a peak corresponding to the first sample of the packet.”),
(Claim 20) wherein the first sensor, the second sensor, and the third sensor perform the RF data communication with the host device via a Bluetooth protocol (p. 50, ll. 4-5 “The RF chip can implement wireless short range or local area network communication standards, such as Bluetooth…”), at least a portion of the RF data communication comprising a temporal synchronization of a clock of the first sensor, a clock of the second sensor, and a clock of the third sensor (p. 19, ll. 13-19, also see PN-sequence mode and Chirp-based modes that follow),
(Claim 24 – Partial) wherein the acoustic communication comprises transmitting an ultrasound signal between the first sensor and the second sensor (p. 12, ll. 19-21 “…nodes can communicate through ultrasound with one or more gateway nodes, each comprising an ultrasonic device…”) and the transmitting of the ultrasound signal between the first sensor and the second sensor occurs through tissue of the user (p. 49, ll. 12-16 “…node(s) can embed two arrays of miniaturized ultrasonic transducers that offer high integration, as well as focusing and beamforming capabilities that enhance the ultrasonic propagation in body tissues … coupled with the external medium to support communication in… body tissues…”).
Melodia discloses determining the location and the ability to track node location using ultrasonic transducers via acoustic localization and tracking functionalities (p. 13, ll. 30-33), and further discloses:
but does not expressly disclose:
(Claim 1 – Partial) where these acoustic localization and tracking functionalities are used to determine distance between the first location and the second location,
(Claims 5, 28 and 29 – Partial) wherein the second sensor further performs RF data communication with the host device to transmit the distance between the first location and the second location to the host device,
(Claim 17 – Partial) wherein the control system determines the physiological parameter of the user based the distance,
(Claim 18 – Partial) at least a portion of the acoustic communication with the third sensor determines, by the second sensor, of a distance between the second location and the third location; and the determination of the physiological parameter associated with the user is further based on the third measurements associated with the user at the third location and the distance between the second location and the third location, and
(Claim 24 – Partial) determining a distance between the first location and the second location based at least on the ultrasound signal.
However, Bhagat teaches multiple ultrasonic sensors and transducers placed on tissue (p. 7 “In this approach, two ultrasonic transducers (resonant at 2.25 MHz) are placed across the limb segment under study. One of the transducers is shock excited which causes it to vibrate at its natural frequency. This ultrasonic vibration is transmitted through the limb and is converted into an electrical signal by initiation the of receiving transducer. The time the shock pulse and its reception period by the between receiving transducer can, therefore, be accurately measured. With the knowledge of acoustic velocity in the lower limb, the segment dimension is easily obtained.”) and
determining transit time between the sensors and transducers to calculate a distance (e.g. chord lengths) measurement between sensors and transducers (p. 6 “Ultrasonic plethysmography is based on measurement of transit time required for an ultrasonic pulse to propagate from one given point to another. If the velocity of the propagating sound wave in the medium under study is known, then measurement of transit time leads to computation of the pulse traversed distance, d: d = c.t (1) where c = velocity of sound in the medium Cm/sec) t = measured transit time (sec)”)
by using a known acoustic velocity of tissue (p. 6 “The average velocity of sound in soft tissues (excluding fat tissue) is 1560 + 20 m/sec at 2.25 MHz (Bhagat et al (12), Kadaba (13)). The temperature dependence of sound velocity in the range of 20-40 degrees C shows a variation of less than 2m/sec/degree C. Since the temperature within the living tissue is maintained constant by the body within very narrow limits, temperature related errors can be safely ignored.”),
where multiple sensors and transducers and multiple time of flights can be determine to calculate the distance between multiple sensors and transducers (e.g., 3 or more sensors and/or transducers) (p. 31 “The independent chord lengths are measured ultrasonically through placement of ultrasonic transducers around the circumference of the limb … Two of these transducers, kept a fixed distance apart and located on one side of the limb act as transmitters of ultrasonic energy. This energy is received by the third transducer which is located on the opposite side of the limb. Thus, two independent transit time measurements can be made at any given site on the with the knowledge of ultrasonic propagation velocity, the chord lengths can be computed as described earlier in this report.”).
One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the ultrasonic transducers and the tracking functionalities of Melodia to also employ the use of ultrasonic transit time through tissue between multiple sensors to determine distance between the multiple sensors of Bhagat as Bhagat teaches in the Abstract that this would have been safe, simple to operate and would have caused negligible radio frequency interference.
This combination teaches the remaining portions of entirety of Claims 1, 21, 24, 27 and 30.
(Claims 5, 18, 28 and 29) Since it has been previously established above in Claims 1, 21, 27 and 30 that the first sensor (e.g., implantable slave/master nodes), the second sensor (e.g., gateway node), and the host device (e.g., access point node) of Melodia communicate with one another using both ultrasound and RF communication, and Melodia further establishes there can be a multitude of sensors (e.g., more than 3 sensors and respective locations) the transferred RF data would have obviously also included the distance between first, second, and third locations to the host device as taught by Jahren and also (Claim 17) would have been processed by the control system (e.g., microcontroller) to determine the physiological parameter of the user also based the distance of the sensors at first, second and third locations, especially considering Jahren teaches that physiological sensors alone would not be enough to determine distance between multiple sensors, and including the ultrasonic determined distances would have improved distance measurements between multiple sensors.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melodia in view of Bhagat, and further in view of “Photoacoustic tomography and sensing in biomedicine” to Li et al. (hereinafter, Li).
Melodia in view of Bhagat do not expressly disclose where the sensors are photoacoustic sensors, however, Li teaches in the Abstract that photoacoustic sensors can specifically used in biomedical applications because they provide a higher signal-to-noise ratio and permit direct detection of the distance through time resolve signals (see 2.1 Generation of PA signals), making such combination obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Such modification would have been simple substitution of one type of acoustic sensor for another.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN PATRICK DOUGHERTY whose telephone number is (571)270-5044. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm (Pacific Time).
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571)272-5596. 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.
/SEAN P DOUGHERTY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791