DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 16 and 20 have been amended, and claim 27 has been cancelled. Claims 1-15 remain cancelled. All other claims remain as originally or previously presented. Rejections of amended claims have been updated or addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed on 6/10/2026, with respect to the previous drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed on 6/10/2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection and 112(f) interpretation of claims 19 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 112(b) rejection and 112(f) interpretation have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed on 6/10/2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 27 under Pfeiffer (previously cited) in view of Sullivan (previously cited) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Brauers et al. (WIPO Pub. No. 2008/129446).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16-18 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeiffer et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2017/0169690) (previously cited) in view of Brauers et al. (WIPO Pub. No. 2008/129446).
Regarding claim 16, Pfeiffer teaches a system (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0024, line 3) for
detecting physiological data (Paragraph 0024, lines 39-41) of a person (Paragraph 0024, line 39) in-flight in an aircraft (Paragraph 0024, lines 5-7), including: at least one aircraft seat (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0027, line 2) and/or at least one aircraft bed (Fig. 3, Paragraph 0028, line 2); and at least one detecting device (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0024, lines 12-13) including at least one capacitive sensor (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0024, lines 14-15) integrated in (Paragraph 0027, lines 5-7 and Paragraph 0028, lines 5-7) the at least one aircraft seat and/or the at least one aircraft bed, the at least one capacitive sensor configured to sense at least one physiological value (Paragraph 0036, lines 3-4) of a person arranged on at least a portion (Paragraph 0036, line 4) of the at least one aircraft seat and/or the at least one aircraft bed, wherein the at least one capacitive sensor is further configured to generate as the physiological data at least one physiological signal (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0036, line 2) based on the sensed at least one physiological value (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0036, lines 3-4).
Pfeiffer teaches that the sensor can be positioned between a seat/mattress cover and padding (Paragraph 0041, lines 1-3), wherein the seat cover or mattress cover can be made of a textile material (Paragraph 0024, lines 23-25). Pfeiffer does not teach that the system includes a shield configured to actively and/or passively shield at least portions of the system from interference signals which are present in an environment of the system, wherein the shield at least partially covers the capacitive sensor.
Brauers, however, teaches a sensor arrangement for monitoring physiological parameters that utilizes capacitive (Page 5, line 4) sensors (Fig. 3A-3B, Page 5, line 14, 10) to measure physiological parameters of a person (Page 5, lines 13-14). Brauers teaches that a conductive shielding (Fig. 3A-3B, Page 5, line 13, 20) can be a textile fabric that is placed in a bed, integrated in a mattress, or integrated in a bed sheet (Page 5, lines 16-18). Brauers also teaches that the textile fabrics used as the conductive shielding can completely cover the capacitive sensor (Page 5, lines 21-24), and provide passive shielding from electromagnetic interference signals that are present in the environment of the system (Page 5, lines 25-26).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit
shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of textile seat/mattress cover of Pfeiffer for the conductive shielding textile fabric of Brauers. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Doing so would allow for suppression of electromagnetic interference from external sources and avoid charge build-up during sensor measurements (Abstract), as recognized by Brauers.
Regarding claim 17, Pfeiffer in view of Brauers discloses the claimed invention
of claim 16. Pfeiffer further discloses the system (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0024, line 3) according to claim 16, wherein the system includes at least one aircraft seat (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0027, line 2), and wherein the at least one capacitive sensor (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0024, lines 14-15) is arranged in or on (Paragraph 0024, lines 12-13) a seating portion and/or in or on a backrest (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0024, lines 8-12) of the at least one aircraft seat.
Regarding claim 18, Pfeiffer in view of Brauers discloses the claimed invention
of claim 16. Pfeiffer further discloses the system (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0024, line 3) according to claim 16, wherein the at least one detecting device (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0024, lines 12-13) includes at least one transmitting device (Paragraph 0026, line 2) configured to connect to (Paragraph 0026, lines 6-10) a receiving device (Paragraph 0026, line 7) and to transmit (Paragraph 0026, lines 6-10) the physiological data to the receiving device (Paragraph 0026, lines 6-10).
Regarding claim 28, Pfeiffer in view of Brauers discloses the claimed invention of claim 16. Pfeiffer further discloses the system (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0024, line 3) according to claim 16, wherein the physiological data (Paragraph 0024, lines 39-41) relates to at least one of a respiratory rate (Paragraph 0037, line 4), a heart rate (Paragraph 0037, lines 4-5), a sinus rhythm (Paragraph 0027, line 32), and a bioelectrical value (Paragraph 0027, line 32) of the person (Paragraph 0024, line 39).
Regarding claim 29, Pfeiffer in view of Brauers discloses the claimed invention of claim 16. Pfeiffer further discloses the system (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0024, line 3) of claim 16, further comprising an evaluating device (Paragraph 0026, line 7) configured to determine at least one physiological parameter (Paragraph 0036, lines 5-6) of the person (Paragraph 0024, line 39) based on the at least one physiological signal (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0036, line 2).
Claims 19-26 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeiffer et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2017/0169690) (previously cited) in view of Brauers et al. (WIPO Pub. No. 2008/129446) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Sullivan et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,984,207) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 19, Pfeiffer teaches the system (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0024, line 3) according to claim 16, further including a signal processing unit (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0024, line 26) configured to process (Paragraph 0024, lines 28-34) and/or adjust the at least one physiological signal (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0036, line 2) at least based on one or more electromagnetic interference signals present in the environment of the system.
Pfeiffer does not teach a signal processing unit that is configured to adjust the at least one physiological signal at least based on one or more electromagnetic interference signals present in the environment of the system. However, Sullivan teaches a passive physiological monitoring system that is configured to adjust (Col. 7, lines 60-64) the at least one physiological signal at least based on one or more electromagnetic interference signals (Col. 1, lines 36-37) present in the environment of the system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pfeiffer to incorporate the teachings of Sullivan to include a signal processing unit that is configured to adjust the at least one physiological signal based on one or more electromagnetic interference signals present in the environment of the system. Doing so would isolate the detected physiological signals by eliminating noise interference signals from the aircraft (Abstract and Col. 4, lines 60-65), as recognized by Sullivan.
Regarding claim 20, Pfeiffer teaches the system (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0024, line 3) according to claim 19, further comprising an amplifier configured to amplify the at least one physiological signal (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0036, line 2) and to provide at least one amplified physiological signal to the signal processing unit (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0024, line 26) such that the signal processing unit can process (Paragraph 0024, lines 28-34) and/or adjust the at least one amplified physiological signal.
Pfeiffer does not teach a system that comprises an amplifier which is configured to amplify the at least one physiological signal and to provide at least one amplified physiological signal to the signal processing unit such that the signal processing unit can adjust the at least one amplified physiological signal. However, Sullivan teaches a passive physiological monitoring system that comprises an amplifier (Col. 5, line 30) to amplify the at least one physiological signal and to provide at least one amplified physiological signal (Col. 5, line 31) to the signal processing unit, such that the signal process unit can adjust (Col. 7, lines 60-64) the at least one amplified physiological signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pfeiffer to incorporate the teachings of Sullivan to include a system that comprises an amplifying unit which is configured to amplify the at least one physiological signal and to provide at least one amplified physiological signal to the signal processing unit such that the signal processing unit can adjust the at least one amplified physiological signal. Doing so would increase the strength of the physiological signals and help them be properly processed (Col. 7, lines 47-51), as recognized by Sullivan.
Regarding claim 21, Pfeiffer teaches the system (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0024, line 3) according to claim 19, wherein the at least one detecting device (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0024, lines 12-13) is configured to apply analog and/or digital frequency-selective filtering to the at least one physiological signal (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0036, line 2) at least based on the one or more electromagnetic interference signals.
Pfeiffer does not teach a system that is configured to apply analog and/or digital frequency-selective filtering to the at least one physiological signal at least based on the one or more electromagnetic interference signals. However, Sullivan teaches a passive physiological monitoring system that is configured to apply analog (Col. 5, lines 29-32) and/or digital (Col. 5, lines 32-34) frequency-selective filtering (Col. 6, line 58) to the at least one physiological signal at least based on the one or more electromagnetic interference signals (Col. 1, lines 36-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pfeiffer to incorporate the teachings of Sullivan to include a system that is configured to apply analog and/or digital frequency-selective filtering to the at least one physiological signal at least based on the one or more electromagnetic interference signals. Doing so would ensure that the system has a means for frequency-selective filtering either analog and/or digital physiological signals in order to reduce noise interference signals from the aircraft (Col. 4, lines 60-65 and Col. 7, lines 12-20), as recognized by Sullivan.
Regarding claim 22, Pfeiffer teaches the system (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0024, line 3) according to claim 21, wherein the at least one detecting device (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0024, lines 12-13) comprises at least one passive electronic component for performing the analog frequency-selective filtering. Pfeiffer does not teach a system that comprises at least one passive electronic component for performing analog frequency-selective filtering. However, Sullivan teaches a passive physiological monitoring system that comprises a passive electronic component (Col. 5, lines 39-42) for the analog frequency-selective filtering.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pfeiffer to incorporate the teachings of Sullivan to have a system that includes a passive electronic component for performing the analog frequency-selective filtering. Doing so would ensure that the system has a means for frequency-selective filtering analog physiological signals in order to reduce noise interference signals from the aircraft (Col. 4, lines 60-65 and Col. 7, lines 12-20), as recognized by Sullivan. It is also known in the art that passive electronic components such as capacitors and inductors are used for analog frequency-selective filtering.
Regarding claim 23, Pfeiffer teaches the system (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0024, line 3) according to claim 21, wherein the at least one detecting device (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0024, lines 12-13) comprises at least one logic module for performing the digital frequency-selective filtering. Pfeiffer does not teach a system that comprises at least one logic module for performing the digital frequency-selective filtering. However, Sullivan teaches a passive physiological monitoring system that comprises at least one logic module (Col. 9, lines 3-4) for performing the digital frequency-selective filtering (Col. 5, lines 32-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pfeiffer to incorporate the teachings of Sullivan to have a system that includes a logic module for performing the digital frequency-selective filtering. Doing so would ensure that the system has a means for frequency-selective filtering digital physiological signals in order to reduce noise interference signals from the aircraft (Col. 4, lines 60-65 and Col. 7, lines 12-20), as recognized by Sullivan. It is also known in the art that logic modules or algorithms are used for digital frequency-selective filtering.
Regarding claim 24, Pfeiffer teaches the system (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0024, line 3) according to claim 19, wherein the signal processing unit (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0024, line 26) is configured to detect at least one pulse width and/or at least one frequency of the one or more electromagnetic interference signals, and to filter and/or disregard the at least one pulse width and/or the at least one frequency from the at least one physiological signal.
Pfeiffer does not teach a system that is configured to detect at least one pulse width and/or at least one frequency of the one or more electromagnetic interference signals, and to filter and/or disregard the at least one pulse width and/or the at least one frequency from the at least one physiological signal. However, Sullivan teaches a passive physiological monitoring system that is configured to detect at least one pulse width (Col. 8, lines 22-23) and/or at least one frequency (Col. 8, line 23) of the one or more electromagnetic interference signals (Col. 1, lines 36-37), and to filter (Col. 6, line 58) and/or disregard (Col. 7, lines 60-64) the at least one pulse width and/or the at least one frequency from the at least one physiological signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pfeiffer to incorporate the teachings of Sullivan to include a system that is configured to detect at least one pulse width and/or at least one frequency of the one or more electromagnetic interference signals, and to filter and/or disregard the at least one pulse width and/or the at least one frequency from the at least one physiological signal. Doing so would ensure that EMI signals can be measured with at least one pulse width (time domain) or at least one frequency (frequency domain), in order to reduce noise interference signals from the aircraft (Col. 4, lines 60-65 and Col. 8, lines 22-23), as recognized by Sullivan.
Regarding claim 25, Pfeiffer teaches the system (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0024, line 3) according to claim 19, wherein the signal processing unit (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0024, line 26) applies frequency-selective filtering to the at least one physiological signal (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0036, line 2) by applying at least one Fourier-analysis, at least one autocorrelation, and/or at least one adaptive algorithm to the at least one physiological signal.
Pfeiffer does not teach a system that applies frequency-selective filtering to the at least one physiological signal by applying at least one Fourier-analysis, at least one autocorrelation, and/or at least one adaptive algorithm to the at least one physiological signal. However, Sullivan teaches a passive physiological monitoring system that applies frequency-selective filtering (Col. 6, line 58) to the at least one physiological signal by applying at least one Fourier-analysis (Col. 7, lines 16-18), at least one autocorrelation (Col. 8, line 25), and/or at least one adaptive algorithm (Col. 8, lines 62-63) to the at least one physiological signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pfeiffer to incorporate the teachings of Sullivan to have a system that applies frequency-selective filtering to the at least one physiological signal by applying at least one Fourier-analysis, at least one autocorrelation, and/or at least one adaptive algorithm to the at least one physiological signal. Doing so would ensure that the system has multiple methodologies of performing frequency-selective filtering on the detected physiological signals (Col. 6, line 58), in order to reduce noise interference signals from the aircraft (Col. 4, lines 60-65), as recognized by Sullivan.
Regarding claim 26, Pfeiffer teaches the system (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0024, line 3) according to claim 16, wherein the at least one detecting device (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0024, lines 12-13) is configured to correct movement artifacts in the at least one physiological signal (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0036, line 2) caused by movement present in the environment of the system by filtering and/or disregarding the movement artifacts in the at least one physiological signal.
Pfeiffer does not teach a system that is configured to correct movement artifacts in the at least one physiological signal caused by movement present in the environment of the system by filtering and/or disregarding the movement artifacts in the at least one physiological signal. However, Sullivan teaches a passive physiological monitoring system that is configured to correct (Col. 7, lines 52-53) movement artifacts (Col. 1, lines 42-43) in the at least one physiological signal caused by movement present in the environment (Col. 5, lines 54-56) of the system by filtering (Col. 6, line 58) and/or disregarding (Col. 7, lines 60-64) the movement artifacts in the at least one physiological signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pfeiffer to incorporate the teachings of Sullivan to include a system that is configured to correct movement artifacts in the at least one physiological signal caused by movement present in the environment of the system by filtering and/or disregarding the movement artifacts in the at least one physiological signal. Doing so would ensure that movement artifacts from the environment, such as vibrations, are not included in the at least one physiological signal (Col. 7, lines 52-64), as recognized by Sullivan.
Regarding claim 30, Pfeiffer teaches the system (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0024, line 3) according to claim 29, wherein the evaluating device (Paragraph 0026, line 7) is a mobile device (Paragraph 0032, line 5) of the person, a wearable device (Paragraph 0032, line 5) of the person, a laptop (Paragraph 0032, line 5), a PC (Paragraph 0032, line 5), a tablet (Paragraph 0032, line 5), or an on-board entertainment system (Paragraph 0032, lines 6-8).
However, Pfeiffer teaches that the center-of-gravity signal 112a is supplied to a device 132 which could include a mobile device, a wearable device, a laptop, a PC, a tablet, or an on-board entertainment. Pfeiffer does not explicitly state that a physiological signal 112b could be supplied to a device. Because Pfeiffer discloses two types of output signals 112 (center-of-gravity signal 112a and physiological signal 112b), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try supplying the physiological signal 112b to a further device 132, as is done with the center-of-gravity signal 112a, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Doing so would ensure that the physiological data can be transmitted to a variety of evaluating devices (Paragraph 0032, lines 5-8), as recognized by Pfeiffer.
Regarding claim 31, Pfeiffer teaches the system (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0024, line 3) according to claim 30, wherein the evaluating device (Paragraph 0026, line 7) includes at least one display (Paragraph 0032, line 5) for displaying the at least one physiological parameter (Paragraph 0032, lines 10-12).
However, Pfeiffer teaches that the center-of-gravity signal 112a is supplied to a device 132 that includes at least one display 132a. Pfeiffer does not explicitly state that a physiological signal 112b could be supplied to a device with a display. Because Pfeiffer discloses two types of output signals 112 (center-of-gravity signal 112a and physiological signal 112b), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try supplying the physiological signal 112b to a further device 132 and display 132a, as is done with the center-of-gravity signal 112a, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Doing so would ensure that the physiological data can be transmitted to and displayed with an evaluating device (Paragraph 0032, lines 3-5), as recognized by Pfeiffer.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Heidi Hilsmier whose telephone number is (571)272-2984. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Fridays from 7:30 AM - 3:30 PM.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
/H.A.H./Patent Examiner , Art Unit 3796
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights