DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 44-63 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Volpe et al. (US 2008/0312709) in view of Chen et al. (US 2010/0041975).
Regarding amended independent claims 44 and 56, Volpe et al. teaches a wearable cardiac monitoring and treatment device including ECG sensing electrode, therapy electrodes, signal acquisition and monitoring circuitry and a processor configured to determine electrode fall-off and/or ECG signal contamination, determine whether an arrhythmia condition is present, and initiate therapy in response thereto ([0028], [0033]-[0036]).
Volpe et al. does not expressly teach selecting first and second monitored electrode pairings from a plurality of available electrode pairing following a determination of electrode fall-off and/or signal contamination.
Chen et al. teaches automatically evaluating multiple electrode configurations, assessing ECG signal quality and selecting suitable electrodes for ECG acquisition based on electrode contact and signal quality ([0044]-[0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Chen’s automatic electrode-selection techniques into Volpe’s monitoring system to select alternative electrode pairings when electrode fall-off and/or ECG signal contamination is identified, thereby improving acquisition of usable ECG signals and increasing reliability of subsequent arrhythmia detection. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claims 45-55 and 57-63 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as their respective base claims and as further evidenced by the references applied in the prior Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the following points in which the examiner provides a reason(s) as to why the arguments are not persuasive:
The rejection does not rely on Chen alone to teach determining electrode fall-off, ECG contamination, arrhythmia determination or therapy initiation. Rather, Volpe et al. teaches determining electrode fall-off events and ECG signal contamination/interference and utilizing ECG data to determine whether therapy is appropriate, [0033]-[0036], while Chen et al. teaches automatically evaluating multiple electrode configurations and selecting suitable electrodes based on electrode contact and ECG acquisition, [0044]-[0048].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Chen’s electrode-selection techniques could be incorporated into Volpe’s monitoring system to select alternative electrode pairings when Volpe identifies electrode fall-off and/or contaminated ECG signals, thereby improving acquisition of usable ECG signals. Applicant’s arguments attack Chen individually rather than the combined teachings of the references and therefore are not persuasive.
No separate arguments have been presented for dependent claims 45-55 and 57-63. Accordingly, these claims stand or fall with their respective independent claims.
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 NICOLE F JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm 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, David Hamaoui can be reached at 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.
/NICOLE F JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights