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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 21-40 are pending and under consideration for patentability; claims 1-20 were cancelled and claims 21-40 were added as new claims via a Preliminary Amendment dated 22 July 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements submitted on 01 May 2024, 22 July 2024, 17 October 2024, and 27 May 2025 have been acknowledged and considered by the Examiner.
Applicant should note that the large number of references in the attached IDS have been considered by the Examiner in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered while conducting a search of prior art. See MPEP 609.05(b). Applicant is requested to direct the Examiner to any references in the IDS which may be of particular relevance to the presently claimed invention in response to this Office Action.
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.
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 21, 23, 24, 26, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US 2018/0242876) in view of Patel et al. (US 6,073,046 A).
Regarding claims 21 and 34, Hughes described a monitor comprising
a sensor positioned to detect a set of continuous physiological signals of a user when in contact with the user ([0014])
a hardware processor ([0142]) configured to
process the set of continuous physiological signals to generate a data output ([0051], [0140])
a transmitter configured to transmit the output to a computing system separate from the monitor ([0163]), wherein the computing system is configured to determine or infer a physiological event of the user by processing the data output or a signal derived from the data output ([0164])
Regarding claims 21 and 34, although Hughes describes that the data may be processed using machine learning models ([0162]), Hughes does not explicitly disclose wherein the hardware processor is configured to implement an encoder of a neural network, the encoder configured to process physiological signals to generate data outputs, wherein the data output comprises a compressed output, and wherein the data is processed through a decoder of the neural network. However, Patel also describes a monitor configured to process physiological signals of a user (col 3:64-4:5), including implementing an encoder of a neural network, the encoder configured to process physiological signals to generate data outputs (col 6:25-39, 17:51-56), processing the physiological signals using the encoder to generate data that is compressed (col 6:20-39), and processing the data output through a decoder of the neural network (col 6:25-39). As Patel is also directed towards processing physiological data and is in a similar field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to implement a neural network similar to that described by Patel when using the monitor described by Hughes, as doing so advantageously allows the monitor to process larger amounts of data at a faster rate.
Regarding claim 23, Patel describes wherein the hardware processor is further configured to preprocess the set of continuous physiological signals to obtain preprocessed signals, and wherein processing the set of continuous physiological signals using the encoder comprises providing the preprocessed signals to the encoder (col 5:61-6:1).
Regarding claim 24, Patel describes wherein preprocessing the set of continuous physiological signals comprises downsampling or filtering the set of continuous physiological signals (col 5:61-6:1).
Regarding claim 26, Patel describes wherein the data output comprises a compressed representation of the set of continuous physiological signals (col 6:20-39).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes in view of Patel, further in view of Mamaghanian et al. (US 2014/0148714 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Hughes in view of Patel suggests the monitor of claim 21, including wherein the neural network is trained (Patel: col 15:1-14), but Hughes and Patel do not explicitly disclose applying lossless compression to an output of the decoder. However, Mamaghanian also describes a monitor configured to process physiological signals ([0003]), including applying lossless compression to training data ([0021]). As Mamaghanian is also directed towards processing physiological data and is in a similar field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply lossless compression as described by Mamaghanian to the data output of the encoder as described by Hughes and Patel, as doing so advantageously allows the system to remove redundant data while ensuring that the relevant data is available to train the decoder.
Claims 25 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes in view of Patel, further in view of Hu et al. (US 2018/0107798 A1).
Regarding claims 25 and 35, Hughes in view of Patel suggests the monitor of claim 21 and the method of claim 34, including wherein the neural network comprises a set of processing layers distributed between the encoder and the decoder (Patel: col 14:58-63), but neither Hughes nor Patel explicitly disclose wherein a number of the processing layers included in the encoder is based at least in part on computing resources available within the monitor. However, Hu also describes processing physiological signals ([0010]), including wherein the number of processing layers of a neural network is based at least in part on computing resources available ([0042]). As Hu is also directed towards processing physiological data and is in a similar field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the number of layers based on the computing resources, in a manner similar to that described by Hu, when using the monitor described by Hughes and Patel, as doing so advantageously allows the system to ensure that adequate power is available for proper functioning of the layers.
Claims 27, 28, 26, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes in view of Patel, further in view of Fontanarava et al. (US 2019/0283204 A1).
Regarding claims 27 and 36, Hughes in view of Patel suggests the monitor of claim 21 and the method of claim 34, but neither Hughes nor Patel explicitly disclose wherein the encoder comprises a convolution layer and a pooling layer configured to reduce a temporal dimension of the set of continuous physiological signals. However, Fontanarava also describes processing physiological signals ([0007]), including the use of a convolution layer and a pooling layer configured to reduce a temporal dimension of a set of continuous physiological signals ([0012], [0068], [0079], the minimum characteristic dimensions are used). As Fontanarava is also directed towards processing physiological data and is in a similar field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a convolution layer and a pooling layer similar to those described by Fontanarava when using the monitor described by Hughes and Patel, as doing so advantageously allows the resulting system to have a reduced spatial size or a reduced number of parameters, as described by Fontanarava ([0079]).
Regarding claims 28 and 37, Fontanarava describes the use of a transposed convolutional layer configured to restore dimensionality of the data output ([0012]).
Claims 29 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes in view of Patel, further in view of Cappelaere et al. (US 2015/0196770 A1).
Regarding claims 29 and 38, Hughes in view of Patel suggests the monitor of claim 21 and the method of claim 34, but neither Hughes nor Patel explicitly disclose wherein the hardware processor is further configured to quantize the data output. However, Cappelaere also describes processing physiological signals ([0016]), including the use of a hardware processor configured to quantize data output ([0033]). As doing so advantageously allows the resulting system to derive and compare over time an index of the user’s likelihood of experiencing a physiological event (please see Cappelaere, [0033]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21, 26, and 34 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,998,342 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims recite a monitor comprising a sensor, hardware processor, neural network including an encoder and decoder, and transmitter. A brief, but non-exhaustive matching of the pending claims with the issued claims is provided via the table below.
U.S. Application No. 18/652,230
Pending Claims
U.S. Patent No. 11,998,342 B2
Patented Claims
21.
A monitor comprising:
a sensor positioned to detect a set of continuous physiological signals of a user when in contact with the user
a hardware processor configured to
implement an encoder of a neural network, the encoder configured to process physiological signals to generate data outputs
process the set of continuous physiological signals using the encoder to generate a data output
wherein the data output comprises a compressed output
a transmitter configured to transmit the compressed output to a computing system separate from the monitor
wherein the computing system is configured to determine or infer a physiological event of the user by processing the data output or a signal derived from the data output through a decoder of the neural network
(1) A monitor comprising:
(1) a first sensor positioned to detect a first set of continuous physiological signals of a user while the monitor is engaged to the user
(1) a hardware processor configured to process the first set of continuous physiological signals to extract one or more features of the user
(1) wherein the hardware processor is configured to process the second set of continuous physiological signals through an encoder to generate data output
(10) wherein the encoder is configured to compress the second set of continuous physiological signals to obtain compressed data
(14) wherein the monitor includes a transmitter configured to transmit the first output to the computing system
(1) wherein an external computing system is configured to determine or infer a physiological event of the user by processing the data output or a signal derived from the data output through a decoder
26
10
34
1, 10, 14
Claims 22-25, 27-29, and 35-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,998,342 B2 in view of Patel, Mamaghanian, Fontanarava, or Cappelaere, as referenced above.
Regarding claims 22-25, 27-29, and 35-38, although the ‘342 patent does not explicitly recite the same limitations as those recited in the pending claims, the prior art references of Patel, Mamaghanian, Fontanarava, and Cappelaere describe the corresponding limitations, as described at length above. As Patel, Mamaghanian, Fontanarava, and Cappelaere are all directed towards processing physiological signals and are in a similar field of endeavor as the ‘342 patent, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features found in Patel, Mamaghanian, Fontanarava, or Cappelaere into the claims of the ‘342 patent, as doing so advantageously provides a more efficient neural network for the processing steps.
Claims 21, 26, 29, 34, and 38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 25, and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 11,375,941 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims recite a monitor comprising a sensor, hardware processor, neural network including an encoder and decoder, and transmitter. A brief, but non-exhaustive matching of the pending claims with the issued claims is provided via the table below.
U.S. Application No. 18/652,230
Pending Claims
U.S. Patent No. 11,375,941 B2
Patented Claims
21.
A monitor comprising:
a sensor positioned to detect a set of continuous physiological signals of a user when in contact with the user
a hardware processor configured to
implement an encoder of a neural network, the encoder configured to process physiological signals to generate data outputs
process the set of continuous physiological signals using the encoder to generate a data output
wherein the data output comprises a compressed output
a transmitter configured to transmit the compressed output to a computing system separate from the monitor
wherein the computing system is configured to determine or infer a physiological event of the user by processing the data output or a signal derived from the data output through a decoder of the neural network
(1) A monitor comprising:
(1) a sensor positioned to detect continuous physiological signals of a user while the monitor is engaged to the user
(1) a hardware processor configured to process the detected physiological signals through an encoder to generate data output
(1) a hardware processor configured to process the detected physiological signals through an encoder to generate data output
(25) wherein the hardware processor is further configured to compress the data output
(2) wherein the monitor includes a transmitter configured to transmit the data output of the encoder to the external computing system
(1) wherein an external computing system is configured to infer a likelihood of an occurrence of arrhythmia by processing the data output through a decoder
26
25
29
27
34
1, 2, 25
38
27
Claims 22-25, 27, 28, and 35-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,375,941 B2 in view of Patel, Mamaghanian, or Fontanarava, as referenced above.
Regarding claims 22-25, 27, 28, and 35-37, although the ‘941 patent does not explicitly recite the same limitations as those recited in the pending claims, the prior art references of Patel, Mamaghanian, and Fontanarava describe the corresponding limitations, as described at length above. As Patel, Mamaghanian, and Fontanarava are all directed towards processing physiological signals and are in a similar field of endeavor as the ‘941 patent, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features found in Patel, Mamaghanian, or Fontanarava into the claims of the ‘941 patent, as doing so advantageously provides a more efficient neural network for the processing steps.
Claims 21, 26, 29, 34, and 38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 19, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,253,186 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims recite a monitor comprising a sensor, hardware processor, neural network including an encoder and decoder, and transmitter. A brief, but non-exhaustive matching of the pending claims with the issued claims is provided via the table below.
U.S. Application No. 18/652,230
Pending Claims
U.S. Patent No. 11,253,186 B2
Patented Claims
21.
A monitor comprising:
a sensor positioned to detect a set of continuous physiological signals of a user when in contact with the user
a hardware processor configured to
implement an encoder of a neural network, the encoder configured to process physiological signals to generate data outputs
process the set of continuous physiological signals using the encoder to generate a data output
wherein the data output comprises a compressed output
a transmitter configured to transmit the compressed output to a computing system separate from the monitor
wherein the computing system is configured to determine or infer a physiological event of the user by processing the data output or a signal derived from the data output through a decoder of the neural network
(1) A monitor
(1) a sensor permanently disposed within the housing, positioned to detect continuous physiological signals of the user while the surface is engaged to the user
(1) a printed circuit board assembly comprising a hardware processor configured to process the detected physiological signals through an encoder
(1) a printed circuit board assembly comprising a hardware processor configured to process the detected physiological signals through an encoder
(19) wherein the hardware processor is further configured to compress the output of the first subset of layers
(1) a transmitter, the transmitter configured to transmit the data output of the encoder to an external computing system
(1) the external computing system configured to infer a likelihood of an occurrence of arrhythmia by processing the data output through a decoder, wherein the decoder comprises a second subset of layers of the neural network.
26
19
29
22
34
1, 19
38
22
Claims 22-25, 27, 28, and 35-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,253,186 B2 in view of Patel, Mamaghanian, or Fontanarava, as referenced above.
Regarding claims 22-25, 27, 28, and 35-37, although the ‘186 patent does not explicitly recite the same limitations as those recited in the pending claims, the prior art references of Patel, Mamaghanian, and Fontanarava describe the corresponding limitations, as described at length above. As Patel, Mamaghanian, and Fontanarava are all directed towards processing physiological signals and are in a similar field of endeavor as the ‘186 patent, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features found in Patel, Mamaghanian, or Fontanarava into the claims of the ‘186 patent, as doing so advantageously provides a more efficient neural network for the processing steps.
Claims 21, 26, 29, 34, and 38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,083,371 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims recite a monitor comprising a sensor, hardware processor, neural network including an encoder and decoder, and transmitter. A brief, but non-exhaustive matching of the pending claims with the issued claims is provided via the table below.
U.S. Application No. 18/652,230
Pending Claims
U.S. Patent No. 11,083,371 B1
Patented Claims
21.
A monitor comprising:
a sensor positioned to detect a set of continuous physiological signals of a user when in contact with the user
a hardware processor configured to
implement an encoder of a neural network, the encoder configured to process physiological signals to generate data outputs
process the set of continuous physiological signals using the encoder to generate a data output
wherein the data output comprises a compressed output
a transmitter configured to transmit the compressed output to a computing system separate from the monitor
wherein the computing system is configured to determine or infer a physiological event of the user by processing the data output or a signal derived from the data output through a decoder of the neural network
(1) A monitor
(1) at least two electrodes permanently disposed within the housing, positioned to detect continuous cardiac rhythm signals of the mammal while the surface is sealably engaged to the mammal
(1) a printed circuit board assembly comprising a hardware processor configured to process the detected cardiac rhythm signals through an encoder
(1) a printed circuit board assembly comprising a hardware processor configured to process the detected cardiac rhythm signals through an encoder
(10) wherein the hardware processor is further configured to compress the output of the first subset of layers
(1) a transmitter, the transmitter configured to transmit the data output of the encoder to an external computing system
(1) the external computing system configured to infer a likelihood of an occurrence of arrhythmia by processing the data output through a decoder, wherein the decoder comprises a second subset of layers of the neural network.
26
10
29
11
34
1, 10
38
11
Claims 22-25, 27, 28, and 35-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,083,371 B1 in view of Patel, Mamaghanian, or Fontanarava, as referenced above.
Regarding claims 22-25, 27, 28, and 35-37, although the ‘371 patent does not explicitly recite the same limitations as those recited in the pending claims, the prior art references of Patel, Mamaghanian, and Fontanarava describe the corresponding limitations, as described at length above. As Patel, Mamaghanian, and Fontanarava are all directed towards processing physiological signals and are in a similar field of endeavor as the ‘371 patent, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the features found in Patel, Mamaghanian, or Fontanarava into the claims of the ‘371 patent, as doing so advantageously provides a more efficient neural network for the processing steps.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30-33, 39, and 40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claims 30 and 39, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the limitation of wherein the encoder is trained using a first set of training data comprising first physiological signals, wherein the decoder is trained using a second set of training data comprising second physiological signals, and wherein the encoder and the decoder are trained together using a third set of training data comprising third physiological signals. Although the Patel and Hu references provide guidance on training the neural network, Patel, Hu, and the other prior art of record do not disclose or suggest using first and second physiological signals to separately train the encoder and decoder, and then using a third physiological signal to train the encoder and decoder together.
Claims 31-33 depend on claim 30 and contain at least the same allowable subject matter as claim 30.
Claim 40 depends on claim 39 and contains at least the same allowable subject matter as claim 39.
Statement on Communication via Internet
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. Where a written authorization is given by the applicant, communications via Internet e-mail, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used. USPTO employees are NOT permitted to initiate communications with applicants via Internet e-mail unless there is a written authorization of record in the patent application by the applicant. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please refer to MPEP 502.03 for guidance on Communications via Internet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Ankit D. Tejani, whose telephone number is 571-272-5140. The Examiner may normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30AM through 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, Carl Layno, can be reached by telephone at 571-272-4949. 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 at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/Ankit D Tejani/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796