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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: a heartbeat/respiration extraction unit and a heartbeat/respiration output unit in claim 1.
Prong 1: “unit” is a generic placeholder. See MPEP 2181 §I, subsection A, ¶1.
Prong 2: the transition word “that” is used, followed by functional language:
“a heartbeat/respiration extraction unit that extracts a frequency component…”; and
“a heartbeat/respiration output unit that performs amplitude modulation or frequency modulation…”.
Prong 3: there is not sufficient structure to modify the generic placeholder “unit”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The examiner interprets the generic computer (see specification ¶[0017] and ¶[0022]; Figs. 1-2) to cover the corresponding structure, materials, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof for the computer processing modules: heartbeat/respiration extraction unit and heartbeat/respiration output unit.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 5, line 3: “any of low-pass” should be “any of: low pass”; and
in claim 5, line 7: “phase temporal change” should be “phase temporal change,”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a micro vibration of heartbeat and/or respiration” in lines 3, 6, and 10-11; however, the relationship among these recitations are not clear. Are the recitations related, the same, or different. The similar phraseology suggests that they are the same, but the indefinite article “a” suggests that they are different. If the recitations are the same, subsequent recitations (i.e., the recitations in lines 6 and 10-11) should be amended to recite “the micro vibration of heartbeat and/or respiration”. If the recitations are different, the relationship between these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). Subsequent recitations in the dependent claims 2-3 should also be corrected (i.e., the micro vibrations of heartbeat and of respiration already appear to have antecedent basis). For the purposes of examination, the recitations of claims 1-3 are being interpreted as the same.
Claims 2-6 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim 1 interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Based on the specification, the recitation “extracts a frequency component caused by a micro vibration of heartbeat and/or respiration” (see specification ¶[0026]-[0037]) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations. The recitation “calculates an amplitude temporal change or a phase temporal change of the frequency component caused by a micro vibration of heartbeat and/or respiration” (see specification ¶[0038]-[0041]) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations. The recitation “performs amplitude modulation or frequency modulation on a sound signal having an audible band frequency based on the amplitude temporal change or the phase temporal change of the frequency component caused by a micro vibration of heartbeat and/or respiration” (see specification ¶[0042]-[0050]) is being interpreted as mathematical calculations/evaluations. The recitations are computer-implemented, as indicated in the specification (see specification ¶[0017] and ¶[0022]; Figs. 1-2).
Step 1: This part of eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. Claim 1 recites a device, which is directed towards a machine/manufacture (a statutory category of invention). Step 1: YES.
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The “mental processes” abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. As discussed in the claim interpretation section, the limitations include, under the BRI, multiple mathematical calculations/evaluations. Accordingly, the limitations as seen in claim 1 recite judicial exceptions (abstract ideas that fall within the mental process grouping). No limitations are provided that would force the complexity of any of the identified evaluation steps to be non-performable by pen-and-paper practice.
Furthermore, as explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The courts consider mathematical calculations, when the claim is given its BRI in light of the specification, as falling within the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas. A claim does not have to recite “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using a mathematical method, or “performing” a mathematical operation, may also be considered a mathematical calculation when the BRI of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation. As discussed in the claim interpretation section, the limitations include, under the BRI, multiple mathematical calculations/evaluations. Accordingly, the limitations as seen in claim 1 recite judicial exceptions (abstract ideas that fall within the mathematical calculations grouping of mathematical concepts).
Alternatively or additionally, these steps describe the concept of using implicit mathematical formulas (i.e., calculations to determine a likelihood score) to derive a conclusion based on input of data, which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts (Diamond v. Diehr. 450 U.S. 175, 209 U.S.P.Q. 1 (1981), Parker v. Flook. 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978), and In re Grams. 888 F.2d 835, 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1824 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). The concept of the recited limitations identified as mathematical concepts above is not meaningfully different than those mathematical concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas.
In particular, claim 1 recites the following elements, which are part of the abstract idea (i.e., the algorithm):
extracts a frequency component caused by a micro vibration of heartbeat and/or respiration from a radar signal or an ultrasound signal reflecting off a body surface and calculates an amplitude temporal change or a phase temporal change of the frequency component caused by a micro vibration of heartbeat and/or respiration; and
performs amplitude modulation or frequency modulation on a sound signal having an audible band frequency based on the amplitude temporal change or the phase temporal change of the frequency component caused by a micro vibration of heartbeat and/or respiration and outputs the sound signal after amplitude modulation or frequency modulation.
Step 2A Prong One: YES.
Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exceptions into a practical application. Claim 1 recites a heartbeat/respiration output device comprising a heartbeat/respiration extraction unit and a heartbeat/respiration output unit, which are being interpreted as a generic computer (see above 112(f) interpretation and specification ¶[0017] and ¶[0022]; Figs. 1-2). Note that claim 1 does not positively recite a radar or ultrasound sensor; rather, the generic computer utilize such a signal, as the claim does not recite receiving the signal. Furthermore, claim 1 recites outputting the modulated sound signal, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., post-solution activity) well known in the art, and recited at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the device is merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2A Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05. As explained with Step 2A Prong Two, claim 1 recites a heartbeat/respiration output device comprising a heartbeat/respiration extraction unit and a heartbeat/respiration output unit, which are being interpreted as a generic computer (see above 112(f) interpretation and specification ¶[0017] and ¶[0022]; Figs. 1-2). The device utilizing a generic computer does not qualify as significantly more because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no
indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for
example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is
no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based
problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective
functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e.,
the computer is simply a tool to perform the process. Step 2B: NO.
Claim 1 is not eligible.
Claims 2-6 depend from claim 1, and merely further define the abstract ideas of claim 1. The claims recite no additional element that integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Claim 6 recites elements further related to a generic computer (i.e., the heartbeat/respiration output program and the computer). The device is merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite no additional element that adds an inventive concept to the claim and/or amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The device utilizing a generic computer does not qualify as significantly more because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
Looking at the limitations of each claim as an ordered combination in conjunction with the claims from which they depend (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Songcheol et al. (Korean Patent Publication KR-20210032126-A – citing to translation from Espacenet), hereinafter Songcheol, and in view of Kim (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0313999 – cited by Applicant), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding Claim 1, Songcheol teaches a sensor and system/method for radar bio-signal detection (see abstract and Figs. 3, 6, and 10-11). Songcheol teaches a heartbeat/respiration output device (see abstract and ¶[0066], the radar biosignal detection sensor and associated circuit; Fig. 3) comprising:
a heartbeat/respiration extraction unit that extracts a frequency component (¶[0061]-[0069] the I/Q modulator 360 modulates the signal output from the signal source 340 into an I/Q real-complex signal, the switching signal application unit 330 applies a switching signal to the receiving unit 320, the first mixer 350 combines the real-complex signal among the signals modulated through the I/Q modulator 360 and the signal modulated through the switching signal application unit 330, and the second mixer 370 combine the complex-complex signal among the signals modulated through the I/Q modulator 360 and the signal modulated through the switching signal application unit 330, therefore, the source signal is removed and the signal modulated by an intermediate frequency (IF) (i.e., the subject motion, the biosignal) is then extracted, the signals output to the A/D converters 380; Fig. 3)
caused by a micro vibration of heartbeat and/or respiration (¶[0071] the receiver 320 receives the signal that has been reflected off of the subject 300 from transmitter 310, the signal being modulated by movement of the subject, such as human breathing and heartbeat; Fig. 3)
from a radar signal or an ultrasound signal reflecting off a body surface (¶[0071] the receiver 320 receives the signal that has been reflected off of the subject 300 from transmitter 310, the signal being modulated by movement of the subject, such as human breathing and heartbeat, ¶[0066] it is a radar signal; Fig. 3) and
calculates an amplitude temporal change or a phase temporal change of the frequency component caused by a micro vibration of heartbeat and/or respiration (¶[0085]-[0091] the downconversion demodulation unit 390 for taking the signal in from the A/D converters 380, using a bandpass filter and plurality of mixers, so as obtain a phase signal modulated by the movement of the biosignal, so that only the desired biosignal is obtained by removing the IF signal from the IF modulated signal; Figs. 3 and 6); and
outputs the signal (see Figs. 2-3 and 6, the output of the demodulated signal from the downconversion demodulation unit 390; see also ¶[0127]-[0134] and Figs. 14 and 16, the biosignals, including the breathing signal and the heartbeat signal are determined from the output signal modulated by the subject’s movement).
Songcheol does not specifically teach that a heartbeat/respiration output unit performs amplitude modulation or frequency modulation on a sound signal having an audible band frequency based on the amplitude temporal change or the phase temporal change of the frequency component caused by a micro vibration of heartbeat and/or respiration.
Kim teaches an ultrasound diagnosis apparatus (see abstract and Figs. 3-4), including a processor 320 configured to determine a heart rate of the fetus based on period information of the Doppler data (see abstract and ¶[0097]-[0098]; Fig. 3), the processor 320 may then modulate based on the fetus's heart rate, a fetus's heartbeat Doppler sound acquired from the Doppler data into a heartbeat sound, such that the heartbeat sound may be similar to a sound of a fetus's actual heartbeat (see ¶[0098]; Fig. 3), in which the speaker 330 may output the heartbeat sound (see ¶[0107]; Fig. 3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the biosignal sound generation via the modulation of the sound based on the recorded heart rate data of Kim with the biosignals recorded and analyzed as taught in Songcheol because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) the biosignal sound output would help a medical professional in making care decisions for the subject; and/or (3) this would help increase empathy between the subject being monitored and the individual listening to the sound (i.e., a mother and her fetus or infant) (see Kim ¶[0005]).
Regarding Claim 2, Songcheol in view of Kim teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. The modified Songcheol further teaches the heartbeat/respiration output unit performs one modulation of amplitude modulation and frequency modulation on the sound signal based on the amplitude temporal change or the phase temporal change of the frequency component caused by a micro vibration of heartbeat and performs another modulation of amplitude modulation and frequency modulation on the sound signal based on the amplitude temporal change or the phase temporal change of the frequency component caused by a micro vibration of respiration (see Songcheol Figs. 2-3 and 6, the output of the demodulated signal from the downconversion demodulation unit 390; see also Songcheol ¶[0127]-[0134] and Figs. 14 and 16, the biosignals, including the breathing signal and the heartbeat signal are determined from the output signal modulated by the subject’s movement; see Kim ¶[0107], the speaker 330 may output the heartbeat (i.e., biosignal in the modified Songcheol) sounds; Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Songcheol in view of Kim teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. The modified Songcheol does not specifically teach a heartbeat/respiration output program for causing a computer to execute each processing step corresponding to each processing unit of the heartbeat/respiration output device according to claim 1.
Kim further teaches memory 180 that stores algorithms or programs to be executed by the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 (see ¶[0081]-[0082]; Fig. 1), including by the controller, for controlling the various elements, which may be implemented as a software modules (see ¶[0088]-[0089]; Fig. 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a controller and memory (i.e., a computer) to implement the functions of the modified Songcheol because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) computers are known devices to implement signal processing; and/or (3) computers are common and easily accessible, such as by patients and/or medical professionals.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Songcheol in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Louzir et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0323504), hereinafter Louzir.
Regarding Claim 3, Songcheol in view of Kim teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. The modified Songcheol further teaches the heartbeat/respiration extraction unit calculates the phase temporal change of the frequency component caused by a micro vibration of heartbeat/respiration, with the phase temporal change of the frequency component caused by a source signal removed by extracting and then performing complex multiplication of positive and negative frequency components caused by a source signal (¶[0061]-[0069] the I/Q modulator 360 modulates the signal output from the signal source 340 into an I/Q real-complex signal, the switching signal application unit 330 applies a switching signal to the receiving unit 320, the first mixer 350 combines the real-complex signal among the signals modulated through the I/Q modulator 360 and the signal modulated through the switching signal application unit 330, and the second mixer 370 combine the complex-complex signal among the signals modulated through the I/Q modulator 360 and the signal modulated through the switching signal application unit 330, the mixers 350/370 perform multiplication of the signals, as the signals are complex, it is complex multiplication; see also ¶[0085]-[0091], the plurality of mixers performing complex multiplication; Figs. 3 and 6).
The modified Songcheol teaches that the breathing signal (respiration rate) and heartbeat signal (heart rate) are monitored, but does not specifically teach isolating either one of the signals.
Louzir teaches a method for monitoring physiological signal characteristics by receives first and second signals mixed, received from a wireless signal from a networking device reflected from the subject (see abstract and Fig. 2), in which heart rate and breathing rates may be extracted from the mixed signals via differences in frequency, phase, and/or wavelength, and the specific envelopes of breathing and heartbeat rates are determined from low pass filtering and cut-off frequencies.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the frequency isolation (i.e., involving the mixers, and thus complex multiplication) of the modified Songcheol to extract individual envelopes of the breathing rate and the heart rate as taught in Louzir because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or (2) the separate metrics (i.e., breathing rate and heart rate) may provide alternative/additional details/information than looking/hearing the metrics (i.e., breathing rate and heart rate) within the same signal, to the medical professional monitoring the subject.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Songcheol in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Milot (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0304144), hereinafter Milot.
Regarding Claim 4, Songcheol in view of Kim teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Songcheol further teaches that the A/D converter is 50 kHz (see ¶[0118]); however, the modified Songcheol does not specifically teach a frequency of the output sound signal.
Milot teaches about representation of digital signals (see abstract), in which HD audio formats are described to be generally at 24 bits, and 96 kHz or 192 kHz (see ¶[0567]), in which the audio samples are upsampled, such as from 44.1 kHz to 176.4 kHz or 352.8 kHz, with the usage of a spline interpolation (see ¶[0496]-[0517]), so as to increase the user’s perception on the audio quality (see ¶[0528]-[0529]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the HD audio frequency (at 96 kHz or 192 kHz) as taught in Milot, as the output sound signal of the modified Songcheol, necessitating the upsampling of the biosignal (at 50 kHz) to the HD audio level because (1) it is the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and/or (2) the HD audio would provide better sound quality to the listener; and/or (3) the upsampling would greatly increase the perception by users of the quality of the sound (see Milot ¶[0528]-[0529]; and/or (4) the modified Songcheol requires upsampling, so as to match the frequencies of the two signals to be modulated, and Milot teaches one such method of upsampling.
Regarding Claim 5, Songcheol in view of Kim and Milot teaches the device of claim 4 as stated above. The modified Songcheol further teaches the heartbeat/respiration extraction unit performs any of low-pass filter processing after zero-padding processing on the amplitude temporal change or the phase temporal change, copy interpolation processing on the amplitude temporal change or the phase temporal change, and spline interpolation processing on the amplitude temporal change or the phase temporal change when performing uprating on the amplitude temporal change or the phase temporal change (see Milot ¶[0496]-[0517], the audio samples are upsampled with the usage of a spline interpolation).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D. MORONESO whose telephone number is (571)272-8055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30AM - 6:00 PM, MST.
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 M. ROBERTSON can be reached at (571)272-5001. 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.
/J.D.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791