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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/30/25 has been entered.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “signal quality classification component”, “atrial fibrillation determination component”, “measurement control component” and “sensor selection component”.
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aliamiri et al. (US 2019/0133468), in view of Noh et al. (KR 1020170019189 (provided in the IDS)), further in view of Podhajsky et al. (US 2015/0088002) and Chen et al. (US 6,332,867).
Addressing claim 1, Aliamiri discloses a deep-learning-based atrial fibrillation determination system using a photoplethysmography (PPG) signal detection sensor, the system comprising a server, wherein the server comprises:
a signal quality classification component configured to classify quality of a PPG signal as good or bad (see [0068], Fig. 3 and abstract; 210 quality assessment network).
an atrial fibrillation determination component configured to determine, by using a deep learning model, from the PPG signal, whether atrial fibrillation has occurred (see abstract and Fig. 3).
Aliamiri does not disclose wherein the PPG signal is measured using the PPG signal detection ring, and the server receives the PPG signal from the PPG signal detection ring through a terminal, the PPG signal detection ring includes a plurality of sensors configured to simultaneously measure a plurality of PPG signals at different locations, each of the plurality of sensors includes a light source and a photoelectric conversion device, and the terminal includes a sensor selection component configured to select, from among the plurality of sensors, as a sensor for measuring the PPG signal, a sensor that has measured a test PPG signal having a highest signal quality among a plurality of test PPG signals, wherein the selected sensor is used to measure the PPG signal. Noh discloses wherein the PPG signal is measured using the PPG signal detection ring, and receives the PPG signal from the PPG signal detection ring through a terminal, the PPG signal detection ring includes a plurality of sensors configured to simultaneously measure a plurality of PPG signals at different locations, each of the plurality of sensors includes a light source and a photoelectric conversion device, and the terminal includes a sensor selection component configured to select, from among the plurality of sensors, as a sensor for measuring the PPG signal, a sensor that has measured a test PPG signal having a highest signal quality among a plurality of test PPG signals (see Figs. 1, 7, pages 6 and 7, detection ring 720 with light source and photoelectric conversion device; signal selector 130 select the PPG signal having the best signal quality). Podhajsky discloses wherein the PPG signal is measured using the PPG signal detection ring, and the server receives the PPG signal from the PPG signal detection ring through a terminal, the PPG signal detection ring includes a plurality of sensors configured to simultaneously measure a plurality of PPG signals at different locations, each of the plurality of sensors includes a light source and a photoelectric conversion device and wherein the selected sensor is used to measure the PPG signal (see Figs. 1C, [0045], [0066], [0073], [0078]; PPG detection ring 104/108; signals send to server to process, analyze to determine result; select the sensor that produce the best output (highest signal quality) to measure PPG; Podhajsky does not explicitly disclose a sensor selection component configured to select, from among the plurality of sensors, as a sensor for measuring the PPG signal, a sensor that has measured a test PPG signal having a highest signal quality among a plurality of test PPG signals; however, Podhajsky select the sensor with the best output to measure PPG and turn off other sensors implicitly discloses a sensor selection component to measure PPG while turn other sensors off; Noh above explicitly discloses signal selector 130 select the PPG signal having the best signal quality). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aliamiri to have wherein the PPG signal is measured using the PPG signal detection ring, and receives the PPG signal from the PPG signal detection ring through a terminal, the PPG signal detection ring includes a plurality of sensors configured to simultaneously measure a plurality of PPG signals at different locations, each of the plurality of sensors includes a light source and a photoelectric conversion device, and the terminal includes a sensor selection component configured to select, from among the plurality of sensors, as a sensor for measuring the PPG signal, a sensor that has measured a test PPG signal having a highest signal quality among a plurality of test PPG signals, wherein the selected sensor is used to measure the PPG signal as taught by Noh and Podhajsky because this provide the best estimation accuracy, better output data and save energy (see Noh’s page 8 and Podhajsky’s paragraphs [0065-0066]).
Aliamiri also does not disclose a measurement control component configured to select a measurement mode according to a user input, wherein the measurement mode includes a self-check mode and a background mode; and wherein, in the self-check mode, the measurement is started and ended by a user; in the background mode, the measurement starts and continues regardless of user input, and a user can set or change a measurement cycle. Chen discloses a measurement control component configured to select a measurement mode according to a user input, wherein the measurement mode includes a self-check mode and a background mode (see Fig. 4, col. 6, lines 5-18, col. 8, lines 44-67 and col. 9, lines 63-65; “apparatus 10 has a user interface 17, a possible embodiment of which is described in detail below with reference to FIG. 4, which permits a user to set an operating mode for apparatus 10 (in cases where there is more than one operating mode)”; user using user interface to set an operating mode is the same as a measurement control component configured to select a measurement mode according to a user input; the user input on the user interface/measurement control component to select the operating mode; two operating mode: manual mode (self-check) and automatic mode (background mode); in manual mode (self-check) user can start and end a measurement by pressing start and end buttons; in automatic mode (background mode) measurement start automatically, but user can program the automatic measurement to have certain measurement parameters/cycle such as number of cycles, cycle time, etc.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aliamiri as taught by Chen because this allow users the flexibility of manually taking measurement or have the apparatus operate unattended so that it is not necessary for a physician or other health care worker to be present while measurements are being made (see abstract).
4. Addressing claims 2, Noh discloses:
wherein signal quality of the plurality of test PPG signals is evaluated based on at least one of magnitude of an acceleration signal, a signal-to-noise ratio, and a ratio of an AC component magnitude to a DC component magnitude (see pages 6-7; base signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)).
Addressing claims 6-7, the system in claims 1-2 perform the method in claims 6-7 therefore claims 6-7 are being rejected for the same reason as claims 1-2.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aliamiri et al. (US 2019/0133468), in view of Noh et al. (KR 1020170019189 (provided in the IDS)), further in view of Podhajsky et al. (US 2015/0088002), Chen et al. (US 6,332,867) and Lee et al. (KR 102299035 (provided in the IDS)).
Addressing claims 3 and 8, Aliamiri does not disclose wherein the server further comprises an atrial fibrillation index calculation component configured to calculate an atrial fibrillation index, and the atrial fibrillation index is defined by a ratio between a time during which the quality of the PPG signal is classified as good by the signal quality classification component and a time during which it is determined by the atrial fibrillation determination component that atrial fibrillation has occurred while the quality of a PPG signal is classified as good by the signal quality classification component. In the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses wherein the server further comprises an atrial fibrillation index calculation component configured to calculate an atrial fibrillation index, and the atrial fibrillation index is defined by a ratio between a time during which the quality of the PPG signal is classified as good by the signal quality classification component and a time during which it is determined by the atrial fibrillation determination component that atrial fibrillation has occurred while the quality of a PPG signal is classified as good by the signal quality classification component (see pages 1-4; equation 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aliamiri to have wherein the server further comprises an atrial fibrillation index calculation component configured to calculate an atrial fibrillation index, and the atrial fibrillation index is defined by a ratio between a time during which the quality of the PPG signal is classified as good by the signal quality classification component and a time during which it is determined by the atrial fibrillation determination component that atrial fibrillation has occurred while the quality of a PPG signal is classified as good by the signal quality classification component as taught by Lee because this provide good accurate prediction for atrial fibrillation (see page 4).
Claims 4-5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aliamiri et al. (US 2019/0133468), in view of Noh et al. (KR 1020170019189 (provided in the IDS)), further in view of Podhajsky et al. (US 2015/0088002), Chen et al. (US 6,332,867) and Paulussen et al. (US 2018/0014737).
Addressing claims 4 and 9, Aliamiri does not disclose wherein the terminal further comprises a light source control component configured to control the light source of each of the plurality of sensors such that a DC component of each of the plurality of test PPG signals measured using the plurality of sensors is within a predetermined range. Paulussen discloses wherein the terminal further comprises a light source control component configured to control the light source of each of the plurality of sensors such that a DC component of each of the plurality of test PPG signals measured using the plurality of sensors is within a predetermined range (see [0016] and [0099]; adjust light intensity and angle base on DC component; light source intensity and angle is adjusted so that DC component is within a predetermined range). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aliamiri to have wherein the terminal further comprises a light source control component configured to control the light source of each of the plurality of sensors such that a DC component of each of the plurality of test PPG signals measured using the plurality of sensors is within a predetermined range as taught by Paulussen because this allow the system to calibrate and improve measurement (see [0099]).
Addressing claims 5 and 10, Noh discloses sensor selection by the sensor selection component are performed sequentially and the sensor selection by the sensor selection component are performed periodically (see page 7 and Fig. 1; signals are send from plurality of channels of different locations therefore the sensor selection is sequential and the measurement is happen more than 1 time therefore the sensor selection is also periodically/continuously; In reDilnot, 319 F.2d 188, 138 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1963) (Claim directed to a method of producing a cementitious structure wherein a stable air foam is introduced into a slurry of cementitious material differed from the prior art only in requiring the addition of the foam to be continuous. The court held the claimed continuous operation would have been obvious in light of the batch process of the prior art.)). Paulussen discloses wherein light source control by the light source control component are sequentially and periodically (see [0016] and [0099]; obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that light sources are control sequentially or simultaneously and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the light source is adjusted periodically/continuously to improve measurement; In reDilnot, 319 F.2d 188, 138 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1963) (Claim directed to a method of producing a cementitious structure wherein a stable air foam is introduced into a slurry of cementitious material differed from the prior art only in requiring the addition of the foam to be continuous. The court held the claimed continuous operation would have been obvious in light of the batch process of the prior art.)).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aliamiri et al. (US 2019/0133468), in view of Noh et al. (KR 1020170019189 (provided in the IDS)), further in view of Podhajsky et al. (US 2015/0088002), Chen et al. (US 6,332,867) and applicant admitted art.
Addressing claims 11-12, Aliamiri discloses calculate the atrial fibrillation determination probability and prediction; however, does not disclose applying temperature scaling to determine reliability calculation. Applicant’s specification paragraph [0067] discloses (Guo C, Pleiss G, Sun Y, Weinberger KQ, “On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks”) perform reliability calculation by applying temperature scaling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aliamiri to have determination reliability calculation by applying temperature scaling because this provides confidence calibration to further improve the system. Also see the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Guo, “On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks” discloses using temperature scaling provide surprising effective at calibrating prediction. Guo suggested a network should provide a calibrated confidence measure in addition to its prediction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2019/0328243 and “On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks”; US 2002/0045854 (see [0027] and claim 21; using touch screen to select automatic or manual mode) and US 4,889,132 (see col. 7, lines 37-47; user select to operate in manual mode or automatic mode; in manual mode user input request to start and end measurement).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEN NGOC NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/HIEN N NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3797