DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on 04/06/2026 concerning application no. 18/692,795 filed on 03/15/2024.
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-17, 19 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to the restriction have been fully considered and are persuasive. The restriction of the claims has been withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figs. 9-10 show flowcharts without written-in descriptions to indicate the function that is executed in each step.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “module-comprising”. This claim element should be amended to “module comprising”. This amendment will ensure proper grammar.
Claim 5 recites “64, 128 or 300 MHz”. This claim element should be amended to “64, 128, or 300 MHz”. This amendment will ensure proper grammar.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“a determination device configured to determine…” in claims 1, 10, 14, and 19: A review of the original specification does not appear to set forth a corresponding structure for the claimed “determination module”.
“a model providing module configured to provide…” in claims 1, 7-8, and 14-15: Paragraph 0013 discloses “In a preferred embodiment, the model providing module is a storage like a storage of a mobile device or of a personal computer, in which the model is stored and from which the model can be obtained, and the processor can be a processor of the mobile device or of the personal computer, respectively. The mobile device can be, for instance, a smartphone, a tablet computer or a laptop.”.
“a training physiological parameter measurement device for measuring…” in claims 15-16: A review of the original specification does not appear to set forth a corresponding structure for the claimed “training physiological parameter measurement device”.
“a training module configured to: determine…” in claim 15: A review of the original specification does not appear to set forth a corresponding structure for the claimed “training module”.
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 § 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, 3-12, 14-17, 19 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 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “a physiological parameter”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “physiological parameter” is the same as the “physiological parameter” established in the preceding claim element or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a motion signal”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “motion signal” is the same as the “motion signal” established in the preceding claim element or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “determine the physiological parameter”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear what is performing the determination of the physiological parameter as the claim establishes the determination device determining the physiological parameter and also the processor determining the physiological parameter. Each one is being claimed to be determined in a differing manner.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “determine the physiological parameter”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear what is the basis of the determination as the claim establishes the performance according to a signal analysis, a modeling, and a motion signal. It would be unclear in what manner these performances relate, if they do at all, such that a parameter is determined.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim 3 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “the phase shift”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “phase shift” is the same as the “distinct phase shift” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “the phase shift”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “further preferred”. This claim element is indefinite. It is indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is a part of the claimed invention. It is unclear if the following limitation is being actively claimed or not.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “even further preferred”. This claim element is indefinite. It is indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is a part of the claimed invention. It is unclear if the following limitation is being actively claimed or not.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a frequency range”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “frequency range” is the same as the “frequency range” established in the preceding claim element or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a frequency range”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “frequency range” is the same as the “frequency range” established in the preceding claim element or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim 6 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “the first signal”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “first signal” is the same as the “first motion signal” established a preceding claim element or the “first subsignal” in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “the first signal”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “wherein the processor is configured to apply a blind source separation technique, in order to generate a processed motion signal”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what is subjected to the blind source separation technique such that a processed motion signal is generated. It is further unclear what the relationship of the technique and the processed motion signal is to the motion signal.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a processed motion signal”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “processed motion signal” is the same as the “motion signal” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim 12 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “a loop coil”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “loop coil” is the same as the “loop coil” established in claim 11 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “the current”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recites “the whole length of the conductive element”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 is indefinite for the following reasons:
The claim as a whole is indefinite and its established elements’ relationship is unclear with respect to similarly established elements in independent claim 1. Applicant is encouraged to revise recitation of each element in relation to the similar language in claim 1.
Recites “A determination device”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “determination device” is the same as the “determination device” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a physiological parameter”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “physiological parameter” is the same as the “physiological parameter” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a subject”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “subject” is the same as the “subject” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a motion signal”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “motion signal” is the same as the “motion signal” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a model providing module”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “model providing module” is the same as the “model providing module” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a model”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “model” is the same as the “model” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “an output”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “output” is the same as the “output” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a physiological parameter”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “physiological parameter” is the same as the “physiological parameter” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “an input”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “input” is the same as the “input” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a motion signal”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “motion signal” is the same as the “motion signal” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a processor”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “processor” is the same as the “processor” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a complex signal”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “complex signal” is the same as the “complex signal” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a first subsignal”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “first subsignal” is the same as the “first subsignal” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a distinct phase shift”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “distinct phase shift” is the same as the “distinct phase shift” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a second subsignal”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “second subsignal” is the same as the “second subsignal” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “determine the physiological parameter”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear what is performing the determination of the physiological parameter as the claim establishes the determination device providing the physiological parameter and also the processor determining the physiological parameter. Each one is being claimed to be assessed in a differing manner.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “determine the physiological parameter”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear what is the basis of the determination as the claim establishes the performance according to a signal analysis, a modeling, and a motion signal. It would be unclear in what manner these performances relate, if they do at all, such that a parameter is determined.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim 15 is indefinite for the following reasons:
The claim as a whole is indefinite and its established elements’ relationship is unclear with respect to similarly established elements in independent claim 1. Applicant is encouraged to revise recitation of each element in relation to the similar language in claim 1.
Recites “a model”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “model” is the same as the “model” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a system”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “system” is the same as the “system” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a physiological parameter”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “physiological parameter” is the same as the “physiological parameter” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a subject”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “subject” is the same as the “subject” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a subject”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “subject” is the same as the “subject” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a model providing module”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “model providing module” is the same as the “model providing module” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “an output”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “output” is the same as the “output” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a physiological parameter”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “physiological parameter” is the same as the “physiological parameter” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “an input”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “input” is the same as the “input” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a motion signal”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “motion signal” is the same as the “motion signal” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “an RF antenna module”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “RF antenna module” is the same as the “RF antenna module” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “an RF instrument”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “RF instrument” is the same as the “RF instrument” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “an RF signal”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “RF signal” is the same as the “RF signal” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a motion signal”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “motion signal” is the same as the “motion signal” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a mechanical movement”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “mechanical movement” is the same as the “mechanical movement” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a structure”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “structure” is the same as the “structure” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a complex signal”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “complex signal” is the same as the “complex signal” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a physiological parameter”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “physiological parameter” is the same as the “physiological parameter” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a motion signal”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “motion signal” is the same as the “motion signal” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a first subsignal”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “first subsignal” is the same as the “first subsignal” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a distinct phase shift”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “distinct phase shift” is the same as the “distinct phase shift” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a second subsignal”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “second subsignal” is the same as the “second subsignal” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “determine the physiological parameter”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear what is performing the determination of the physiological parameter as the claim establishes the physiological parameter being the basis of the training of the model that provides the physiological parameter in claim 1 and also the processor determining the physiological parameter. Each one is being claimed to be assessed in a differing manner.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a training module configured to: a) determine a physiological parameter of the subject based on the model to be trained and a motion signal provided by the RF instrument and the RF antenna module; and b) modify the model such that a deviation between the determined physiological parameter and the training physiological parameter is reduced”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear if the physiological parameter is the basis to provide the model or if the model is the basis to provide the parameter. The claim 1 establishes that the model is the basis to provide the parameter. However, the instant claim establishes the parameter to be the basis to modify the parameter.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “determine the physiological parameter”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear what is the basis of the determination as the claim establishes the performance according to a signal analysis, a modeling, and a motion signal. It would be unclear in what manner these performances relate, if they do at all, such that a parameter is determined.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim 17 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “a physiological parameter”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “physiological parameter” is the same as the “physiological parameter” established in the preceding claim element or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a motion signal”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “motion signal” is the same as the “motion signal” established in the preceding claim element or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a subject”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “subject” is the same as the “subject” established in the preceding claim element or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “determining the physiological parameter”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear what is performing the determination of the physiological parameter as the claim establishes the determination device providing the physiological parameter and also the processor determining the physiological parameter. Each one is being claimed to be assessed in a differing manner.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “determine the physiological parameter”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear what is the basis of the determination as the claim establishes the performance according to a signal analysis, a modeling, and a motion signal. It would be unclear in what manner these performances relate, if they do at all, such that a parameter is determined.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim 19 is indefinite for the following reasons:
The claim as a whole is indefinite and its established elements’ relationship is unclear with respect to similarly established elements in independent claim 1. Applicant is encouraged to revise recitation of each element in relation to the similar language in claim 1.
Recites “A determination device”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “determination device” is the same as the “determination device” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a physiological parameter”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “physiological parameter” is the same as the “physiological parameter” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a provided model”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “provided model” is the same as the “provided model” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “an output”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “output” is the same as the “output” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a physiological parameter”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “physiological parameter” is the same as the “physiological parameter” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “an input”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “input” is the same as the “input” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a motion signal”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “motion signal” is the same as the “motion signal” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a motion signal”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “motion signal” is the same as the “motion signal” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a measurement device”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “measurement device” is the same as the “measurement device” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “an RF antenna module”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “RF antenna module” is the same as the “RF antenna module” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “an RF instrument”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “RF instrument” is the same as the “RF instrument” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “an RF signal”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “RF signal” is the same as the “RF signal” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a motion signal”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “motion signal” is the same as the “motion signal” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a mechanical movement”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “mechanical movement” is the same as the “mechanical movement” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a structure”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “structure” is the same as the “structure” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a subject”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “subject” is the same as the “subject” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a complex signal”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “complex signal” is the same as the “complex signal” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a first subsignal”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “first subsignal” is the same as the “first subsignal” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a distinct phase shift”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “distinct phase shift” is the same as the “distinct phase shift” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a second subsignal”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “second subsignal” is the same as the “second subsignal” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “determine the physiological parameter”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear what is performing the determination of the physiological parameter as the claim establishes the determination device providing the physiological parameter and also the processor determining the physiological parameter. Each one is being claimed to be assessed in a differing manner.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “determine the physiological parameter”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear what is the basis of the determination as the claim establishes the performance according to a signal analysis, a modeling, and a motion signal. It would be unclear in what manner these performances relate, if they do at all, such that a parameter is determined.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim limitation “a determination device” (See claims 1, 10, 14, and 19) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what structural features or components are needed to satisfy this claimed “determination device”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For purposes of examination, the Office is considering a central processing unit (CPU) as a “determination device”.
Claim limitation “a training physiological parameter measurement device” (See claims 15-16) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what structural features or components are needed to satisfy this claimed “training physiological parameter measurement device”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For purposes of examination, the Office is considering a central processing unit (CPU) as a “training physiological parameter measurement device”.
Claim limitation “a training module” (See claim 15) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what structural features or components are needed to satisfy this claimed “training module”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For purposes of examination, the Office is considering a central processing unit (CPU) as a “training module”.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims that are not discussed above but are cited to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are also rejected because they inherit the indefiniteness of the claims they respectively depend upon.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 14 recites “A determination device for determining a physiological parameter of a subject based on a motion signal measured by the measurement device of claim 1,wherein the determination device comprises a model providing module configured to provide a model that provides, as an output, a physiological parameter if, as an input, a motion signal is provided, and a processor configured to determine the physiological parameter based on the provided model and the provided motion signal, wherein the provided motion signal is a complex signal, wherein the processor is configured to identify a first subsignal of the complex signal having a distinct phase shift with respect to a second subsignal of the complex signal and to determine the physiological parameter based on at least one of the subsignals.” However, the claim 1 which it depends upon claims “A system for determining a physiological parameter of a subject, the system comprising: a measurement device including: a) an RF antenna module-comprising one or more RF antennas; and b) an RF instrument connected to the RF antenna module and configured to transmit RF power into the RF antenna module, to receive an RF signal from the RF antenna module and to provide a motion signal that is related to a mechanical movement of a structure within the subject based on the received RF signal; a determination device configured to determine the physiological parameter based on the provided motion signal, wherein the determination device comprises a model providing module configured to provide a model that provides, as an output, a physiological parameter if, as an input, a motion signal is provided; and a processor configured to determine the physiological parameter based on the provided model and the provided motion signal; wherein the RF instrument is configured to provide as the motion signal a complex signal, wherein the processor is configured to identify a first subsignal of the complex signal having a distinct phase shift with respect to a second subsignal of the complex signal and to determine the physiological parameter based on at least one of the subsignals.” Therefore, claim 14 is in improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non- statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recites the limitation “A computer program for controlling a determination device for determining a physiological parameter”. This limitation as drafted, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a transitory form of signal transmission. MPEP 2106.03 recites “When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate.”
Claims 1, 3-12, 14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a system for determining a physiological parameter of a subject and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “determine the physiological parameter based on the provided motion signal,…a model providing module configured to provide a model that provides, as an output, a physiological parameter if, as an input, a motion signal is provided; and…determine the physiological parameter based on the provided model and the provided motion signal;…identify a first subsignal of the complex signal having a distinct phase shift with respect to a second subsignal of the complex signal and to determine the physiological parameter based on at least one of the subsignals”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the determination of a physiological parameter according to a motion signal that is modeled and the performance of a signal analysis of the signal data for the parameter. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “a measurement device including: a) an RF antenna module-comprising one or more RF antennas; and b) an RF instrument connected to the RF antenna module and configured to transmit RF power into the RF antenna module, to receive an RF signal from the RF antenna module and to provide a motion signal that is related to a mechanical movement of a structure within the subject based on the received RF signal;…a determination device configured to…wherein the determination device comprises a model providing module configured to…a processor configured to… wherein the RF instrument is configured to provide as the motion signal a complex signal, wherein the processor is configured to…”. Collection of the motion signal is a data gathering step that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity. The use of a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 1 is ineligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a system and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “wherein the phase shift is 90 degrees”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to signal analysis with a 90 degree shift. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similar to Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not contain additional elements. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 3 is ineligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception are discussed above in the claim 1 rejection.
Claim 4 recites the following elements: “wherein the RF instrument and the RF antenna module are configured to be operated in a frequency range from 30 to 1000 MHz, further preferred in a frequency range from 300 to 800 MHz and even further preferred in a frequency range from 30 to 300 MHz”. This claim element is a mere data gathering step which amounts to a pre-solution insignificant activity. This pre-solution insignificant activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor does it contain an inventive step. In light of above, claim 4 is ineligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception are discussed above in the claim 4 rejection.
Claim 5 recites the following elements: “wherein the RF instrument and the RF antenna module are configured to be operated with an operating frequency of 64, 128 or 300 MHz”. This claim element is a mere data gathering step which amounts to a pre-solution insignificant activity. This pre-solution insignificant activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor does it contain an inventive step. In light of above, claim 5 is ineligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a system and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “remove contributions of the movement of the second structure to the first motion signal from the first signal based on the provided first and second motion signals and to determine the physiological parameter based on the first signal”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to filtering signal data based on a comparison of motion signals. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “wherein the RF antenna module includes at least a first RF antenna and a second RF antenna, wherein the RF instrument and the RF antenna module are configured to provide a first motion signal of the first RF antenna that is related to a mechanical movement of a first structure within the subject and to measure a second motion signal of the second RF antenna that is related to a mechanical movement of a second structure within the subject, wherein the processor is configured to”. RF signal acquisition is a data gathering step that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity. The use of a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 6 is ineligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a system and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “apply a blind source separation technique, in order to generate a processed motion signal, and to use the processed motion signal and the provided model to determine the physiological parameter, and/or… provide as the model at least one of a linear regression model, a polynomial regression model, and a Gaussian process regression model”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the application of a blind source separation technique and/or the modeling of the data. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “wherein the processor is configured to… wherein the model providing module is configured to”. The use of a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 7 is ineligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a system and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “apply a second order blind identification (SOBI) as the blind source separation technique, thereby generating a SOBI component as the processed motion signal, and wherein… provide as the model the Gaussian process regression model”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the application of SOBI and Gaussian modeling. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “wherein the processor is configured to…the model providing module is configured to”. The use of a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 8 is ineligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception are discussed above in the claim 1 rejection.
Claim 9 recites the following elements: “wherein the RF antenna module includes several RF antennas having different transmit phases defining a sensitivity profile of the RF antenna module, and wherein the RF antenna module is configured such that the sensitivity profile has its largest sensitivity at the location of the structure”. This claim element is a mere data gathering step which amounts to a pre-solution insignificant activity. This pre-solution insignificant activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor does it contain an inventive step. In light of above, claim 9 is ineligible.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a system and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “measure different motion signals for different frequencies,… determine the physiological parameter based on the motion signals measured for the different frequencies”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to determination for parameters according to different frequencies and the signal is based on different frequencies. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “wherein the measurement device is configured to… and wherein the determination device is configured to”. The use of a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 10 is ineligible.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception are discussed above in the claim 1 rejection.
Claim 11 recites the following elements: “wherein the one or more RF antennas include at least one of a dipole antenna with a gap and a loop coil with a gap in which a capacitor is arranged”. This claim element is a mere data gathering step which amounts to a pre-solution insignificant activity. The disclosed structure does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is not related to the judicial exception and is routine, well-known, and conventional. This pre-solution insignificant activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor does it contain an inventive step. In light of above, claim 11 is ineligible.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception are discussed above in the claim 11 rejection.
Claim 12 recites the following elements: “wherein the one or more RF antennas include a loop coil comprising a conductive element with multiple gaps, wherein a respective capacitor is placed in a respective gap, and wherein the RF instrument is configured to operate the loop coil in a loop mode, in which the current runs along the whole length of the conductive element, and/or in a dipole mode in which the loop coil acts like a dipole antenna”. This claim element is a mere data gathering step which amounts to a pre-solution insignificant activity. The disclosed structure does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is not related to the judicial exception and is routine, well-known, and conventional. This pre-solution insignificant activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor does it contain an inventive step. In light of above, claim 12 is ineligible.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a determination device for determining a physiological parameter of a subject based on a motion signal measured by the measurement device and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “a model providing module configured to provide a model that provides, as an output, a physiological parameter if, as an input, a motion signal is provided, and… determine the physiological parameter based on the provided model and the provided motion signal, wherein the provided motion signal is a complex signal,… identify a first subsignal of the complex signal having a distinct phase shift with respect to a second subsignal of the complex signal and to determine the physiological parameter based on at least one of the subsignals”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the determination of a physiological parameter according to a motion signal that is modeled and the performance of a signal analysis of the signal data for the parameter. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “wherein the determination device comprises… a processor configured to… wherein the processor is configured to”. The use of a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 14 is ineligible.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a method and therefore, is a method for determining a physiological parameter of a subject.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “providing a model that provides, as an output, a physiological parameter if, as an input, a motion signal is provided…; and determining the physiological parameter based on the provided model and the provided motion signal, identifies a first subsignal of the complex signal having a distinct phase shift with respect to a second subsignal of the complex signal and determines the physiological parameter based on at least one of the subsignals”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the determination of a physiological parameter according to a motion signal that is modeled and the performance of a signal analysis of the signal data for the parameter. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “providing a motion signal that is related to a mechanical movement of a structure within the subject by using an RF instrument and an RF antenna module of a measurement device, wherein the RF instrument (2) provides as the motion signal a complex signal; by a model providing module… by a processor, wherein the processor”. Collection of the motion signal is a data gathering step that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity. The use of a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 17 is ineligible.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a computer program for controlling a determination device for determining a physiological parameter and therefore, is an apparatus (in a non-transitory state).
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “determine the physiological parameter based on a provided model, which provides, as an output, a physiological parameter if, as an input, a motion signal is provided, wherein the provided motion signal is a complex signal,… identify a first subsignal of the complex signal having a distinct phase shift with respect to a second subsignal of the complex signal and to determine the physiological parameter based on at least one of the subsignals”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the determination of a physiological parameter according to a motion signal that is modeled and the performance of a signal analysis of the signal data for the parameter. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “wherein the computer program comprises program code means for causing the determination device to… and a motion signal which has been provided by a measurement device which includes a) an RF antenna module comprising one or more RF antennas and b) an RF instrument connected to the RF antenna module and configured to transmit RF power into the RF antenna module, to receive an RF signal from the RF antenna module and to provide a motion signal that is related to a mechanical movement of a structure within a subject… wherein the determination device is caused to”. Collection of the motion signal is a data gathering step that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity. The use of a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 19 is ineligible.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 10, 14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ghoshal et al. (PGPUB No. US 2020/0345274).
Regarding claim 1, Ghoshal teaches a system for determining a physiological parameter of a subject, the system comprising:
a measurement device including:
a) an RF antenna module-comprising one or more RF antennas; and b) an RF instrument connected to the RF antenna module and configured to transmit RF power into the RF antenna module, to receive an RF signal from the RF antenna module and to provide a motion signal that is related to a mechanical movement of a structure within the subject based on the received RF signal (Abstract teaches that a RF signal is emitted to tissue of a subject and the signal is received. Paragraph 0015 teaches the use of a RF antenna for emission and reception with respect to the subject. Paragraphs 0031-32 teach the RF antenna. Paragraph 0057 teaches the acquisition of a complex signal. Paragraph 0023 teaches that the RF signal contains the motion information that is then processed);
a determination device configured to determine the physiological parameter based on the provided motion signal, wherein the determination device comprises a model providing module configured to provide a model that provides, as an output, a physiological parameter if, as an input, a motion signal is provided; and a processor configured to determine the physiological parameter based on the provided model and the provided motion signal; and wherein the RF instrument is configured to provide as the motion signal a complex signal, wherein the processor is configured to identify a first subsignal of the complex signal having a distinct phase shift with respect to a second subsignal of the complex signal and to determine the physiological parameter based on at least one of the subsignals (Abstract teaches that the health state or condition can be assessed by processing the acquired signals from the RF emission and reception. The paragraphs 0013 teaches that an AI engine can be used to generate the baseline values that are indicative of at least one pattern of normal movement of the mammalian subject, and the detection of the at least one health state or health condition of the mammalian subject comprises deviation from the at least one pattern of normal movement of the mammalian subject. Paragraphs 0068-69 teaches that the motion is tracked and baselined and it is then fed for a respiration extraction algorithm for analysis. A complex demodulation is performed and the channel with the highest signal is determined and the artifacts are removed and the frequency is analyzed. There may be two or more indications of frequency content in the signal. The respiration would be the dominate except in the case of motion. The motion detection algorithm feeds forward into the decision of the frequency domain analysis. By providing an indication of the quantity and type of motion as indicated by its algorithm as described earlier, the respiration engine can identify the frequency component related to the motion versus the one that is indicative of the respiration. The respiration algorithm then reports and respiration rate which can then be smoothed or averaged and presented to a user. Paragraph 0057 teaches the consideration of the real signal component and the out of phase signal components (Q). Abstract teaches a processor configured to separately identify presence of respiratory and non-respiratory motion of the mammalian subject, and a memory configured to store processes signal values generated by or derived from the processor, wherein the processor is configured to compare one or more processed signals against one or more stored processed signal values).
Regarding claim 3, Ghoshal teaches the system in claim 1, as discussed above.
Ghoshal further teaches a system, wherein the phase shift is 90 degrees (Paragraph 0057 teaches the consideration of the real signal component and the out of phase signal components (Q)).
Regarding claim 4, Ghoshal teaches the system in claim 1, as discussed above.
Ghoshal further teaches a system, wherein the RF instrument and the RF antenna module are configured to be operated in a frequency range from 30 to 1000 MHz, further preferred in a frequency range from 300 to 800 MHz and even further preferred in a frequency range from 30 to 300 MHz (Paragraph 0054 teaches the application of 900 MHz RF operating frequency).
Regarding claim 10, Ghoshal teaches the system in claim 1, as discussed above.
Ghoshal further teaches a system, wherein the measurement device is configured to measure different motion signals for different frequencies, and wherein the determination device is configured to determine the physiological parameter based on the motion signals measured for the different frequencies (Abstract teaches that the health state or condition can be assessed by processing the acquired signals from the RF emission and reception. The paragraphs 0013 teaches that an AI engine can be used to generate the baseline values that are indicative of at least one pattern of normal movement of the mammalian subject, and the detection of the at least one health state or health condition of the mammalian subject comprises deviation from the at least one pattern of normal movement of the mammalian subject. Paragraphs 0068-69 teaches that the motion is tracked and baselined and it is then fed for a respiration extraction algorithm for analysis. A complex demodulation is performed and the channel with the highest signal is determined and the artifacts are removed and the frequency is analyzed. There may be two or more indications of frequency content in the signal. The respiration would be the dominate except in the case of motion. The motion detection algorithm feeds forward into the decision of the frequency domain analysis. By providing an indication of the quantity and type of motion as indicated by its algorithm as described earlier, the respiration engine can identify the frequency component related to the motion versus the one that is indicative of the respiration. The respiration algorithm then reports and respiration rate which can then be smoothed or averaged and presented to a user. Paragraph 0057 teaches the consideration of the real signal component and the out of phase signal components (Q). Abstract teaches a processor configured to separately identify presence of respiratory and non-respiratory motion of the mammalian subject, and a memory configured to store processes signal values generated by or derived from the processor, wherein the processor is configured to compare one or more processed signals against one or more stored processed signal values).
Regarding claim 14, Ghoshal teaches the system in claim 1, as discussed above.
Ghoshal further teaches a determination device for determining a physiological parameter of a subject based on a motion signal measured by the measurement device of claim 1, wherein the determination device comprises a model providing module configured to provide a model that provides, as an output, a physiological parameter if, as an input, a motion signal is provided, and a processor configured to determine the physiological parameter based on the provided model and the provided motion signal, wherein the provided motion signal is a complex signal, wherein the processor is configured to identify a first subsignal of the complex signal having a distinct phase shift with respect to a second subsignal of the complex signal and to determine the physiological parameter based on at least one of the subsignals (Abstract teaches that a RF signal is emitted to tissue of a subject and the signal is received. Paragraph 0015 teaches the use of a RF antenna for emission and reception with respect to the subject. Paragraphs 0031-32 teach the RF antenna. Paragraph 0057 teaches the acquisition of a complex signal. Paragraph 0023 teaches that the RF signal contains the motion information that is then processed. Abstract teaches that the health state or condition can be assessed by processing the acquired signals from the RF emission and reception. The paragraphs 0013 teaches that an AI engine can be used to generate the baseline values that are indicative of at least one pattern of normal movement of the mammalian subject, and the detection of the at least one health state or health condition of the mammalian subject comprises deviation from the at least one pattern of normal movement of the mammalian subject. Paragraphs 0068-69 teaches that the motion is tracked and baselined and it is then fed for a respiration extraction algorithm for analysis. A complex demodulation is performed and the channel with the highest signal is determined and the artifacts are removed and the frequency is analyzed. There may be two or more indications of frequency content in the signal. The respiration would be the dominate except in the case of motion. The motion detection algorithm feeds forward into the decision of the frequency domain analysis. By providing an indication of the quantity and type of motion as indicated by its algorithm as described earlier, the respiration engine can identify the frequency component related to the motion versus the one that is indicative of the respiration. The respiration algorithm then reports and respiration rate which can then be smoothed or averaged and presented to a user. Paragraph 0057 teaches the consideration of the real signal component and the out of phase signal components (Q). Abstract teaches a processor configured to separately identify presence of respiratory and non-respiratory motion of the mammalian subject, and a memory configured to store processes signal values generated by or derived from the processor, wherein the processor is configured to compare one or more processed signals against one or more stored processed signal values).
Regarding claim 17, Ghoshal teaches a method for determining a physiological parameter of a subject, the method comprising:
providing a motion signal that is related to a mechanical movement of a structure within the subject by using an RF instrument and an RF antenna module of a measurement device, wherein the RF instrument (2) provides as the motion signal a complex signal (Abstract teaches that a RF signal is emitted to tissue of a subject and the signal is received. Paragraph 0015 teaches the use of a RF antenna for emission and reception with respect to the subject. Paragraphs 0031-32 teach the RF antenna. Paragraph 0057 teaches the acquisition of a complex signal. Paragraph 0023 teaches that the RF signal contains the motion information that is then processed);
providing a model that provides, as an output, a physiological parameter if, as an input, a motion signal is provided, by a model providing module; and determining the physiological parameter based on the provided model and the provided motion signal by a processor, wherein the processor identifies a first subsignal of the complex signal having a distinct phase shift with respect to a second subsignal of the complex signal and determines the physiological parameter based on at least one of the subsignals (Abstract teaches that the health state or condition can be assessed by processing the acquired signals from the RF emission and reception. The paragraphs 0013 teaches that an AI engine can be used to generate the baseline values that are indicative of at least one pattern of normal movement of the mammalian subject, and the detection of the at least one health state or health condition of the mammalian subject comprises deviation from the at least one pattern of normal movement of the mammalian subject. Paragraphs 0068-69 teaches that the motion is tracked and baselined and it is then fed for a respiration extraction algorithm for analysis. A complex demodulation is performed and the channel with the highest signal is determined and the artifacts are removed and the frequency is analyzed. There may be two or more indications of frequency content in the signal. The respiration would be the dominate except in the case of motion. The motion detection algorithm feeds forward into the decision of the frequency domain analysis. By providing an indication of the quantity and type of motion as indicated by its algorithm as described earlier, the respiration engine can identify the frequency component related to the motion versus the one that is indicative of the respiration. The respiration algorithm then reports and respiration rate which can then be smoothed or averaged and presented to a user. Paragraph 0057 teaches the consideration of the real signal component and the out of phase signal components (Q). Abstract teaches a processor configured to separately identify presence of respiratory and non-respiratory motion of the mammalian subject, and a memory configured to store processes signal values generated by or derived from the processor, wherein the processor is configured to compare one or more processed signals against one or more stored processed signal values).
Regarding claim 19, Ghoshal teaches a computer program for controlling a determination device for determining a physiological parameter of claim 14, wherein the computer program comprises program code means for causing the determination device to determine the physiological parameter based on a provided model, which provides, as an output, a physiological parameter if, as an input, a motion signal is provided, and a motion signal which has been provided by a measurement device which includes a) an RF antenna module comprising one or more RF antennas and b) an RF instrument connected to the RF antenna module and configured to transmit RF power into the RF antenna module, to receive an RF signal from the RF antenna module and to provide a motion signal that is related to a mechanical movement of a structure within a subject, wherein the provided motion signal is a complex signal, wherein the determination device is caused to identify a first subsignal of the complex signal having a distinct phase shift with respect to a second subsignal of the complex signal and to determine the physiological parameter based on at least one of the subsignals (Abstract teaches that a RF signal is emitted to tissue of a subject and the signal is received. Paragraph 0015 teaches the use of a RF antenna for emission and reception with respect to the subject. Paragraphs 0031-32 teach the RF antenna. Paragraph 0057 teaches the acquisition of a complex signal. Paragraph 0023 teaches that the RF signal contains the motion information that is then processed. Abstract teaches that the health state or condition can be assessed by processing the acquired signals from the RF emission and reception. The paragraphs 0013 teaches that an AI engine can be used to generate the baseline values that are indicative of at least one pattern of normal movement of the mammalian subject, and the detection of the at least one health state or health condition of the mammalian subject comprises deviation from the at least one pattern of normal movement of the mammalian subject. Paragraphs 0068-69 teaches that the motion is tracked and baselined and it is then fed for a respiration extraction algorithm for analysis. A complex demodulation is performed and the channel with the highest signal is determined and the artifacts are removed and the frequency is analyzed. There may be two or more indications of frequency content in the signal. The respiration would be the dominate except in the case of motion. The motion detection algorithm feeds forward into the decision of the frequency domain analysis. By providing an indication of the quantity and type of motion as indicated by its algorithm as described earlier, the respiration engine can identify the frequency component related to the motion versus the one that is indicative of the respiration. The respiration algorithm then reports and respiration rate which can then be smoothed or averaged and presented to a user. Paragraph 0057 teaches the consideration of the real signal component and the out of phase signal components (Q). Abstract teaches a processor configured to separately identify presence of respiratory and non-respiratory motion of the mammalian subject, and a memory configured to store processes signal values generated by or derived from the processor, wherein the processor is configured to compare one or more processed signals against one or more stored processed signal values).
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 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghoshal et al. (PGPUB No. US 2020/0345274) in view of Weinstein et al. (US Patent No. 12,648,705).
Regarding claim 5, Ghoshal teaches the system in claim 4, as discussed above.
However, Ghoshal is silent regarding a system, wherein the RF instrument and the RF antenna module are configured to be operated with an operating frequency of 64, 128 or 300 MHz.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding RF based medical diagnosis, Weinstein teaches a system, wherein the RF instrument and the RF antenna module are configured to be operated with an operating frequency of 64, 128 or 300 MHz (Col. 1, lines 45-60 teaches application of 300 MHz).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ghoshal with Weinstein’s teaching of a frequency operation of 300 MHz. This modified apparatus would allow the user to have improved the ability to timely detect and treat life-threatening conditions (Col. 1, lines 45-60 of Weinstein). Furthermore, the modification frequencies can be adjusted and controlled for desired characteristics (Col. 22, lines 58-67 of Weinstein).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghoshal et al. (PGPUB No. US 2020/0345274) in view of Tupin Jr. et al. (PGPUB No. US 2015/0208949).
Regarding claim 6, Ghoshal teaches the system in claim 1, as discussed above.
While Ghoshal teaches the separation of respiratory and non-respiratory information (Abstract), Ghoshal is silent regarding a system, wherein the RF antenna module includes at least a first RF antenna and a second RF antenna, wherein the RF instrument and the RF antenna module are configured to provide a first motion signal of the first RF antenna that is related to a mechanical movement of a first structure within the subject and to measure a second motion signal of the second RF antenna that is related to a mechanical movement of a second structure within the subject, wherein the processor is configured to remove contributions of the movement of the second structure to the first motion signal from the first signal based on the provided first and second motion signals and to determine the physiological parameter based on the first signal.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding RF based medical diagnosis, Tupin Jr. teaches a system, wherein the RF antenna module includes at least a first RF antenna and a second RF antenna, wherein the RF instrument and the RF antenna module are configured to provide a first motion signal of the first RF antenna that is related to a mechanical movement of a first structure within the subject and to measure a second motion signal of the second RF antenna that is related to a mechanical movement of a second structure within the subject, wherein the processor is configured to remove contributions of the movement of the second structure to the first motion signal from the first signal based on the provided first and second motion signals and to determine the physiological parameter based on the first signal (Paragraphs 0046-52 teaches the implementation of multiple antennas that are targ4eting portions of the patient anatomy. Paragraphs 0135-36 teaches application of sensors in multiple parts of the anatomy with differing anatomical considerations. Paragraph 0242 teaches a third metric developed by the pulmonary motion detection module 400 comprises continual and repeated identification and tracking of a respiratory-like motion characteristic in the candidate image space for each sensor 20. The desired motion characteristic best characterizes the approximate motion of the chest walls, lungs or other targeted anatomical element with each target respiration volume during respiration over time. A corollary, yet opposite and equally important component of this third metric comprises the isolation and avoidance of signals from each sensor 20 having a motion characteristic that is not indicative of chest wall, lung or other motion derived from respiratory cycle influence. Essentially, the algorithm eliminates from consideration those signals that are most likely generated by a non-respiratory signal source).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ghoshal with Tupin Jr.’s teaching of filtering signal data. This modified apparatus would allow the user to have improvement in the precision and accuracy of the system (Paragraph 0222 of Tupin Jr.). Furthermore, the modification can improve contrast, edge, spatial filtering, noise suppression, image smoothing, and image sharpening (Paragraph 0235 of Tupin Jr.).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghoshal et al. (PGPUB No. US 2020/0345274) in view of Sel et al. ("ImpediBands: Body Coupled Bio-Impedance Patches for Physiological Sensing Proof of Concept", 2020).
Regarding claim 7, Ghoshal teaches the system in claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Ghoshal is silent regarding a system, wherein the processor is configured to apply a blind source separation technique, in order to generate a processed motion signal, and to use the processed motion signal and the provided model to determine the physiological parameter, and/or wherein the model providing module is configured to provide as the model at least one of a linear regression model, a polynomial regression model, and a Gaussian process regression model.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding RF based medical diagnosis, Sel teaches a system, wherein the processor is configured to apply a blind source separation technique, in order to generate a processed motion signal, and to use the processed motion signal and the provided model to determine the physiological parameter, and/or wherein the model providing module is configured to provide as the model at least one of a linear regression model, a polynomial regression model, and a Gaussian process regression model (Abstract teaches application of SOBI following signal reconstruction to extract heart and lung activities after the ImpediBand is used to collect movement information from the body).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ghoshal with Sel’s teaching of SOBI technique. This modified apparatus would allow the user to have strong confidence in the estimation of heart and lung rates (Abstract of Sel). Furthermore, the modification will create new opportunities and use-cases for the adoption of technology to improve the quality of care (Conclusion of Sel).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghoshal et al. (PGPUB No. US 2020/0345274) in view of Sel et al. ("ImpediBands: Body Coupled Bio-Impedance Patches for Physiological Sensing Proof of Concept", 2020) further in view of Ong et al. (PGPUB No. US 2022/0031194).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ghoshal teaches the system in claim 7, as discussed above.
However, Ghoshal is silent regarding a system, wherein the processor is configured to apply a second order blind identification (SOBI) as the blind source separation technique, thereby generating a SOBI component as the processed motion signal, and wherein the model providing module is configured to provide as the model the Gaussian process regression model.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding RF based medical diagnosis, Sel teaches a system, wherein the processor is configured to apply a second order blind identification (SOBI) as the blind source separation technique, thereby generating a SOBI component as the processed motion signal (Abstract teaches application of SOBI following signal reconstruction to extract heart and lung activities after the ImpediBand is used to collect movement information from the body).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ghoshal with Sel’s teaching of SOBI technique. This modified apparatus would allow the user to have strong confidence in the estimation of heart and lung rates (Abstract of Sel). Furthermore, the modification will create new opportunities and use-cases for the adoption of technology to improve the quality of care (Conclusion of Sel).
However, the combination of Ghoshal and Sel is silent regarding a system, wherein the model providing module is configured to provide as the model the Gaussian process regression model.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding medical diagnosis of motion analysis, Ong teaches a system, wherein the model providing module is configured to provide as the model the Gaussian process regression model (Paragraph 0150 teaches the application of a gaussian process regression on the signal data to assess the distribution of the subject data).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Ghoshal and Sel with Ong’s teaching of gaussian analysis. This modified apparatus would allow the user to improve overall health and quality of life (Paragraph 0153 of Ong). Furthermore, the modification improved detection and assessment of the motion signal (Paragraph 0187 of Ong).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghoshal et al. (PGPUB No. US 2020/0345274) in view of Leussler et al. (PGPUB No. US 2022/0206098).
Regarding claim 9, Ghoshal teaches the system in claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Ghoshal is silent regarding a system, wherein the RF antenna module includes several RF antennas having different transmit phases defining a sensitivity profile of the RF antenna module, and wherein the RF antenna module is configured such that the sensitivity profile has its largest sensitivity at the location of the structure.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding RF based medical diagnosis, Leussler teaches a system, wherein the RF antenna module includes several RF antennas having different transmit phases defining a sensitivity profile of the RF antenna module, and wherein the RF antenna module is configured such that the sensitivity profile has its largest sensitivity at the location of the structure (Paragraph 0128 teaches examples may provide for a distributed pilot/reference signal in the coil array. A fully digital pilot tone integration in the receive array. This for example, may provide for an optimal pilot signal is selected by Tx matrix and Rx matrix. Individual pilot tones can be different in frequency-phase-complex modulation. By filtering and post-processing, the measured data, it is possible to detect and distinguish between different types of motion even allowing a localization of the movement. By using N receive coil elements in combination with M local transmitters; we obtain N×M signals at the same time. This allows to derive motion vectors).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ghoshal with Leussler’s teaching of optimized transmission. This modified apparatus would allow the user to derive motion vectors and have reconstruction of low-resolution images (Paragraphs 0128-29 of Leussler). Furthermore, the modification has improved imaging quality following the motion reduction and assessment (Paragraph 0040 of Leussler).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghoshal et al. (PGPUB No. US 2020/0345274) in view of Lakshmanan et al. (PGPUB No. US 2015/0137815).
Regarding claim 11, Ghoshal teaches the system in claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Ghoshal is silent regarding a system, wherein the one or more RF antennas include at least one of a dipole antenna with a gap and a loop coil with a gap in which a capacitor is arranged.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding RF antenna design, Lakshmanan teaches a system, wherein the one or more RF antennas include at least one of a dipole antenna with a gap and a loop coil with a gap in which a capacitor is arranged (Paragraphs 0011-13 teaches the design of an RF antenna with a loop coil and a plurality of capacitors. See Fig. 9. Abstract teaches the generation of dipole fields).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ghoshal with Lakshmanan’s teaching of a loop coil. This modified apparatus would allow the user to have improved performance (Paragraph 0073 of Lakshmanan). Furthermore, the modification would have improved uniformity and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) (Paragraph 0097 of Lakshmanan).
Regarding claim 12, modified Ghoshal teaches the system in claim 11, as discussed above.
However, Ghoshal is silent regarding a system, wherein the one or more RF antennas include a loop coil comprising a conductive element with multiple gaps, wherein a respective capacitor is placed in a respective gap, and wherein the RF instrument is configured to operate the loop coil in a loop mode, in which the current runs along the whole length of the conductive element, and/or in a dipole mode in which the loop coil acts like a dipole antenna.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding RF antenna design, Lakshmanan teaches a system, wherein the one or more RF antennas include a loop coil comprising a conductive element with multiple gaps, wherein a respective capacitor is placed in a respective gap, and wherein the RF instrument is configured to operate the loop coil in a loop mode, in which the current runs along the whole length of the conductive element, and/or in a dipole mode in which the loop coil acts like a dipole antenna (Paragraphs 0011-13 teaches the design of an RF antenna with a loop coil and a plurality of capacitors. See Fig. 9. Abstract teaches the generation of dipole fields).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ghoshal with Lakshmanan’s teaching of a loop coil. This modified apparatus would allow the user to have improved performance (Paragraph 0073 of Lakshmanan). Furthermore, the modification would have improved uniformity and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) (Paragraph 0097 of Lakshmanan).
Claims 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghoshal et al. (PGPUB No. US 2020/0345274) in view of Hyde et al. (PGPUB No. US 2020/0121215).
Regarding claim 15, Ghoshal teaches the system in claim 1, as discussed above.
Ghoshal further teaches a system, training system for training a model to be used by a system for determining a physiological parameter of a subject as recited in claim 1, wherein the training system comprises: a training physiological parameter measurement device for measuring a training physiological parameter of a subject; a model providing module configured to provide an adaptable model to be trained, wherein the model provides, as an output, a physiological parameter if, as an input, a motion signal is provided; an RF antenna module comprising one or more RF antennas and an RF instrument connected to the RF antenna module and configured to transmit RF power into the RF antenna module, to receive an RF signal from the RF antenna module and to provide a motion signal that is related to a mechanical movement of a structure within the subject based on the received RF signal, if the RF antenna module is arranged on the subject, wherein the RF instrument is configured to provide as the motion signal a complex signal; and a training module configured to: a) determine a physiological parameter of the subject based on the model to be trained and a motion signal provided by the RF instrument and the RF antenna module; and wherein the training module is configured to identify a first subsignal of the complex signal having a distinct phase shift with respect to a second subsignal of the complex signal and to determine the physiological parameter based on at least one of the subsignals (Abstract teaches that a RF signal is emitted to tissue of a subject and the signal is received. Paragraph 0015 teaches the use of a RF antenna for emission and reception with respect to the subject. Paragraphs 0031-32 teach the RF antenna. Paragraph 0057 teaches the acquisition of a complex signal. Paragraph 0023 teaches that the RF signal contains the motion information that is then processed. Abstract teaches that the health state or condition can be assessed by processing the acquired signals from the RF emission and reception. The paragraphs 0013 teaches that an AI engine can be used to generate the baseline values that are indicative of at least one pattern of normal movement of the mammalian subject, and the detection of the at least one health state or health condition of the mammalian subject comprises deviation from the at least one pattern of normal movement of the mammalian subject. Paragraphs 0068-69 teaches that the motion is tracked and baselined and it is then fed for a respiration extraction algorithm for analysis. A complex demodulation is performed and the channel with the highest signal is determined and the artifacts are removed and the frequency is analyzed. There may be two or more indications of frequency content in the signal. The respiration would be the dominate except in the case of motion. The motion detection algorithm feeds forward into the decision of the frequency domain analysis. By providing an indication of the quantity and type of motion as indicated by its algorithm as described earlier, the respiration engine can identify the frequency component related to the motion versus the one that is indicative of the respiration. The respiration algorithm then reports and respiration rate which can then be smoothed or averaged and presented to a user. Paragraph 0057 teaches the consideration of the real signal component and the out of phase signal components (Q). Abstract teaches a processor configured to separately identify presence of respiratory and non-respiratory motion of the mammalian subject, and a memory configured to store processes signal values generated by or derived from the processor, wherein the processor is configured to compare one or more processed signals against one or more stored processed signal values. Paragraph 0068 teaches that the AI engine is trained according to normalized motion patterns and the deviation is assessed with respect to subsequently collected motion information).
However, Ghoshal is silent regarding a system, b) modify the model such that a deviation between the determined physiological parameter and the training physiological parameter is reduced.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding RF antenna design, Hyde teaches a training system, wherein the training system comprises: a training physiological parameter measurement device for measuring a training physiological parameter of a subject; a training module configured to: a) determine a physiological parameter of the subject based on the model to be trained and a motion signal provided by the RF instrument and the RF antenna module; b) modify the model such that a deviation between the determined physiological parameter and the training physiological parameter is reduced (Paragraph 0021 teaches that the antenna can be a RF signal that is received and utilized. The radar system is sending and receiving signals for detection of a physiological parameter. Paragraph 0050 teaches that the parameters can be heart rate, volume, contractions and breathing rate. They can be assessed via machine learning algorithms and multiple models can be used. Paragraph 0051 teaches the control and modification of the model based on the difference of the training data and the model output. Paragraphs 0054-55 teach that the parameter model can be improved and the model can be trained. The model output can be compared to the training dataset and the difference can be assessed and then reduced by modifying the model for its weights and biases. This optimization can be done until convergence is achieved. The input can be done to analyze cardiac parameters and the radar system can be improved based on this. Paragraph 0044 teaches that the collected information can be used to update the historical database based on the received radar return signals that are analyzed).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ghoshal with Hyde’s teaching of modification of the training dataset. This modified apparatus would allow the user to improve performance of the CNN and achieve desired performance accuracy (Paragraph 0053 of Hyde). Furthermore, the modification can improve operation of the radar system (Paragraph 0055 of Hyde).
Regarding claim 16, modified Ghoshal teaches the training system in claim 15, as discussed above.
However, Ghoshal is silent regarding a training system, wherein the training physiological parameter measurement device is configured to use the RF antenna module for measuring the training physiological parameter of the subject.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding RF antenna design, Hyde teaches a training system, wherein the training physiological parameter measurement device is configured to use the RF antenna module for measuring the training physiological parameter of the subject (Paragraph 0021 teaches that the antenna can be a RF signal that is received and utilized. The radar system is sending and receiving signals for detection of a physiological parameter. Paragraph 0050 teaches that the parameters can be heart rate, volume, contractions and breathing rate. They can be assessed via machine learning algorithms and multiple models can be used. Paragraph 0051 teaches the control and modification of the model based on the difference of the training data and the model output. Paragraphs 0054-55 teach that the parameter model can be improved and the model can be trained. The model output can be compared to the training dataset and the difference can be assessed and then reduced by modifying the model for its weights and biases. This optimization can be done until convergence is achieved. The input can be done to analyze cardiac parameters and the radar system can be improved based on this. Paragraph 0044 teaches that the collected information can be used to update the historical database based on the received radar return signals that are analyzed).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ghoshal with Hyde’s teaching of use of RF for measure of training data. This modified apparatus would allow the user to improve performance of the CNN and achieve desired performance accuracy (Paragraph 0053 of Hyde). Furthermore, the modification can improve operation of the radar system (Paragraph 0055 of Hyde).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Haj-Yousef (PGPUB No. US 2005/0043608): Teaches application of RF with a 300 MHz frequency.
Vincent et al. (PGPUB No. US 2022/0334202): Teaches an application of a loop coil.
Morren et al. (PGPUB No. US 2012/0065524): Teaches application of SOBI for motion analysis.
Hui et al. (PGPUB No. US 2022/0175254): Teaches RF frequency based motion detection.
Lin et al. (US Patent No. 11,800,986): Teaches application of RF with a 300 MHz frequency.
Balter et al. (US Patent No. 12,207,911): Teaches application of gaussian regression analysis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADIL PARTAP S VIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-8569. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. 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.
/ADIL PARTAP S VIRK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
