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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1: claims 1, 6 and 11, recites a series of steps or acts, and a device for obtaining respiratory signal. Thus, the claims are directed to a process and a product. which are ones of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: The claim(s) recite(s) specific limitations/method steps of: obtaining aliasing vital signs signals of a target human body; filtering the aliasing vital signs signals to obtain target vital signs signals including the respiratory signal; performing a Fourier transform on the target vital signs signals to obtain first frequency response in preset frequency range; and generating an upper envelope according to each frequency point of the first frequency response and a preset value range; determining main peak frequency point, and determining the amplitude corresponding to the main peak frequency point as main peak amplitude; in the upper envelope, identifying the flat top corresponding to the main peak amplitude as main peak flat top; in the first frequency response, determining minimum value frequency point according to the minimum value between the main peak flat top and an adjacent flat top or flat bottom.
These limitations recite a mathematical concept, because the claimed limitation describes a concept performed using Fourier transform as mathematical formula to determine respiratory signal Thus, the claims are drawn to mathematical concept which is an Abstract Idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) recite the combination of additional elements/method steps of: determining respiratory spectrum principal component interval according to the minimum value frequency point; the number of the minimum value frequency points is 1-2; when there is only one minimum value frequency point, the starting frequency point of the corresponding respiratory spectrum principal component interval is 0, and the ending frequency point is the only one minimum value frequency point; when there are two minimum value frequency points, the corresponding respiratory spectrum principal component interval is the range between the two minimum value frequency points; reconstructing the respiratory spectrum principal component interval through an empirical wavelet function to obtain reconstructed respiratory signal. Accordingly, these additional element/step does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim limitations fail to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception.
STEP 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional structural elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements, such as, piezoelectric sensor and processor, but do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these structural elements are generically claimed to enable the collection of data by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing and calculating, and providing/displaying data, and (ii) automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized these functions to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner. Merely adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activities’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (In re TLI Communications LLC). As such, the recitation of these additional limitations in claims 2-5, 7-10 and 12-15 does not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and represent insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as a sensor and use of a processor does not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)). Thus, the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more than the Abstract Idea.
When viewed alone or in combination, the limitations of claims 1-15 merely instruct the practitioner to implement the concept of collecting data with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. The inventive concept cannot be furnished by the abstract idea; instead, the application must provide something inventive, beyond mere “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” (Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial L.L.C.). The additional elements of independent claims when viewed alone or as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In other words, this claim merely applies an abstract idea to a computer and does not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “minimum value” in line 3 should be amended to read –the minimum value--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the minimum value between” in line 4 should be amended to read –the minimum value frequency point between--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “respiratory spectrum” in line 5 should be amended to read –the respiratory spectrum--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 13 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “if” should be amended to read –when--, because the term “if” is a conditional term that may or may not occur. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a Fourier transform” in line 8 should be amended to read –the Fourier transform--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase ‘an upper envelope” in lines 9-10 should be amended to read –the upper envelope--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a preset value range” in lines 10-11 should be amended to read –the preset value range--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “reconstructed respiratory signal in line 6 should be amended to read –the reconstructed respiratory signal--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a first minimum value” in line 8 should be amended to read –the first minimum value--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a second minimum value” in line 8 should be amended to read –the second minimum value--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “preset amplitude” in line 10 should be amended to read –the preset amplitude--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “preset amplitude” in line 18 should be amended to read –the preset amplitude--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase ‘an upper envelope” in line 11 should be amended to read –the upper envelope--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a preset value range” in line 12 should be amended to read –the preset value range--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “reconstructed respiratory signal in line 7 should be amended to read –the reconstructed respiratory signal--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “respiratory signal” in line 1 should be amended to read –the respiratory signal--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a processor” in line 2 should be amended to read –the processor--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “minimum value” in line 4 should be amended to read –the minimum value--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “an adjacent flat top” in lines 5-6 should be amended to read –the adjacent flat top--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “preset amplitude reduction” in line 15 should be amended to read –the preset amplitude reduction--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “preset amplitude reduction” in line 21 should be amended to read –the preset amplitude reduction--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a Fourier transform” in line 9 should be amended to read –the Fourier transform--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase ‘an upper envelope” in lines 10-11 should be amended to read –the upper envelope--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a preset value range” in lines 11-12 should be amended to read –the preset value range--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “reconstructed respiratory signal in line 7 should be amended to read –the reconstructed respiratory signal--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a first minimum value” in line 9 should be amended to read –the first minimum value--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a second minimum value” in line 9 should be amended to read –the second minimum value--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 6 recite limitations “filter processing module”, “upper envelope generates module”, “main peak acquisition module”, “respiratory spectrum principal component interval acquisition module”, and “respiratory signal reconstruction module”, claim 7 recite limitations “minimum interval acquisition sub-module”, “value range acquisition sub-module”, “amplitude of upper envelope acquisition sub-module”, and “upper envelope generation sub-module”, and claim 8 recite limitations “sub peak frequency point acquisition sub-module”, “second frequency response acquisition sub-module”, “second frequency response statistics sub-module”, and “main peak update sub-module”, and claim 9 recite limitations “time domain segmentation sub-module” and “upper envelope generates module”, the claims and the specification does not recite/disclose enough structure that corresponds to the claimed modules.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention, claim 6 recite limitations “filter processing module”, “upper envelope generates module”, “main peak acquisition module”, “respiratory spectrum principal component interval acquisition module”, and “respiratory signal reconstruction module”, claim 7 recite limitations “minimum interval acquisition sub-module”, “value range acquisition sub-module”, “amplitude of upper envelope acquisition sub-module”, and “upper envelope generation sub-module”, and claim 8 recite limitations “sub peak frequency point acquisition sub-module”, “second frequency response acquisition sub-module”, “second frequency response statistics sub-module”, and “main peak update sub-module”, and claim 9 recite limitations “time domain segmentation sub-module” and “upper envelope generates module” the specification fails to disclose whether the claimed "modules" constitutes software, hardware or a combination of software and hardware.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-15 are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 6 recite limitations “filter processing module”, “upper envelope generates module”, “main peak acquisition module”, “respiratory spectrum principal component interval acquisition module”, and “respiratory signal reconstruction module”, claim 7 recite limitations “minimum interval acquisition sub-module”, “value range acquisition sub-module”, “amplitude of upper envelope acquisition sub-module”, and “upper envelope generation sub-module”, and claim 8 recite limitations “sub peak frequency point acquisition sub-module”, “second frequency response acquisition sub-module”, “second frequency response statistics sub-module”, and “main peak update sub-module”, and claim 9 recite limitations “time domain segmentation sub-module” and “upper envelope generates module” these limitations are not defined by the claims which renders the claims indefinite. One with ordinary skill in the art would not be able to know what structural elements these limitations must or must not include. The scope of the claims remains indeterminate because of the claimed limitations above.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the amplitude" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the amplitude" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the adjacent non-flat" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the amplitude" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the amplitude" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the maximum value" in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the amplitude" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the minimum value" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the number" in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the starting frequency" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the corresponding" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the ending frequency" in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the range" in line 28. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the two minimum" in line 28. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the value range" in 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the spectral resolution" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the minimum interval" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the second maximum" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the amplitude" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the duration" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the statistical number" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the sub frequency" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the half" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the original” in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the time domain" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the new target" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the output" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the target human body" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the amplitude" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the amplitude" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the adjacent non-flat" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the amplitude of the frequency point" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the amplitude" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the adjacent" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the maximum value" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the amplitude" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the minimum value" in lines 23-24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the value range" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the spectral resolution" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the minimum interval" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the maximum amplitude" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the second maximum" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the amplitude" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the duration" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the duration" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the statistical number" in line 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the sub frequency" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the original main peak" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the half" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the time domain" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the new target vital signs" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the output" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the amplitude-frequency" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the second maximum" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the amplitude" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the duration" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the duration" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the statistical number" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the sub frequency" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the half" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the original main peak" in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the time domain" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the new target vital signs" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the output" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 101 rejection set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the combination of the most pertinent prior art Droitcour et al (US 2010/0152600) and Chazal et al (US 2003/0055348) teaches a method for obtaining respiratory signal, comprises: obtaining aliasing vital signs signals of a target human body through a piezoelectric sensor; the aliasing vital signs signals include a respiratory signal and other noise signals; based on the aliasing vital signs signals obtained by the piezoelectric sensor, performing the following steps through a processor: filtering the aliasing vital signs signals to obtain target vital signs signals including the respiratory signal.
The prior art does not teach, disclose and/or fairly suggest performing a Fourier transform on the target vital signs signals to obtain first frequency response in preset frequency range; and generating an upper envelope according to each frequency point of the first frequency response and a preset value range; the upper envelope includes a plurality of flat tops and flat bottoms, wherein the amplitude of the frequency point of the flat top is greater than the amplitude of the adjacent non-flat top frequency point, and the amplitude of the frequency point of the flat bottom is less than the amplitude of the adjacent non-flat bottom frequency point; in the first frequency response, obtaining the frequency point corresponding to the maximum value of the flat tops; determining it as main peak frequency point, and determining the amplitude corresponding to the main peak frequency point as main peak amplitude; in the upper envelope, identifying the flat top corresponding to the main peak amplitude as main peak flat top; in the first frequency response, determining minimum value frequency point according to the minimum value between the main peak flat top and an adjacent flat top or flat bottom, and determining respiratory spectrum principal component interval according to the minimum value frequency point; the number of the minimum value frequency points is 1-2; when there is only one minimum value frequency point, the starting frequency point of the corresponding respiratory spectrum principal component interval is 0, and the ending frequency point is the only one minimum value frequency point; when there are two minimum value frequency points, the corresponding respiratory spectrum principal component interval is the range between the two minimum value frequency points; reconstructing the respiratory spectrum principal component interval through an empirical wavelet function to obtain reconstructed respiratory signal.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAY A ABOUELELA whose telephone number is (571)270-7917. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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 5712725596. 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.
/MAY A ABOUELELA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791