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. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that one electrode is held at a predetermined electrical potential while the other electrode picks up the heart’s electrical signal relative to that reference, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this instance the claim requires exactly two electrodes, and an ECG electronics module electrically connected to the first ECG electrode and the second ECG electrode, and configured to impose a potential on one of the two ECG electrodes and to measure a potential of the other of the two ECG electrodes in order to perform an electrocardiogram. T he electronics module at this point in claim 1 does not apply a particular potential as noted by the Applicant in the remarks on page 8 when referencing the dependent claims. The electrical connection of an electronic module to an electrode is what makes the module configured to impose a potential on the electrode. The examiner also notes that the claim uses the transitional phrase “comprising”, w hich is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps . Therefore using both electrodes and feeding them into an instrumentation amplifier is not precluded by the claim language. The examiner notes that claim 1 as currently written does not require the ECG electronics module to drive one electrode at a set voltage while measuring the other. Regarding claim 5, the Applicant argues the proposed modification changes the principle of operation of the primary reference by replacing the differential sensor with Jung’s which requires varying biosignals with a constant potential node. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the principle of operation is obtaining and display an ECG image associated with the wearer’s heart (abstract of Rasmussen) using two contact points. Rasmussen discloses in Paragraph [0060] the processing element may include an instrumentation amplifier and provides an example with an instrumentation amplifier. Applicant opines that modifying Rasmussen with Jung would likely prevent the system fr o m detecting any heart activity at all because the differential signal Rasmussen relies on would no longer exist. The examiner respectfully disagrees as Jones device uses two electrodes to obtain ECG measurements (e.g. Paragraph [0056]). Therefore the modification with the imposed potential is a constant potential by Jones would result in the modified device being able to detect heart activity. Jones teaches in Paragraph [0174] that applying a constant DC potential which is used for detecting the contact. This identification is useful to providing a reference point which assists in reducing noise . For example, by being able to identifying when an electrode is not making good contact it enables the user to not use the signal which is likely altered by movement noise. This results in improved measurement signals using electrodes that are able to be verified as being in contact with the tissue of the patient. Therefore, the rationale is not purely conclusionary as argued by the Applicant. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1-4, 10-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Rasmussen et al (US Publication 2019/0059756). Referring to Claim 1, Rasmussen et al teaches a portable electronic device configured to be positioned on a user's wrist, the portable device enabling an electrocardiogram, ECG, to be performed (e.g. Figure 1, device 20 and Paragraph [0026]) said device comprising: a case back, configured to be at least partially in contact with the skin of the wrist (e.g., exactly two ECG electrodes (e.g. Figure 7 and Paragraph [0027]), the two ECG electrodes consisting of: a first ECG electrode, made of conductive material, at the case back and configured to be in contact with the skin of the wrist (e.g. Figures 2, 6A and 7, Element 54 and Paragraph [0049]), a second ECG electrode, made of conductive material (e.g. Figures 2and 6A, Element 46 and Paragraph [0047] discloses contact point 56), an ECG electronics module (e.g. Figure 2, ECG processing element 60), electrically connected to the first ECG electrode and the second ECG electrode, and configured to impose a potential on one of the two ECG electrodes and to measure a potential of the other of the two ECG electrodes, in order to perform an electrocardiogram (e.g. Paragraphs [0060] and [0061]). Referring to Claim 2, Rasmussen et al teaches the device of claim 1, further comprising an enclosure, a crystal and a bezel mounted on the enclosure and surrounding the crystal, wherein the bezel comprises a bezel body and the bezel body comprises the second ECG electrode (e.g. Figure 8, and Paragraphs [0037] and [0047]). Referring to Claim 3, Rasmussen et al teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the enclosure comprises a side wall, the side wall comprising an opening into which is inserted a crown which is rotatable (e.g. Figure 7 and Paragraphs [0057]-[0058]), the second ECG electrode being formed by the crown (e.g. Paragraph [0058]). Referring to Claim 4, Rasmussen et al teaches the device as claimed in claim 3, wherein the crown is rotatable and translatable ( e.g. Figure 7 and Paragraphs [0057]-[0058] ). Referring to Claim 10, Rasmussen et al teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the case back comprises an optical sensor, the first ECG electrode at least partially surrounding the optical sensor (e.g. Figure 7 and Paragraphs [0045]-[0046]). Referring to Claim 11, Rasmussen et al teaches the device according to claim 10, wherein the first ECG electrode surrounds the optical sensor to an angular extent greater than 180° (e.g. Figure 7 and Paragraphs [0045]-[0046]). Referring to Claim 12, Rasmussen et al teaches the device according to claim 10, wherein the first ECG electrode completely surrounds the optical sensor (e.g. Figure 7 and Paragraphs [0045]-[0046]). Referring to Claim 13, Rasmussen et al teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the first ECG electrode has an annular shape (e.g. Figure 7 and Paragraphs [0045]-[0046]). Referring to Claim 14, Rasmussen et al teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the first ECG electrode is in the form of a metal body (e.g. Paragraph [0049]). Referring to Claim 15, Rasmussen et al teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the first ECG electrode is in the form of a metal coating (e.g. Paragraph [0049]). Referring to Claim 16, Rasmussen et al teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the portable electronic device is a watch (e.g. Paragraphs [0005] and [0026]). Referring to Claim 18, Rasmussen et al teaches a method of taking an electrocardiogram, ECG, using a device according to claim 1, the method comprising contacting the first ECG electrode with a user's arm and contacting the second ECG electrode with the user's other arm (e.g. Paragraph [0047], [0049], and [0059]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim (s) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen et al (US Publication 2019/0059756) in view of Jung (US Publication 2021/0169420) . Referring to Claim 5, Ra smussen et al teaches the device according to claim 1, except wherein the imposed potential is a constant potential. Jung teaches that it is known to use the imposed potential is a constant potential as set forth in Paragraphs [0138-0141] to provide a reference point to assist in reduction of noise and improving measurement of biometric signals . It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Rasmussen et al , with the imposed potential is a constant potential as taught by Jung , since such a modification would provide the predictable results of a reference point to assist in reduction of noise and improving measurement of biometric signals . Referring to Claim 6, R asmussen et al teaches the device according to claim 1, except wherein the ECG electronics module is configured to impose the potential on the second ECG electrode. Jung teaches that it is known to use wherein the ECG electronics module is configured to impose the potential on the second ECG electrode as set forth in Paragraphs [0138-0141] to provide a reference point to assist in reduction of noise and improving measurement of biometric signals . It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Rasmussen et al , with wherein the ECG electronics module is configured to impose the potential on the second ECG electrode as taught by Jung , since such a modification would provide the predictable results of a reference point to assist in reduction of noise and improving measurement of biometric signals . Referring to Claim 7, Rasmussen et al teaches the device according to claim 1, except wherein the ECG electronics module comprises an analog front end adapted to receive a maximum voltage amplitude, the ECG module being configured to impose a constant potential at a value approximately equal to half the maximum voltage amplitude. Jung teaches that it is known to use wherein the ECG electronics module comprises an analog front end adapted to receive a maximum voltage amplitude, the ECG module being configured to impose a constant potential at a value approximately equal to half the maximum voltage amplitude as set forth in Paragraphs [0138-0141] to provide a reference point to assist in reduction of noise and improving measurement of biometric signals . It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Rasmussen et al , with wherein the ECG electronics module comprises an analog front end adapted to receive a maximum voltage amplitude, the ECG module being configured to impose a constant potential at a value approximately equal to half the maximum voltage amplitude as taught by Jung , since such a modification would provide the predictable results of a reference point to assist in reduction of noise and improving measurement of biometric signals . Referring to Claim 8, Rasmussen et al in view of Jung teaches the device according to claim 7, except wherein the ECG electronics module is configured to impose a potential at a value between 0.5V and 2V. Jung teaches that it is known to use wherein the ECG electronics module is configured to impose a potential at a value between 0.5V and 2V as set forth in Paragraphs [0138-0141] to provide a reference point to assist in reduction of noise and improving measurement of biometric signals . It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Rasmussen et al , with wherein the ECG electronics module is configured to impose a potential at a value between 0.5V and 2V as taught by Jung , since such a modification would provide the predictable results of a reference point to assist in reduction of noise and improving measurement of biometric signals . Referring to Claim 9, Ras mussen et al in view of Jung teaches the device according to claim 7, except wherein the ECG electronics module is configured to impose a potential at a value between 0.8V and 1.0V. Jung teaches that it is known to use wherein the ECG electronics module is configured to impose a potential at a value between 0.8V and 1.0V as set forth in Paragraphs [0138-0141] to provide a reference point to assist in reduction of noise and improving measurement of biometric signals . It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Rasmussen et al , with wherein the ECG electronics module is configured to impose a potential at a value between 0.8V and 1.0V as taught by Jung , since such a modification would provide the predictable results of a reference point to assist in reduction of noise and improving measurement of biometric signals . Claim (s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen et al (US Publication 2019/0059756) in view of Mankowski et al (US Publication 2015/0277384). Referring to Claim 17, Rasmussen et al teaches the device according to claim 16, except wherein the watch is a hybrid watch with mechanical hands. Mankowski et al teaches that it is known to use t he watch is a hybrid watch with mechanical hands as set forth in Figures 3 and 7, and Paragraphs [0037]-[0038] and [0045] to provide improving ease of use by allowing the hands to easily allow the user to identify the time while providing additional information . It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Rasmussen et al , with the watch is a hybrid watch with mechanical hands as taught by Mankowski et al , since such a modification would provide the predictable results of improving ease of use by allowing the hands to easily allow the user to identify the time while providing additional information . Claim (s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen et al (US Publication 2019/0059756) in view of Ryu et al (US Publication 2017/0075305). Referring to Claim 17, Rasmussen et al teaches the device according to claim 16, except wherein the watch is a hybrid watch with mechanical hands. Ryu et al teaches that it is known to use t he watch is a hybrid watch with mechanical hands as set forth in Figure 10D and Paragraphs [0184]-[0185] to provide improving ease of use by allowing the hands to easily allow the user to identify the time while providing additional information . It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system as taught by Rasmussen et al , with the watch is a hybrid watch with mechanical hands as taught by Ryu et al , since such a modification would provide the predictable results of improving ease of use by allowing the hands to easily allow the user to identify the time while providing additional information . Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT William J Levicky whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3983 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT David Hamaoui can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5625 . 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. /William J Levicky/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796