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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/11/26 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Specification Objection
The previous specification objection has been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Objections
The previous claim objections have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that claims that may involve a mathematical concept are not necessarily directed to the concept. Applicant further states that the focus of Claim 1 is on a specific, physical method: using motion data from a head-worn accessory to determine a physiological state. However, the Examiner disagrees. The claims recite mathematical concepts. The motion data from a head-worn accessory amounts to pre-solution activity to gather the data. The data is then used to perform the abstract idea. See the rejection below for further details.
Applicant asserts that the claims cannot practically be performed by a human. Applicant further states that that the claimed method operates on a stream of sample measurements from a motion sensor, which are inherently high-frequency and voluminous (and the measured data are not perceptible for a human being). The features of downsampling, applying a window function, and searching for peaks across this data stream cannot practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. However, the Examiner disagrees. The claims do not specify the timeframe the data is collected and the size of the data. Even if the claims recited this, MPEP 2106.05(f) states:
Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In addition, the breadth of the downsampling, applying the window function, and searching for peaks amounts to an abstract idea of mathematical calculations and a mental process. See the rejection below for further details.
Applicant asserts that the specific sequence of pre-processing steps converting timestamps, downsampling, applying a window function, choosing a windowed signal, and estimating its quality by searching for peaks is not a generic application of an abstract idea. Applicant adds that it is a specific, ordered process tailored to solve the technical problem of extracting a faint physiological signal from a noisy, unconventional data source (head motion). However, the Examiner disagrees. MPEP 2106.05 states:
As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty."). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.").
Applicant asserts that the claims are also directed to “significantly more” at least due to the technical improvements noted above and because the recited features are not “well-understood, routine, or conventional.” However, the Examiner disagrees. The measuring and recording step using a motion sensor on the head worn accessory amounts to pre-solution activity of data gathering. The processing unit is recited a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than parts of a generic computer. The remaining limitations are directed to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 5/11/26, with respect to claims 1-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claims 1-15 has been withdrawn. See the Examiner’s Note section below for further details.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: while claim 7, line 2 recites “the quality evaluating,” Applicant is encouraged to recite –the quality estimating—to correctly refer back to “estimating quality” in claim 4, line 20 which claim 7 depends on. 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:
processing unit in claims 1, 4, and 6.
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.
For “processing unit” in claims 1, 4, and 6, the specification discloses “the processing is advantageously performed in an embedded manner or on a remote host” (page 2). Therefore, the Examiner is interpreting the processing unit to be an embedded processor, a remote host, or 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 § 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 a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea.
Step 1
The claimed invention in claims 1-15 are directed to statutory subject matter as the claims recite a method and a system for determining cardiac or respiratory activity of a subject.
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claims 1 and 4, the recited steps are directed to mathematical concepts and a mental process of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsections (I) and (III)).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, the limitations of “converting timestamps of said sample measurements into chosen temporal units, downsampling a sampling frequency of said recorded sample measurements to obtain at least one downsampled signal, and applying at least one window function to the at least one downsampled signal to obtain at least one windowed signal” are mathematical calculations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division in order to determine cardiac or respiratory activity of a subject.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, the limitations of “choosing at least one selected windowed signal among the at least one windowed signal, and estimating quality of said at least one selected windowed signal by searching for peaks in said at least one selected windowed signal, said peaks being indicative of the cardiac or respiratory activity” are a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional selecting a windowed signal based on a print out of a windowed signal and predicting a quality through choosing peaks on the selected windowed signal, where the peaks are indicative of the cardiac or respiratory activity.
Step 2A, Prong Two
For claims 1 and 4, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1 and 4 recite “measuring and recording, over at least one period of time, sample measurements relating at least to a kinematic characteristic or a position of an accessory worn by the subject's head, said sample measurements forming noisy head-motion data/an accessory which is configured to be worn by the subject's head and which is provided with a measurement unit comprising at least one motion sensor and delivering at least one measuring signal reporting at least a position, a speed, a rotational speed, or an acceleration of the accessory, and processing unit.” The measuring and recording step using a motion sensor on the head worn accessory amounts to pre-solution activity of data gathering. The processing unit is recited a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than parts of a generic computer. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into
a practical application, the additional element of the measuring and recording step using a motion sensor on the head worn accessory amounts to nothing more than mere pre-solution activity of data gathering, which does not amount to an inventive concept. Moreover, the measuring and recording step using a motion sensor on the head worn accessory is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as evidenced by US 20070015611 (¶34-a conventional orientation and motion-sensing device 110 attached to the head of a user), US 20150265161 as cited in the IDS (¶5-a head-mounted sensor module includes at least three sensors: a tri-axial gyroscope, a tri-axial accelerometer, and a camera), and US 20160007935 (¶66-(d) “head accelerometer” means a 3-axis accelerometer (e.g., 202) in a head-mounted sensor module 201; (e) “head gyroscope” means a 3-axis gyroscope (e.g., 203) in a head-mounted sensor module 201). Further, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Regarding dependent claims 2-3 and 5-15, the limitations of claims 1 and 4 further define the limitations already indicated as being directed to the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 2, the accessory being provided with at least one motion sensor amounts to pre-solution activity of data gathering and is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as shown above.
Claim 3 is recited a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than parts of a generic computer.
Regarding claim 5, wherein the accessory is chosen from the following: an eyewear frame, an eyewear add-on, an eyewear clip, an eyewear holder strap cord, headphones, an earphone, or a jewel further amounts to pre-solution activity of data gathering. Additionally, it is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as evidenced by: US 20160148431 (¶9-in a conventional FPV device, the virtual reality pair of glasses is equipped with a gyroscope and an accelerometer so as to take into account the displacements of user's head), US 20100234741 (¶9-conventional drowsiness detection sensors are classified into an earring-type sensor and a glasses-type sensor configured such that an accelerometer is attached to an earring or glasses), and US 20160220105 (¶186-the central unit 3 is powerful and conventional, but the software is specific to the invention. The glasses used are the classic Google Glass 1, to which accelerometers and two cameras are attached).
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of “determining whether sample measurements from the measurement unit satisfy a triggering condition, in case the triggering condition is satisfied, increasing a sampling rate, a sampling duration and sensitivity of the measurement unit” are a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional analyzing print outs of sample measurements to determine if they satisfy a triggering condition, and increasing the sampling rate, a sampling duration and sensitivity if the condition is satisfied. The limitations of “triggering the recording of said at least one measuring signal, and wherein recording said at least one measuring signal is performed over a time slot included in the at least one period of time to obtain said sample measurements forming at least one recorded signal” amount to pre-solution activity of data gathering.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations of “wherein when peaks are found during the quality evaluating, said pre-processing phase further comprises reducing noise in the at least one selected windowed signal, to obtain at least one cleaned signal” are a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional analyzing print outs of data for peaks, and if peaks are found reducing noise in the at least one selected windowed signal, to obtain at least one cleaned signal.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of “applying a first bandpass filter, a Hilbert transform, an envelope analysis and either a chirp z-transform or a numerical Fourier transform to the at least one cleaned signal to obtain at least one first power spectral density function, identifying first spectral peaks in the at least one first power spectral density function, and evaluating heart rate of said subject from said first spectral peaks” are a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional using pen and paper to apply a first bandpass filter, a Hilbert transform, an envelope analysis and either a chirp z-transform or a numerical Fourier transform to the cleaned signal on paper to obtain at least one first power spectral density function, and further identifying first spectral peaks in the at least one first power spectral density function, and evaluating heart rate of said subject from said first spectral peaks.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of “wherein b) comprises after the pre-processing phase: applying a second bandpass filter and either a chirp z-transform or a digital Fourier transform to the at least one cleaned signal to obtain at least one second power spectral density function, identifying second spectral peaks in the at least one second power spectral density function, and evaluating respiratory rate of said subject from said second spectral peaks” are a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional using pen and paper to apply a second bandpass filter and either a chirp z-transform or a digital Fourier transform to the cleaned signal on paper to obtain at least one second power spectral density function, and further identifying second spectral peaks in the at least one second power spectral density function, and evaluating respiratory rate of said subject from said second spectral peaks.
Regarding claim 10, wherein the measurement unit comprises at least one accelerometer and at least one gyroscope to receive at least one first spectral density function amounts to pre-solution activity of data gathering. Additionally, it is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as evidenced by: US 10139631 (col. 5 and lines 6-8- conventional techniques of head tracking, including but not limited to external cameras, accelerometers, gyroscopes, magnetometers, and combinations thereof), US 20210183343 (¶26-a conventional head-mounted device may include gyroscopes and accelerometers), and US 20160148431 (¶9-in a conventional FPV device, the virtual reality pair of glasses is equipped with a gyroscope and an accelerometer so as to take into account the displacements of user's head).
Regarding claim 11, the limitations of “identifying first spectral peaks comprises identifying accelerometer spectral peaks in the first accelerometer power spectral density function and gyroscope spectral peaks in the first gyroscope power spectral density function, and evaluating said heart rate comprises comparing a first relative band power of one chosen accelerometer spectral peak with a second relative band power of one chosen gyroscope peak” are a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional using pen and paper to identify first spectral peaks comprises identifying accelerometer spectral peaks in the first accelerometer power spectral density function and gyroscope spectral peaks in the first gyroscope power spectral density function, evaluating said heart rate comprises comparing a first relative band power of one chosen accelerometer spectral peak with a second relative band power of one chosen gyroscope peak.
Regarding claim 12, wherein the measurement unit comprises at least one accelerometer and at least one gyroscope amounts to pre-solution activity of data gathering. Additionally, it is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as shown above in claim 10. The limitations of “after the pre-processing phase, implementing a principal component analysis on the temporal acceleration signals ax(t), ay(t) and az(t) and on the temporal angular rotational speed signals gx(t), gy(t) and gz(t), in order to evaluating heart rate of said subject and respiratory rate of said subject” are a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional using pen and paper to implement a principal component analysis on the temporal acceleration signals and temporal angular rotational speed signals in order to evaluate heart rate of said subject and respiratory rate of said subject.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations of “wherein b) further comprises: processing at least one first power spectral density signal to obtain at least one seismocardiographic signal, processing said at least one seismocardiographic signal to obtain at least one windowed aortic valve opening peak signal, extracting local minima and maxima of the at least one windowed aortic valve opening peak signal, and annotating said local minima and maxima with fiducial points” are a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional using pen and paper to process the at least one first power spectral density signal to obtain at least one windowed aortic valve opening peak signal, and further extracting local minima and maxima of the at least one windowed aortic valve opening peak signal, and annotating said local minima and maxima with fiducial points.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations of “identifying respiratory cycles using said respiratory rate, and processing said respiratory cycles to obtain an inhalation volume of said subject, an estimation of a lung volume of said subject, an estimation of a lung capacity of said subject, an estimation of an inhalation phase and an exhalation phase of said subject” are a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional using pen and paper to identify respiratory cycles using said respiratory rate on paper, and processing said respiratory cycles to obtain an inhalation volume of said subject, an estimation of a lung volume of said subject, an estimation of a lung capacity of said subject, an estimation of an inhalation phase and an exhalation phase of said subject.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations of “wherein b) comprises after the pre-processing phase: applying a first bandpass filter, a Hilbert transform, an envelope analysis and either a chirp z-transform or a numerical Fourier transform to the at least one cleaned signal to obtain at least one first power spectral density function, identifying first spectral peaks in the at least one first power spectral density function, and evaluating heart rate of said subject from said first spectral peaks, and wherein b) comprises after the pre-processing phase: applying a second bandpass filter and either a chirp z-transform or a digital Fourier transform to the at least one cleaned signal to obtain at least one second power spectral density function, identifying second spectral peaks in the at least one second power spectral density function, and evaluating respiratory rate of said subject from said second spectral peaks” are a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional using pen and paper to apply a first bandpass filter, a Hilbert transform, an envelope analysis and either a chirp z-transform or a numerical Fourier transform to the cleaned signal on paper to obtain at least one first power spectral density function, and further identifying first spectral peaks in the at least one first power spectral density function, and evaluating heart rate of said subject from said first spectral peaks. Further, the medical professional uses pen and paper to apply a second bandpass filter and either a chirp z-transform or a digital Fourier transform to the cleaned signal on paper to obtain at least one second power spectral density function, and further identifying second spectral peaks in the at least one second power spectral density function, and evaluating respiratory rate of said subject from said second spectral peaks.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-15 distinguish over the prior art but are still rejected under 35 USC § 101.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Applicant asserts that Hernandez does not teach converting into a “chosen temporal unit.” Applicant adds that Hernandez teaches an upsampling and not a downsampling as required by the claim. This was found to be persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the claimed invention searched for peaks in the time-domain signal, whereas Clifton searches for peaks in the frequency-domain after a transformation. However, the Examiner notes that the claims do not explicitly recite the time-domain and the frequency-domain, therefore this argument is moot.
The scope of measuring and recording, over at least one period of time, sample measurements relating at least to a kinematic characteristic or a position of an accessory worn by the subject's head, said sample measurements forming noisy head-motion data; downsampling a sampling frequency of said recorded sample measurements to obtain at least one downsampled signal, applying at least one window function to the at least one downsampled signal to obtain at least one windowed signal, choosing at least one selected windowed signal among the at least one windowed signal, and estimating quality of said at least one selected windowed signal by searching for peaks in said at least one selected windowed signal, said peaks being indicative of the cardiac or respiratory activity were not found in the prior art alone or in combination with one another to be obvious over the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record is Hernandez (NPL “Cardiac and Respiratory Parameter Estimation Using Head-mounted Motion-sensitive Sensors” published in 2015 as cited in the IDS); however it fails to recite downsampling a sampling frequency of said recorded sample measurements to obtain at least one downsampled signal, applying at least one window function to the at least one downsampled signal to obtain at least one windowed signal, choosing at least one selected windowed signal among the at least one windowed signal, and estimating quality of said at least one selected windowed signal by searching for peaks in said at least one selected windowed signal, said peaks being indicative of the cardiac or respiratory activity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2020037391, filed on 8/20/18, as cited in the IDS: relates to non-invasive measurement of cardiac and respiratory activity (CRA) and in particular to a method and apparatus for deriving biometric information from a higher-order vertebrate using multiple-axis seismocardiography and / or gyrocardiography (page 1, lines 7-10).
US 10765331, filed on 6/25/15: a wearable cardiovascular monitoring device is configured to automatically determine the signal quality of a pulse waveform signal. In one example, a classifier cascade is utilized to analyze data windows of progressively increasing size with progressively increasing scrutiny (col. 2 and lines 53-58).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA HODGE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7101. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, UNSU JUNG can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/LAURA HODGE/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights