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, see page 10, filed 04/30/2026, with respect to objections to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the claims have been obviated by amendments to the claims. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 04/30/2026, with respect to objections to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the specification have been obviated by amendments to the specification. The specification objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-13, filed 04/30/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-17, filed 04/30/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections hereinbelow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Criley, et al. (“Virtual tools for teaching electrocardiographic rhythm analysis”; 2005) in view of Krusor, et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2024/0134514).
Regarding claim 1, Criley teaches (Figs. 2-6) a computer-implemented method for reading intervals of an electrocardiogram signal (Page 116, Col. 1 (line 6) – Col. 2 (line 4) – developing a proprietary computer program, ECGViewer, to display and permit analysis of electronically scanned ECGs), comprising:
(Figs. 2-6) receiving, at a processor, an electrocardiogram signal obtained of a subject (Page 116, Col. 1 (line 6) – Col. 2 (line 4) – display and permit analysis of electronically scanned ECGs. The program has modest system requirements, including a 300-MHz processor);
(Fig. 2, Fig. 5) displaying, via the processor, the electrocardiogram signal over a grid on a display of a computing device (Page 116, Col. 1 (line 6) – Col. 2 (line 4); Page 118, Col. 1 (lines 12-16) – A standard grid is replaced on the ECGViewer display as shown in Fig. 2. In the magnified mode, the grid is moveable so that it may be used to measure duration, magnitude, and displacements of waveforms), wherein (Fig. 2, Fig. 3 – The field of width of the ECG display is 5 seconds) the grid comprises both vertical lines and horizontal lines that define a first plurality of squares and a second plurality of smaller squares within each square of the first plurality of squares, wherein both the first plurality of squares and the second plurality of smaller squares represent an interval of time in a horizontal direction, and both the first plurality of squares and the second plurality of squares represent a voltage or electrical potential level in a vertical direction (Page 117, Col. 1 (lines 16-21) – By moving the ECG tracing independent of the grid, measurements of duration and magnitude can be readily made by alignment of a bold (5mm) line at the onset of the signal to be measured);
(Fig. 3) independently moving, via the processor, either the electrocardiogram signal relative to the grid or the grid relative to the electrocardiogram signal to align the electrocardiogram signal with an outer edge of a respective square of the first plurality of squares in response to a user input provided via a user input device by a user (Page 116, Col. 2 (lines 14-21) – Manipulation of the virtual tools is performed with a mouse (i.e., user input); Page 117, Col. 1 (lines 16-21) – By moving the ECG tracing independent of the grid, measurements of duration and magnitude can be readily made by alignment of a bold (5mm) line at the onset of the signal to be measured; Page 118, Col. 1 (lines 12-16) – In the magnified mode, the grid is moveable so that it may be used to measure duration, magnitude, and displacements of the waveforms).
Criley does teach (Fig. 4) virtual calipers that are moved by click-and-drag, and spread by placement of the cursor over either strut while click-and-dragging laterally (Page 117, Col. 2 (lines 1-12)). However, Criley does not explicitly teach the limitations of instant claim 1, that is wherein the method comprises:
displaying, via the processor, march out markers over the grid on the display of the computing device, wherein the march out markers are replicates of a given duration interval with equidistant vertical line markers displayed across the electrocardiogram signal representing a plurality of given duration intervals; and
independently moving, via the processor, either the march out markers relative to the grid or the grid relative to the march out markers to align the march out markers with some of the vertical lines of the grid in response to additional user input provided via the user input device by the user prior to independently moving either the electrocardiogram signal relative to the grid or the grid relative to the electrocardiogram signal.
Krusor is directed to analogous art and teaches systems, devices, and methods that relate to utilizing an electronic caliper to analyze an electronic electrocardiogram (ECG) (Title, Abstract). Krusor also teaches the limitations of instant claim 1, that is wherein the method comprises:
(Figs. 8A-B, # 800 – display, 802 – ECG signal, 810 – electronic caliper) displaying, via the processor, march out markers over the grid on the display of the computing device, wherein the march out markers are replicates of a given duration interval with equidistant vertical line markers displayed across the electrocardiogram signal representing a plurality of given duration intervals (Par. [0100] – According to various examples, the user inputs a user input signal into an input device that causes the display 800 to “march,” duplicate, or repeat, the electronic caliper 810 along the ECG signal 802. For example, the display outputs duplicated electronic calipers overlying and/or intersecting with the ECG signal 802, wherein each of the duplicated calipers includes a pair of tips separated by the same interval 817 as the original electronic caliper 810. With the marching functionality activated, the duplicated calipers are output along the ECG signal 802 relative to the electronic caliper 810. The distances between tips of the duplicated calipers, such as 819a and 819b, correspond to the interval 817 of the original electronic caliper 810. In various examples, the tips of the duplicated calipers are output as vertical lines 818, or other user interface elements.); and
(Fig. 2, # 243 – grid; Fig. 7B, # 710; Figs. 8A-B, # 810) independently moving, via the processor, either the march out markers relative to the grid or the grid relative to the march out markers to align the march out markers with some of the vertical lines of the grid in response to additional user input provided via the user input device by the user prior to independently moving either the electrocardiogram signal relative to the grid or the grid relative to the electrocardiogram signal (Par. [0031] – In various cases, the electronic device outputs the electronic ECG with other elements that facilitate ECG analysis. In some examples, the electronic ECG is output with a grid. In some cases, the grid corresponds to one or more of the electronic tips of the electronic caliper, such that a gridline of the grid is aligned with one of the electronic tips of the electronic caliper.; Par. [0047]; Pars. [0097-0098]; Par. [0101] – With the marching functionality active, the electronic calipers 810 is adjustable. For instance, the first tip 812 and/or the second tip 814 are moved (e.g., by a user), and the lengths of the repeated intervals, such 819a and 819b, are automatically adjusted based on the newly defined interval 817.; Par. [0102]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Krusor’s feature of marching calipers as vertical lines (i.e., march out markers) into the calipers of Criley’s method, because doing so would be an example of using a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would have desired implementing Krusor’s feature because the duplicated calipers allow a user to visually identify whether features of the ECG signal (e.g., RR intervals) are occurring at regular intervals (Par. [0100] of Krusor).
Therefore, claim 1 is unpatentable over Criley, et al. and Krusor, et al.
Regarding claim 2, Criley, in view of Krusor, renders obvious the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Criley also teaches the limitation of instant claim 2, that is wherein the method is comprising independently moving, via the processor, the electrocardiogram signal relative to the grid to align the electrocardiogram signal with the outer edge in response to the user input (Page 117, Col. 1 (lines 16-21) – By moving the ECG tracing independent of the grid, measurements of duration and magnitude can be readily made by alignment of a bold (5mm) line at the onset of the signal to be measured).
Therefore, claim 2 is unpatentable over Criley, et al. and Krusor, et al.
Regarding claim 3, Criley, in view of Krusor, renders obvious the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Criley also teaches the limitation of instant claim 3, that is wherein the method is comprising independently moving, via the processor, the grid relative to the electrocardiogram signal to align the electrocardiogram signal with the outer edge in response to the user input (Page 118, Col. 1 (lines 12-16) – In the magnified mode, the grid is moveable so that it may be used to measure duration, magnitude, and displacements of the waveforms).
Therefore, claim 3 is unpatentable over Criley, et al. and Krusor, et al.
Regarding claim 4, Criley, in view of Krusor, renders obvious the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Criley also teaches the limitation of instant claim 4, that is wherein the method is comprising (Figs. 2-3) independent movement of either the electrocardiogram signal relative to the grid or the grid relative to the electrocardiogram signal is in the vertical direction and the outer edge comprises a respective horizontal line of the horizontal lines (Page 117, Col. 1 (lines 16-21) – The magnifying glass (Fig. 3) increases the image size 2-fold (i.e., vertical and horizontal direction) and allows the ECG to be moved relative to the grid. By moving the ECG tracing independent of the grid, measurements of duration and magnitude (i.e., movements of the ecg signal in vertical direction for magnitude measurements) can be readily made by alignment of a bold (5mm) line at the onset of the signal to be measured).
Therefore, claim 4 is unpatentable over Criley, et al. and Krusor, et al.
Regarding claim 5, Criley, in view of Krusor, render obvious the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Criley also teaches the limitation of instant claim 5, that is wherein the method is comprising (Figs. 2-3) independent movement of either the electrocardiogram signal relative to the grid or the grid relative to the electrocardiogram signal is in the horizontal direction and the outer edge comprises a respective vertical line of the vertical lines (Page 117, Col. 1 (lines 16-21) – The magnifying glass (Fig. 3) increases the image size 2-fold (i.e., vertical and horizontal direction) and allows the ECG to be moved relative to the grid. By moving the ECG tracing independent of the grid, measurements of duration (i.e., movements of the ecg signal in horizontal direction for duration measurements) and magnitude can be readily made by alignment of a bold (5mm) line at the onset of the signal to be measured).
Therefore, claim 5 is unpatentable over Criley, et al. and Krusor, et al.
Regarding claim 7, Criley, in view of Krusor, renders obvious the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Criley does not explicitly teach the limitation of instant claim 7, that is wherein the display is on a smartphone.
Krusor is directed to analogous art and teaches systems, devices, and methods that relate to utilizing an electronic caliper to analyze an electronic electrocardiogram (ECG) (Title, Abstract). Krusor also teaches the limitations of instant claim 7, that is wherein the display is on a smartphone (Par. [0049]; Par. [0051] – In some cases, the mobile device 136 includes a cellphone (e.g., a smartphone); Par. [0056] – the electronic caliper 120 output by the medical device 104 facilitates analysis of the ECG 118 by the user 106. The electronic caliper 120 is suitable for analyzing the ECG 118 displayed on the screen of an electronic device, such as the mobile device 136).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the smartphone display for analyzing ECG signals, as disclosed by Krusor, into Criley’s disclosure, because doing so would be an example of using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would desire the option to display and analyze ECG signals with a smartphone in order to be able to achieve the same functionality with a portable mobile device, which would be more convenient and efficient than being limited to only a desktop computer. Allowing for smartphone applicability leads to more variety and ability to view and analyze ECG signals.
Therefore, claim 7 is unpatentable over Criley, et al. and Krusor, et al.
Regarding claim 8, Criley, in view of Krusor, renders obvious the computer-implemented method of claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Criley also teaches the limitation of instant claim 8, that is wherein the display is on a laptop computer, a tablet, or a monitor coupled to a desktop computer (Page 116, Col. 1 (line 6) – Col. 2 (line 4) – it is designed to match most computer displays connected to the Internet).
Therefore, claim 8 is unpatentable over Criley, et al. and Krusor, et al.
Regarding claim 9, Criley teaches (Figs. 2-6) a system for reading intervals of an electrocardiogram signal (Page 116, Col. 1 (line 6) – Col. 2 (line 4) – developing a proprietary computer program, ECGViewer, to display and permit analysis of electronically scanned ECGs), comprising:
a memory encoding processor-executable routines (Page 116, Col. 1 (line 6) – Col. 2 (line 4) – 64-MB memory); and
(Figs. 2-6) a processor configured to access the memory and to execute the processor-executable routines (Page 116, Col. 1 (line 6) – Col. 2 (line 4) – display and permit analysis of electronically scanned ECGs. The program has modest system requirements, including a 300-MHz processor), wherein the processor-executable routines, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
(Figs. 2-6) receive an electrocardiogram signal obtained of a subject (Page 116, Col. 1 (line 6) – Col. 2 (line 4) – display and permit analysis of electronically scanned ECGs. The program has modest system requirements, including a 300-MHz processor);
(Fig. 2, Fig. 5) display the electrocardiogram signal over a grid on a display of a computing device (Page 116, Col. 1 (line 6) – Col. 2 (line 4); Page 118, Col. 1 (lines 12-16) – A standard grid is replaced on the ECGViewer display as shown in Fig. 2. In the magnified mode, the grid is moveable so that it may be used to measure duration, magnitude, and displacements of waveforms), wherein (Fig. 2, Fig. 3 – The field of width of the ECG display is 5 seconds) the grid comprises both vertical lines and horizontal lines that define a first plurality of squares and a second plurality of smaller squares within each square of the first plurality of squares, wherein both the first plurality of squares and the second plurality of smaller squares represent an interval of time in a horizontal direction, and both the first plurality of squares and the second plurality of squares represent a voltage or electrical potential level in a vertical direction (Page 117, Col. 1 (lines 16-21) – By moving the ECG tracing independent of the grid, measurements of duration and magnitude can be readily made by alignment of a bold (5mm) line at the onset of the signal to be measured);
(Fig. 3) independently moving independently move either the electrocardiogram signal relative to the grid or the grid relative to the electrocardiogram signal to align the electrocardiogram signal with an outer edge of a respective square of the first plurality of squares in response to a user input provided via a user input device by a user (Page 116, Col. 2 (lines 14-21) – Manipulation of the virtual tools is performed with a mouse (i.e., user input); Page 117, Col. 1 (lines 16-21) – By moving the ECG tracing independent of the grid, measurements of duration and magnitude can be readily made by alignment of a bold (5mm) line at the onset of the signal to be measured; Page 118, Col. 1 (lines 12-16) – In the magnified mode, the grid is moveable so that it may be used to measure duration, magnitude, and displacements of the waveforms).
Criley does teach (Fig. 4) virtual calipers that are moved by click-and-drag, and spread by placement of the cursor over either strut while click-and-dragging laterally (Page 117, Col. 2 (lines 1-12)). However, Criley does not explicitly teach the limitations of instant claim 9, that is wherein the system comprises:
displaying march out markers over the grid on the display of the computing device, wherein the march out markers are replicates of a given duration interval with equidistant vertical line markers displayed across the electrocardiogram signal representing a plurality of given duration intervals; and
independently moving either the march out markers relative to the grid or the grid relative to the march out markers to align the march out markers with some of the vertical lines of the grid in response to additional user input provided via the user input device by the user prior to independently moving either the electrocardiogram signal relative to the grid or the grid relative to the electrocardiogram signal.
Krusor is directed to analogous art and teaches systems, devices, and methods that relate to utilizing an electronic caliper to analyze an electronic electrocardiogram (ECG) (Title, Abstract). Krusor also teaches the limitations of instant claim 9, that is wherein the system comprises:
(Figs. 8A-B, # 800 – display, 802 – ECG signal, 810 – electronic caliper) displaying march out markers over the grid on the display of the computing device, wherein the march out markers are replicates of a given duration interval with equidistant vertical line markers displayed across the electrocardiogram signal representing a plurality of given duration intervals (Par. [0100] – According to various examples, the user inputs a user input signal into an input device that causes the display 800 to “march,” duplicate, or repeat, the electronic caliper 810 along the ECG signal 802. For example, the display outputs duplicated electronic calipers overlying and/or intersecting with the ECG signal 802, wherein each of the duplicated calipers includes a pair of tips separated by the same interval 817 as the original electronic caliper 810. With the marching functionality activated, the duplicated calipers are output along the ECG signal 802 relative to the electronic caliper 810. The distances between tips of the duplicated calipers, such as 819a and 819b, correspond to the interval 817 of the original electronic caliper 810. In various examples, the tips of the duplicated calipers are output as vertical lines 818, or other user interface elements.); and
(Fig. 2, # 243 – grid; Fig. 7B, # 710; Figs. 8A-B, # 810) independently moving either the march out markers relative to the grid or the grid relative to the march out markers to align the march out markers with some of the vertical lines of the grid in response to additional user input provided via the user input device by the user prior to independently moving either the electrocardiogram signal relative to the grid or the grid relative to the electrocardiogram signal (Par. [0031] – In various cases, the electronic device outputs the electronic ECG with other elements that facilitate ECG analysis. In some examples, the electronic ECG is output with a grid. In some cases, the grid corresponds to one or more of the electronic tips of the electronic caliper, such that a gridline of the grid is aligned with one of the electronic tips of the electronic caliper.; Par. [0047]; Pars. [0097-0098]; Par. [0101] – With the marching functionality active, the electronic calipers 810 is adjustable. For instance, the first tip 812 and/or the second tip 814 are moved (e.g., by a user), and the lengths of the repeated intervals, such 819a and 819b, are automatically adjusted based on the newly defined interval 817.; Par. [0102]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Krusor’s feature of marching calipers as vertical lines (i.e., march out markers) into the calipers of Criley’s system, because doing so would be an example of using a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would have desired implementing Krusor’s feature because the duplicated calipers allow a user to visually identify whether features of the ECG signal (e.g., RR intervals) are occurring at regular intervals (Par. [0100] of Krusor).
Therefore, claim 9 is unpatentable over Criley, et al. and Krusor, et al.
Regarding claim 10, Criley, in view of Krusor, renders obvious the system of claim 9, as indicated hereinabove. Criley also teaches the limitation of instant claim 10, that is wherein the processor-executable routines, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to independently move the electrocardiogram signal relative to the grid to align the electrocardiogram signal with the outer edge in response to the user input (Page 117, Col. 1 (lines 16-21) – By moving the ECG tracing independent of the grid, measurements of duration and magnitude can be readily made by alignment of a bold (5mm) line at the onset of the signal to be measured).
Therefore, claim 10 is unpatentable over Criley, et al. and Krusor, et al.
Regarding claim 11, Criley, in view of Krusor, renders obvious the system of claim 9, as indicated hereinabove. Criley also teaches the limitation of instant claim 11, that is wherein the processor-executable routines, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to independently move the grid relative to the electrocardiogram signal to align the electrocardiogram signal with the outer edge in response to the user input (Page 118, Col. 1 (lines 12-16) – In the magnified mode, the grid is moveable so that it may be used to measure duration, magnitude, and displacements of the waveforms).
Therefore, claim 11 is unpatentable over Criley, et al. and Krusor, et al.
Regarding claim 12, Criley, in view of Krusor, renders obvious the system of claim 9, as indicated hereinabove. Criley also teaches the limitation of instant claim 12, that is wherein (Figs. 2-3) independent movement of either the electrocardiogram signal relative to the grid or the grid relative to the electrocardiogram signal is in the vertical direction and the outer edge comprises a respective horizontal line of the horizontal lines (Page 117, Col. 1 (lines 16-21) – The magnifying glass (Fig. 3) increases the image size 2-fold (i.e., vertical and horizontal direction) and allows the ECG to be moved relative to the grid. By moving the ECG tracing independent of the grid, measurements of duration and magnitude (i.e., movements of the ecg signal in vertical direction for magnitude measurements) can be readily made by alignment of a bold (5mm) line at the onset of the signal to be measured).
Therefore, claim 12 is unpatentable over Criley, et al. and Krusor, et al.
Regarding claim 13, Criley, in view of Krusor, renders obvious the system of claim 9, as indicated hereinabove. Criley also teaches the limitation of instant claim 13, that is wherein (Figs. 2-3) independent movement of either the electrocardiogram signal relative to the grid or the grid relative to the electrocardiogram signal is in the horizontal direction and the outer edge comprises a respective vertical line of the vertical lines (Page 117, Col. 1 (lines 16-21) – The magnifying glass (Fig. 3) increases the image size 2-fold (i.e., vertical and horizontal direction) and allows the ECG to be moved relative to the grid. By moving the ECG tracing independent of the grid, measurements of duration (i.e., movements of the ecg signal in horizontal direction for duration measurements) and magnitude can be readily made by alignment of a bold (5mm) line at the onset of the signal to be measured).
Therefore, claim 13 is unpatentable over Criley, et al. and Krusor, et al.
Regarding claim 15, Criley, in view of Krusor, renders obvious the computer-implemented method of claim 9, as indicated hereinabove. Criley does not explicitly teach the limitation of instant claim 15, that is wherein the display is on a smartphone.
Krusor is directed to analogous art and teaches systems, devices, and methods that relate to utilizing an electronic caliper to analyze an electronic electrocardiogram (ECG) (Title, Abstract). Krusor also teaches the limitations of instant claim 15, that is wherein the display is on a smartphone (Par. [0049]; Par. [0051] – In some cases, the mobile device 136 includes a cellphone (e.g., a smartphone); Par. [0056] – the electronic caliper 120 output by the medical device 104 facilitates analysis of the ECG 118 by the user 106. The electronic caliper 120 is suitable for analyzing the ECG 118 displayed on the screen of an electronic device, such as the mobile device 136).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the smartphone display for analyzing ECG signals, as disclosed by Krusor, into Criley’s disclosure, because doing so would be an example of using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would desire the option to display and analyze ECG signals with a smartphone in order to be able to achieve the same functionality with a portable mobile device, which would be more convenient and efficient than being limited to only a desktop computer. Allowing for smartphone applicability leads to more variety and ability to view and analyze ECG signals.
Therefore, claim 15 is unpatentable over Criley, et al. and Krusor, et al.
Regarding claim 16, Criley, in view of Krusor, renders obvious the system of claim 9, as indicated hereinabove. Criley also teaches the limitation of instant claim 16, that is wherein the display is on a laptop computer, a tablet, or a monitor coupled to a desktop computer (Page 116, Col. 1 (line 6) – Col. 2 (line 4) – it is designed to match most computer displays connected to the Internet).
Therefore, claim 16 is unpatentable over Criley, et al. and Krusor, et al.
Regarding claim 17, Criley teaches (Figs. 2-6) a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising processor-executable code that when executed by a processor (Page 116, Col. 1 (line 6) – Col. 2 (line 4) – developing a proprietary computer program, ECGViewer, to display and permit analysis of electronically scanned ECGs. The program… 300-MHz processor…), causes the processor to:
(Figs. 2-6) receive an electrocardiogram signal obtained of a subject (Page 116, Col. 1 (line 6) – Col. 2 (line 4) – display and permit analysis of electronically scanned ECGs. The program has modest system requirements, including a 300-MHz processor);
(Fig. 2, Fig. 5) display the electrocardiogram signal over a grid on a display of a computing device (Page 116, Col. 1 (line 6) – Col. 2 (line 4); Page 118, Col. 1 (lines 12-16) – A standard grid is replaced on the ECGViewer display as shown in Fig. 2. In the magnified mode, the grid is moveable so that it may be used to measure duration, magnitude, and displacements of waveforms), wherein (Fig. 2, Fig. 3 – The field of width of the ECG display is 5 seconds) the grid comprises both vertical lines and horizontal lines that define a first of plurality of squares and a second plurality of smaller squares within each square of the first plurality of squares, wherein both the first plurality of squares and the second plurality of smaller squares represent an interval of time in a horizontal direction, and both the first plurality of squares and the second plurality of squares represent a voltage or electrical potential level in a vertical direction (Page 117, Col. 1 (lines 16-21) – By moving the ECG tracing independent of the grid, measurements of duration and magnitude can be readily made by alignment of a bold (5mm) line at the onset of the signal to be measured); and
(Fig. 3) independently moving independently move either the electrocardiogram signal relative to the grid or the grid relative to the electrocardiogram signal to align the electrocardiogram signal with an outer edge of a respective square of the first plurality of squares in response to a user input provided via a user input device by a user (Page 116, Col. 2 (lines 14-21) – Manipulation of the virtual tools is performed with a mouse (i.e., user input); Page 117, Col. 1 (lines 16-21) – By moving the ECG tracing independent of the grid, measurements of duration and magnitude can be readily made by alignment of a bold (5mm) line at the onset of the signal to be measured; Page 118, Col. 1 (lines 12-16) – In the magnified mode, the grid is moveable so that it may be used to measure duration, magnitude, and displacements of the waveforms).
Criley does teach (Fig. 4) virtual calipers that are moved by click-and-drag, and spread by placement of the cursor over either strut while click-and-dragging laterally (Page 117, Col. 2 (lines 1-12)). However, Criley does not explicitly teach the limitations of instant claim 17, that is wherein the processor is configured for:
displaying march out markers over the grid on the display of the computing device, wherein the march out markers are replicates of a given duration interval with equidistant vertical line markers displayed across the electrocardiogram signal representing a plurality of given duration intervals; and
independently moving either the march out markers relative to the grid or the grid relative to the march out markers to align the march out markers with some of the vertical lines of the grid in response to additional user input provided via the user input device by the user prior to independently moving either the electrocardiogram signal relative to the grid or the grid relative to the electrocardiogram signal.
Krusor is directed to analogous art and teaches systems, devices, and methods that relate to utilizing an electronic caliper to analyze an electronic electrocardiogram (ECG) (Title, Abstract). Krusor also teaches the limitations of instant claim 17, that is wherein the processor is configured for:
(Figs. 8A-B, # 800 – display, 802 – ECG signal, 810 – electronic caliper) displaying march out markers over the grid on the display of the computing device, wherein the march out markers are replicates of a given duration interval with equidistant vertical line markers displayed across the electrocardiogram signal representing a plurality of given duration intervals (Par. [0100] – According to various examples, the user inputs a user input signal into an input device that causes the display 800 to “march,” duplicate, or repeat, the electronic caliper 810 along the ECG signal 802. For example, the display outputs duplicated electronic calipers overlying and/or intersecting with the ECG signal 802, wherein each of the duplicated calipers includes a pair of tips separated by the same interval 817 as the original electronic caliper 810. With the marching functionality activated, the duplicated calipers are output along the ECG signal 802 relative to the electronic caliper 810. The distances between tips of the duplicated calipers, such as 819a and 819b, correspond to the interval 817 of the original electronic caliper 810. In various examples, the tips of the duplicated calipers are output as vertical lines 818, or other user interface elements.); and
(Fig. 2, # 243 – grid; Fig. 7B, # 710; Figs. 8A-B, # 810) independently moving either the march out markers relative to the grid or the grid relative to the march out markers to align the march out markers with some of the vertical lines of the grid in response to additional user input provided via the user input device by the user prior to independently moving either the electrocardiogram signal relative to the grid or the grid relative to the electrocardiogram signal (Par. [0031] – In various cases, the electronic device outputs the electronic ECG with other elements that facilitate ECG analysis. In some examples, the electronic ECG is output with a grid. In some cases, the grid corresponds to one or more of the electronic tips of the electronic caliper, such that a gridline of the grid is aligned with one of the electronic tips of the electronic caliper.; Par. [0047]; Pars. [0097-0098]; Par. [0101] – With the marching functionality active, the electronic calipers 810 is adjustable. For instance, the first tip 812 and/or the second tip 814 are moved (e.g., by a user), and the lengths of the repeated intervals, such 819a and 819b, are automatically adjusted based on the newly defined interval 817.; Par. [0102]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Krusor’s feature of marching calipers as vertical lines (i.e., march out markers) into the calipers of Criley’s disclosure, because doing so would be an example of using a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way. One of ordinary skill in the art would have desired implementing Krusor’s feature because the duplicated calipers allow a user to visually identify whether features of the ECG signal (e.g., RR intervals) are occurring at regular intervals (Par. [0100] of Krusor).
Therefore, claim 17 is unpatentable over Criley, et al. and Krusor, et al.
Regarding claim 18, Criley, in view of Krusor, renders obvious the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, as indicated hereinabove. Criley also teaches the limitation of instant claim 18, that is wherein the processor-executable code, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to independently move the electrocardiogram signal relative to the grid to align the electrocardiogram signal with the outer edge in response to the user input (Page 117, Col. 1 (lines 16-21) – By moving the ECG tracing independent of the grid, measurements of duration and magnitude can be readily made by alignment of a bold (5mm) line at the onset of the signal to be measured).
Therefore, claim 18 is unpatentable over Criley, et al. and Krusor, et al.
Regarding claim 19, Criley, in view of Krusor, renders obvious the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, as indicated hereinabove. Criley also teaches the limitations of instant claim 19, that is wherein the processor-executable code, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to independently move the grid relative to the electrocardiogram signal to align the electrocardiogram signal with the outer edge in response to the user input (Page 118, Col. 1 (lines 12-16) – In the magnified mode, the grid is moveable so that it may be used to measure duration, magnitude, and displacements of the waveforms).
Therefore, claim 19 is unpatentable over Criley, et al. and Krusor, et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kawachi (JP2009045123) – see Fig. 8
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MICHAEL TAYLOR HOLTZCLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-6626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. 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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/MICHAEL T. HOLTZCLAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights