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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS documents filed 04/02/2024 and 08/28/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Abstract, line 3: “a first of plurality of squares” should be changed to “a first plurality of squares”. Please remove first “of”.
Par. [0002], line 15: “in diagnosis heart” is changed to “in diagnosing heart”.
Par. [0060], lines 1-2: “an physiological signal” should be changed to “a physiological signal”.
Par. [0065], line 4: “calibration too” should be changed to “calibration tool”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 6: “a first of plurality of squares” should be changed to “a first plurality of squares”. Please remove first “of”.
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 9: “a first of plurality of squares” should be changed to “a first plurality of squares”. Please remove first “of”.
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2: please add colon (“:”) after “processor to”.
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 6-7: “a first of plurality of squares” should be changed to “a first plurality of squares”. Please remove first “of”.
Line 12: please remove “independently moving” at beginning of limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The term “march out markers” represent a given duration interval that can be repeated across the electrocardiogram signal (Par. [0051] of Applicant’s specification).
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 are:
“[the processor] independently moving 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” in claim 1 (lines 11-14), claim 9 (lines 14-18), and claim 17 (lines 12-15).
“[the processor] independently moving the electrocardiogram signal relative to the grid to align the electrocardiogram signal with the outer edge in response to the user input” in claim 2 (lines 1-3), claim 10 (lines 2-4), and claim 18 (lines 2-4).
“[the processor] independently moving the grid relative to the electrocardiogram signal to align the electrocardiogram signal with the outer edge in response to the user input” in claim 3 (lines 1-3), claim 11 (lines 2-4), and claim 19 (lines 2-4).
“[the processor] 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” in claim 6 (lines 4-8), claim 14 (lines 5-9), and claim 20 (lines 5-9).
Because these claim limitation are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The Examiner notes that for a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function (MPEP 2181(II)(B)). Evidence of such an algorithm for covering the corresponding structure, material, or acts are found in these locations of the specification:
Par. [0048] – the user may utilize a touchscreen to independently move (e.g., drag) either the electrocardiogram signal relative to the grid or the grid relative to the electrocardiogram signal. The user may utilize a mouse to independently move (e.g., drag) either the electrocardiogram signal relative to the grid or the grid relative to the electrocardiogram signal. The user may also utilize a keyboard to independently move (e.g., drag) or voice commands (e.g., via a microphone) to independently move (e.g., drag).
Par. [0048]
Par. [0048]
Fig. 6, # 98; Par. [0052] – touchscreen, mouse, keyboard, voice commands (e.g., via a microphone)
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations 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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Criley, et al. (“Virtual tools for teaching electrocardiographic rhythm analysis”; 2005).
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 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, 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).
Therefore, claim 1 is unpatentable over Criley, et al.
Regarding claim 2, Criley teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, 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.
Regarding claim 3, Criley teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, 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.
Regarding claim 4, Criley teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, 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 4 is unpatentable over Criley, et al.
Regarding claim 5, Criley teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, 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 5 is unpatentable over Criley, et al.
Regarding claim 6, Criley teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
(Fig. 4) displaying, via the processor, march out markers over the grid on the display of the computing device (Page 117, Col. 2 (lines 1-12) – virtual calipers, i.e. march out markers); and
(Fig. 4; Fig. 6) 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 (Page 117, Col. 2 (lines 1-12) – The virtual calipers (Fig. 4) are deployed by clicking on the icon in the toolbox, moved by click-and-drag, and spread by placement of the cursor over either strut while click-and-dragging laterally. The intervals represented by the span are displayed in milliseconds).
Therefore, claim 6 is unpatentable over Criley, et al.
Regarding claim 8, Criley teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, 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.
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 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).
Therefore, claim 9 is unpatentable over Criley, et al.
Regarding claim 10, Criley teaches the system of claim 9, 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.
Regarding claim 11, Criley teaches the system of claim 9, 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.
Regarding claim 12, Criley teaches the system of claim 9, 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.
Regarding claim 13, Criley teaches the system of claim 9, 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.
Regarding claim 14, Criley teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the processor-executable routines, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to
(Fig. 4) display march out markers over the grid on the display of the computing device (Page 117, Col. 2 (lines 1-12) – virtual calipers, i.e. march out markers); and
(Fig. 4; Fig. 6) independently move 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 (Page 117, Col. 2 (lines 1-12) – The virtual calipers (Fig. 4) are deployed by clicking on the icon in the toolbox, moved by click-and-drag, and spread by placement of the cursor over either strut while click-and-dragging laterally. The intervals represented by the span are displayed in milliseconds).
Therefore, claim 14 is unpatentable over Criley, et al.
Regarding claim 16, Criley teaches the system of claim 9, 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.
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).
Therefore, claim 17 is unpatentable over Criley, et al.
Regarding claim 18, Criley teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, 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.
Regarding claim 19, Criley teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, 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.
Regarding claim 20, Criley teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the processor-executable code, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
(Fig. 4) display march out markers over the grid on the display of the computing device (Page 117, Col. 2 (lines 1-12) – virtual calipers, i.e. march out markers); and
(Fig. 4; Fig. 6) independently move 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 (Page 117, Col. 2 (lines 1-12) – The virtual calipers (Fig. 4) are deployed by clicking on the icon in the toolbox, moved by click-and-drag, and spread by placement of the cursor over either strut while click-and-dragging laterally. The intervals represented by the span are displayed in milliseconds).
Therefore, claim 20 is unpatentable over Criley, et al.
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 7 and 15 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. 2021/0096712).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Criley teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1 and the system of claim 9, as indicated hereinabove. Criley does not explicitly teach the limitation of instant claim 7 and 15, that is wherein the display is on a smartphone.
Krusor teaches analogous art, and is directed to systems, devices, and methods related to utilizing an electronic caliper to analyze an electronic electrocardiogram (ECG) (Title, Abstract). Krusor also teaches the limitation of instant claim 7, that is wherein (Fig. 1, # 136 – mobile device) 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, claims 7 and 15 are 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:
Pickerd (U.S. PGPub No. 2004/0164984)
Vajdic, et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2009/0088655)
Deno, et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2022/0369990)
Roy, et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2018/0360334)
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