DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 22 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. 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 22 recites “wherein the controller is further configured to: determine the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region for each of the applied correcting steps; and choose a correcting step corresponding to the lowest of the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region as a permanent correction for the electrocardiogram output.” However, Claim 22 depends from Claim 17, which recites “and determine the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region for each of the applied correcting steps: and choose a correcting step corresponding to the lowest of the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region as a permanent correction for the electrocardiogram output.” These limitations are the same. Claim 22 thus fails to further limit Claim 17 from which it depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 7-15 and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Eligibility Step 1 – The Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7-15 and 17-23 each fall within one of the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong One
Claims 1-5, 7-15 and 17-23 recite abstract ideas:
Regarding Independent Claim 1:
“determining when the rate of change of the heartrate values exceeds a predetermined threshold value” recites a mental process when afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation. The claimed determining could practically be performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could observe data reflective of both the rate of change and the predetermined threshold, and exercise judgment to determine whether the rate of change exceeds said threshold.
“…sequentially applying one or more correcting steps to a region of the electrocardiogram output around a selected heartbeat where the rate of change of heartrate values occurred” recites a mathematical concept, and more particularly a mathematical calculation when afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). “A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Per Pg. 21-22 of the Present Specification wherein the recited “correcting steps” are described, the recited “correcting steps” involve manipulating the inputs of an equation, and thus recites a mathematical calculation when afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification.
“configuring the predetermined threshold value based on the likely signal-to-noise ratio” recites a mental process when afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation. The claimed configuring could practically be performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could observe data pertaining to a likely signal-to-noise ratio and exercise judgment to configure such a threshold based thereon.
“determining the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region for each of the applied correcting steps” recites a mathematical concept, and more particularly a mathematical calculation when afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). “A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Determining a rate of change is a mathematical operation, and thus recites a mathematical calculation when afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification.
“and choosing a correcting step corresponding to the lowest of the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region as a permanent correction for the electrocardiogram output” recites a mental process when afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation. The claimed configuring could practically be performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could observe data reflective of the relevant rates of change, and exercise judgment to choose a correcting step based on the lowest of such rates.
Regarding Claims 2-5 and 7-10, Claims 2-5 and 7-10 depend from and further limit Claim 1, and recited abstract ideas for the same reasons as does Claim 1.
Regarding Independent Claim 11:
“determining when the rate of change of the heartrate values exceeds a predetermined threshold value” recites a mental process when afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation for the same reasons as explained above with respect to the similar limitation of Claim 1.
“…sequentially applying one or more correcting steps to a region of the electrocardiogram output around a selected heartbeat where the rate of change of heartrate values occurred” recites a mathematical concept, and more particularly a mathematical calculation when afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation for the same reasons as explained above with respect to the similar limitation of Claim 1.
“configuring the predetermined threshold value based on the likely signal-to-noise ratio” recites a mental process when afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation for the same reasons as explained above with respect to the similar limitation of Claim 1.
“determining the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region for each of the applied correcting steps” recites a mathematical concept, and more particularly a mathematical calculation when afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation for the same reasons as explained above with respect to the similar limitation of Claim 1.
“and choosing a correcting step corresponding to the lowest of the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region as a permanent correction for the electrocardiogram output” recites a mental process when afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation for the same reasons as explained above with respect to the similar limitation of Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 12-15, Claims 12-15 depend from and further limit Claim 11, and recited abstract ideas for the same reasons as does Claim 11.
Regarding Independent Claim 17:
“determine when the rate of change of the heartrate values exceeds a predetermined threshold value” recites a mental process when afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation for the same reasons as explained above with respect to the similar limitation of Claim 1.
“sequentially apply one or more correcting steps to a region of the electrocardiogram output around a selected heartbeat where the rate of change of heartrate values occurred” recites a mathematical concept, and more particularly a mathematical calculation when afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation for the same reasons as explained above with respect to the similar limitation of Claim 1.
“configure the predetermined threshold value based on the likely signal-to-noise ratio” recites a mental process when afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation for the same reasons as explained above with respect to the similar limitation of Claim 1.
“determine the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region for each of the applied correcting steps” recites a mathematical concept, and more particularly a mathematical calculation when afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation for the same reasons as explained above with respect to the similar limitation of Claim 1.
“and choose a correcting step corresponding to the lowest of the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region as a permanent correction for the electrocardiogram output” recites a mental process when afforded its broadest reasonable interpretation for the same reasons as explained above with respect to the similar limitation of Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 18-21 and 23, Claims 18-21 and 23 depend from and further limit Claim 17, and recited abstract ideas for the same reasons as does Claim 17.
Regarding Claim 22, Claim 22 recites “wherein the controller is further configured to: determine the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region for each of the applied correcting steps; and choose a correcting step corresponding to the lowest of the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region as a permanent correction for the electrocardiogram output,” which is substantively the same as the limitations “and determine the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region for each of the applied correcting steps: and choose a correcting step corresponding to the lowest of the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region as a permanent correction for the electrocardiogram output” of Claim 17. Claim 22 recites mental processes for the same reasons as explained above with respect to Claim 17.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong Two
Claims 1-5, 7-15 and 17-23 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
Regarding Independent Claim 1:
“obtaining a series heartrate values for the electrocardiogram output” is insignificant extra-solution activity insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to mere data gathering.
“obtaining information indicative of the likely signal-to-noise ratio of the electrocardiogram output” is insignificant extra-solution activity insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to mere data gathering.
Regarding Claims Claims 2-5 and 7-10, Claims 2-5 and 7-10 do not recite any additional elements.
Regarding Independent Claim 11:
“a controller and a memory, the memory storing instructions which when executed by the controller cause the controller to perform operations comprising:” is a generic computer structure for performing a generic computer function, and thus simply amounts to using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“obtaining a series heartrate values for the electrocardiogram output” is insignificant extra-solution activity insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“obtaining information indicative of the likely signal-to-noise ratio of the electrocardiogram output” is insignificant extra-solution activity insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding Claims 12-15, Claims 12-15 do not recite any additional elements.
Regarding Independent Claim 17:
“An electronics module comprising a controller and a memory coupled to the controller…” is a generic computer structure for performing a generic computer function, and thus simply amounts to using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
“obtain a series heartrate values for the electrocardiogram output” is insignificant extra-solution activity insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“obtain information indicative of the likely signal-to-noise ratio of the electrocardiogram output” is insignificant extra-solution activity insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it amounts to mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding Claims 18-23, Claims 18-23 do not recite any additional elements.
Eligibility Step 2B
Claims 1-5, 7-15 and 17-23 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas recited therein:
Regarding Independent Claim 1:
“obtaining a series heartrate values for the electrocardiogram output” does not contribute an inventive concept. Such obtaining heart rate from electrocardiogram output is well-understood, routine and conventional in the art. See, e.g., Non-Patent Literature E.S. Prakash et al., "How to Tell Heart Rate From an ECG? (Learning Objects #769 and #878)," Advances in Physiology Education 2005 29:2, 57-57.
“obtaining information indicative of the likely signal-to-noise ratio of the electrocardiogram output” does not contribute an inventive concept. Such obtaining information indicative of the likely signal-to-noise ratio of the electrocardiogram output is well-understood, routine and conventional in the art. See, e.g., M. Chakraborty et al., "Determination of Signal to Noise Ratio of Electrocardiograms Filtered by Band Pass and Savitzky-Golay Filters," Procedia Technology Volume 4, 2012, Pages 830-833 at Pg. 830.
Regarding Claims 2-5 and 7-10, Claims 2-5 and 7-10 do not recite any additional elements.
Regarding Independent Claim 11:
“a controller and a memory, the memory storing instructions which when executed by the controller cause the controller to perform operations comprising” does not contribute an inventive concept. The claimed “controller and memory” are generic computer structures for performing generic computer functions, and are simply appended to the claimed mental processes. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
“obtaining a series heartrate values for the electrocardiogram output” does not contribute an inventive concept. Such obtaining heart rate from electrocardiogram output is well-understood, routine and conventional in the art. See, e.g., Non-Patent Literature E.S. Prakash et al., "How to Tell Heart Rate From an ECG? (Learning Objects #769 and #878)," Advances in Physiology Education 2005 29:2, 57-57.
“obtaining information indicative of the likely signal-to-noise ratio of the electrocardiogram output” does not contribute an inventive concept. Such obtaining information indicative of the likely signal-to-noise ratio of the electrocardiogram output is well-understood, routine and conventional in the art. See, e.g., M. Chakraborty et al., "Determination of Signal to Noise Ratio of Electrocardiograms Filtered by Band Pass and Savitzky-Golay Filters," Procedia Technology Volume 4, 2012, Pages 830-833 at Pg. 830.
Regarding Claims 12-15, Claims 12-15 do not recite any additional elements.
Regarding Independent Claim 17:
“An electronics module comprising a controller and a memory coupled to the controller…” does not contribute an inventive concept. The claimed “electronics module comprising a controller and memory” are generic computer structures for performing generic computer functions, and are simply appended to the claimed mental processes. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
“obtain a series heartrate values for the electrocardiogram output” does not contribute an inventive concept. Such obtaining heart rate from electrocardiogram output is well-understood, routine and conventional in the art. See, e.g., Non-Patent Literature E.S. Prakash et al., "How to Tell Heart Rate From an ECG? (Learning Objects #769 and #878)," Advances in Physiology Education 2005 29:2, 57-57.
“obtain information indicative of the likely signal-to-noise ratio of the electrocardiogram output” does not contribute an inventive concept. Such obtaining information indicative of the likely signal-to-noise ratio of the electrocardiogram output is well-understood, routine and conventional in the art. See, e.g., M. Chakraborty et al., "Determination of Signal to Noise Ratio of Electrocardiograms Filtered by Band Pass and Savitzky-Golay Filters," Procedia Technology Volume 4, 2012, Pages 830-833 at Pg. 830.
Regarding Claims 18-23, Claims 18-23 do not recite any additional elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-15 and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2563210 B11 to Osorio et al. (“Osorio”) in view of Mateo, J. and Laguna P., “Analysis of heart rate variability in the presence of ectopic beats using the heart timing signal” in the IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, Volume 50, No. 3, March 2013 (“Mateo”).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Osorio teaches:
A computer-implemented method of correcting an electrocardiogram output for anomalous heart beats, (Para. [0189], “The heart beat validation module 285 is capable of declaring invalid beats and forwarding a plurality of heart beats accepted as valid to window analysis module 295.” Para. [0188], “…the heart beat validation module 285 may comprise hardware, firmware, software and/or any combination thereof;” Para. [0212]; Figs. 3C through 3E);
Osorio uses a software-implemented “heart beat validation module 285” as part of Osorio’s broader “Methods for detecting a seizure from cardiac data” (Title). Osorio’s “heart beat validation module 285” is such a computer-implemented method as claimed.
the method comprising: obtaining a series heartrate values for the electrocardiogram output; (Para. [0079], “The cardiac data comprising a fiducial time marker for each of a plurality of heart beats can be gathered by any of a number of techniques. For example, the cardiac data may be gathered by an electrocardiogram (ECG) device;” Paras. [0080] through [0083] detail determining heartrate from ECG);
determining when the rate of change of the heartrate values exceeds a predetermined threshold value; (Fig. 3C, Paras. [0214] through [0216]; Para. [0216], “If the slope exceeds the slope threshold, the candidate heart beat is discarded as invalid.”);
and, in response to the predetermined threshold value being exceeded, sequentially applying one or more correcting steps to a region of the electrocardiogram output around a selected heartbeat where the rate of change of heartrate values occurred; (Para. [0219], “if a candidate heart beat is found to be invalid by (i.e., failed a test associated with) one or more of the units 505, 510, 515, and 520, a constraint modification unit 287 determines if the candidate heart beat occurred at a time after the most recent prior valid heart beat that is greater than a constraint modification time threshold for the determination made by one or more of units 505, 510, 515, 520. For example, if the physiologically plausible heart beat interval unit 505 has a constraint modification time threshold of 5 sec, and at least 5 sec have elapsed since the last valid beat when a candidate heart beat is declared invalid, the constraint modification unit 287 would modify the constraint, such as by relaxing the constraint or tightening the constraint.”);
obtaining information indicative of the likely signal-to-noise ratio of the electrocardiogram output; (Para. [0193], “Figures 2C-2D depict the heart beat/interval determination module 275, the heart beat validation module 285, the window analysis module 295, along with a beat quality index module 286, as components of a beat quality analysis module 276. The beat quality index module 286 is capable of setting an initial value of a beat quality index for a candidate heart beat, receiving information from heart beat validation module 285 about beat validity test(s) passed and/or failed by a candidate heart beat, receiving information from window analysis module 295 about window test(s) passed and/or failed by a window comprising a valid beat, and adjusting the value of the beat quality index based on the received information.”);
configuring the predetermined threshold value based on the likely signal-to-noise ratio (Para. [0194], “…in addition to the heart beat/interval determination module 275, the heart beat validation module 285, and the window analysis module 295, Figures 2E-2F depict a constraint modification unit 287. The constraint modification unit 287 modifies at least one constraint for one or more of the at least one beat validity tests performed by the heart beat/interbeat interval determination module 275 and determines, in the event of a finding of an invalid beat by the beat validity test(s) (i.e., failure of a candidate heart beat to pass one or more tests), if the time since the last valid beat is greater than the threshold. If the time since the last valid beat is greater than the threshold, the constraint modification unit 287 modifies the constraint, such as by relaxing the constraint or tightening the constraint.”);
Osorio does not disclose:
determining the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region for each of the applied correcting steps;
and choosing a correcting step corresponding to the lowest of the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region as a permanent correction for the electrocardiogram output.
Mateo describes “Analysis of Heart Rate Variability in the Presence of Ectopic Beats Using the Heart Timing Signal” (Title). Mateo is Applicant-admitted prior art. See MPEP 2129; Present Specification at Pg. 2, Ln. 31-34.
Mateo teaches:
determining the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region for each of the applied correcting steps; (Pg. 335, Left Column, Second Paragraph through Pg. 355, Right Column, First Paragraph);
Mateo detects anomalous heartbeats by assessing change in instantaneous heart rate relative to a predefined threshold (Mateo at Pg. 335, Left Column, Third Paragraph, “Given that these anomalies are frequent and notably affect the PSD estimation of the HRV, an algorithm for the detection of anomalies is proposed;” Mateo at Pg. 335, Left Column, Fourth Paragraph, “This condition can be written as [Equation (1)];” Mateo at Pg. 335, Right Column, First Paragraph, “When the condition in (1) is not met for some time instant tk, some position tk-1, tk, or tk+1 are anomalous.”).
When change in instantaneous heart rate exceeds Mateo’s threshold, anomaly is detected (Mateo at Pg. 335, Right Column, First Paragraph).
Upon detecting such an anomaly, Mateo applies a correction (Mateo at Pg. 335, Right Column, Third Paragraph, “Once the anomalous beat is identified, it is necessary to correct this effect in the studies of HRV.”).
As Mateo’s correction is applied based on change in instantaneous heart rate, Mateo necessarily determines the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region for each of the applied correcting steps. (See Mateo at Pg. 335, Right Column, First Paragraph).
and choosing a correcting step corresponding to the lowest of the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region as a permanent correction for the electrocardiogram output. (Pg. 337, Left Column, Third Paragraph through Pg. 338, Left Column, Third Paragraph)
Mateo proposes two means of correction: “Dealing with ectopic beats correction by introducing a constant delay in the beat timing” (Pg. 337, Right Column, Third Paragraph) and the more complex methodology of Pg. 337, Left Column, Fourth Paragraph through Pg. 338, Left Column, Third Paragraph. Mateo states that the former “will result in a phase shift in the HT or other HRV signals before and after of the ectopic beat,” thereby creating “two false, shortened RR intervals” (Pg. 337, Right Column, Third Paragraph). Such a falsely shortened interval creates, by Mateo’s Equation 1, a higher rate of change of heartrate relative to a correctly longer corresponding interval, when all else is equal.
Mateo uses the methodology of Pg. 337, Left Column, Fourth Paragraph through Pg. 338, Left Column, Third Paragraph for permanent correction.
The Examiner notes that the phrasing of this limitation is considerably broader than its corresponding description at Pg. 21 through Pg. 22 of the Present Specification. Were the steps listed as 1-6 at Pg. 21, Ln. 25-34 and/or the methodology of their use described at Pg. 22 of the Present Specification to be more narrowly reflected by the language of the claim, this interpretation would merit reconsideration.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Osorio with the teachings of Mateo (i.e., to use the correction method taught by Mateo in place of that used by Osorio) in order to “better recover[] the original clinical indexes of interest” because Mateo’s method “has one order of magnitude lower error than usual ectopic beats removal strategies in preserving PSD” (Mateo at Abstract).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Osorio with the teachings of Mateo (i.e., to determine as part of Osorio’s methodology the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region for each of the applied correcting steps in the manner of Matteo, and to use the correcting step corresponding to the lowest of the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region as a permanent correction for the electrocardiogram output) because such determining and choosing are both required by Mateo’s methodology (see Mateo at Pg. 335, Left Column, Second Paragraph through Pg. 355, Right Column, First Paragraph; Pg. 337, Left Column, Third Paragraph through Pg. 338, Left Column, Third Paragraph), which as explained above it would have been obvious to adopt in order to “better recover[] the original clinical indexes of interest” because Mateo’s method “has one order of magnitude lower error than usual ectopic beats removal strategies in preserving PSD” (Mateo at Abstract).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Osorio and Mateo renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Osorio additionally teaches:
wherein the predetermined threshold value is configured to be a first value when the likely signal-to-noise ratio is above a first predetermined value. (Para. [0193], “The beat quality index module 286 is capable of setting an initial value of a beat quality index for a candidate heart beat, receiving information from heart beat validation module 285 about beat validity test(s) passed and/or failed by a candidate heart beat, receiving information from window analysis module 295 about window test(s) passed and/or failed by a window comprising a valid beat, and adjusting the value of the beat quality index based on the received information;” Para. [0194], “ The constraint modification unit 287 modifies at least one constraint for one or more of the at least one beat validity tests performed by the heart beat/interbeat interval determination module 275 and determines, in the event of a finding of an invalid beat by the beat validity test(s) (i.e., failure of a candidate heart beat to pass one or more tests), if the time since the last valid beat is greater than the threshold. If the time since the last valid beat is greater than the threshold, the constraint modification unit 287 modifies the constraint, such as by relaxing the constraint or tightening the constraint.”).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Osorio and Mateo renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Osorio additionally teaches:
wherein the predetermined threshold value is configured to be a second value when the likely signal-to-noise ratio is above a second predetermined value. (Para. [0193], “he beat quality index module 286 is capable of setting an initial value of a beat quality index for a candidate heart beat, receiving information from heart beat validation module 285 about beat validity test(s) passed and/or failed by a candidate heart beat, receiving information from window analysis module 295 about window test(s) passed and/or failed by a window comprising a valid beat, and adjusting the value of the beat quality index based on the received information;” Para. [0194], “The constraint modification unit 287 modifies at least one constraint for one or more of the at least one beat validity tests performed by the heart beat/interbeat interval determination module 275 and determines, in the event of a finding of an invalid beat by the beat validity test(s) (i.e., failure of a candidate heart beat to pass one or more tests), if the time since the last valid beat is greater than the threshold. If the time since the last valid beat is greater than the threshold, the constraint modification unit 287 modifies the constraint, such as by relaxing the constraint or tightening the constraint.”).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Osorio and Mateo renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Osorio additionally teaches:
wherein the obtained information relates to the activity level of a person whose electrocardiogram output is being monitored. (Para. [0095], “In one embodiment, the upper and lower beat interval seizure duration thresholds are derived from at least one of the patient's own heart beat data, and heart beat data from a sample patient population based upon one or more of brain state, sex, age, weight, level of activity, time of day, type of epilepsy, use of drugs or substances (such as food) that affect cardiac function, ambient temperature, body temperature, respiration, and blood pressure, among others.”).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Osorio and Mateo renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Osorio additionally teaches:
wherein the obtained information relates to a characteristic of a person whose electrocardiogram output is being monitored. (Para. [0095], “In one embodiment, the upper and lower beat interval seizure duration thresholds are derived from at least one of the patient's own heart beat data, and heart beat data from a sample patient population based upon one or more of brain state, sex, age, weight, level of activity, time of day, type of epilepsy, use of drugs or substances (such as food) that affect cardiac function, ambient temperature, body temperature, respiration, and blood pressure, among others.”).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Osorio and Mateo renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Mateo additionally teaches:
wherein the rate of change of heart rate is derived from the equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
56
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where r/ is the rate of change of the heart rate, at the kh heartbeat, tk is the time of the kth heartbeat, and tk_1 and tk+1 are the times of the (k-1)th and (k+)th heartbeat respectively either side of the kth heartbeat. (Pg. 335, Left Column, Fourth Paragraph; Equation (1); see Mateo Equation (1), reproduced below).
PNG
media_image2.png
132
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Osorio and Mateo renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Osorio additionally teaches:
wherein the step of obtaining a series heartrate values for the electrocardiogram comprises a step of sampling a series of heart beats in the electrocardiogram output and determining the heart rate values from the sampled heart beats. (Para. [0079], “The cardiac data comprising a fiducial time marker for each of a plurality of heart beats can be gathered by any of a number of techniques. For example, the cardiac data may be gathered by an electrocardiogram (ECG) device;” Paras. [0080] through [0083] detail determining heartrate from ECG).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Osorio and Mateo renders obvious the entirety of Claim 1 as explained above.
Osorio additionally teaches:
The computer-readable medium having instructions recorded thereon which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method as of claim 1. (Para. [0180], “The processor 215 may comprise one or more microcontrollers, microprocessors, etc., capable of performing various executions of software components;” Para. [0179])
Regarding Independent Claim 11, Osorio teaches:
A system for correcting an electrocardiogram output for anomalous heart beats, (Para. [0179], “The medical device 200 (such as generator 110 from Figure 1) may comprise a controller 210 capable of controlling various aspects of the operation of the medical device 200;” Para. [0189], “The heart beat validation module 285 is capable of declaring invalid beats and forwarding a plurality of heart beats accepted as valid to window analysis module 295.” Para. [0188], “…the heart beat validation module 285 may comprise hardware, firmware, software and/or any combination thereof;” Para. [0212]; Figs. 3C through 3E);
the system comprising a controller and a memory, the memory storing instructions which when executed by the controller cause the controller to perform operations comprising: (Para. [0180], “The controller 210 may comprise various components, such as a processor 215, a memory 217, etc. The processor 215 may comprise one or more microcontrollers, microprocessors, etc., capable of performing various executions of software components. The memory 217 may comprise various memory portions where a number of types of data (e.g., internal data, external data instructions, software codes, status data, diagnostic data, etc.) may be stored. The memory 217 may comprise one or more of random access memory (RAM), dynamic random access memory (DRAM), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), flash memory, etc.”);
obtaining a series heartrate values for the electrocardiogram output; (Para. [0079], “The cardiac data comprising a fiducial time marker for each of a plurality of heart beats can be gathered by any of a number of techniques. For example, the cardiac data may be gathered by an electrocardiogram (ECG) device;” Paras. [0080] through [0083] detail determining heartrate from ECG);
determining when the rate of change of the heartrate values exceeds a predetermined threshold value; (Fig. 3C, Paras. [0214] through [0216]; Para. [0216], “If the slope exceeds the slope threshold, the candidate heart beat is discarded as invalid.”);
and, in response to the predetermined threshold value being exceeded, sequentially applying one or more correcting steps to a region of the electrocardiogram output around a selected heartbeat where the rate of change of heartrate values occurred; (Para. [0219], “if a candidate heart beat is found to be invalid by (i.e., failed a test associated with) one or more of the units 505, 510, 515, and 520, a constraint modification unit 287 determines if the candidate heart beat occurred at a time after the most recent prior valid heart beat that is greater than a constraint modification time threshold for the determination made by one or more of units 505, 510, 515, 520. For example, if the physiologically plausible heart beat interval unit 505 has a constraint modification time threshold of 5 sec, and at least 5 sec have elapsed since the last valid beat when a candidate heart beat is declared invalid, the constraint modification unit 287 would modify the constraint, such as by relaxing the constraint or tightening the constraint.”);
obtaining information indicative of the likely signal-to-noise ratio of the electrocardiogram output; (Para. [0193], “Figures 2C-2D depict the heart beat/interval determination module 275, the heart beat validation module 285, the window analysis module 295, along with a beat quality index module 286, as components of a beat quality analysis module 276. The beat quality index module 286 is capable of setting an initial value of a beat quality index for a candidate heart beat, receiving information from heart beat validation module 285 about beat validity test(s) passed and/or failed by a candidate heart beat, receiving information from window analysis module 295 about window test(s) passed and/or failed by a window comprising a valid beat, and adjusting the value of the beat quality index based on the received information.”);
configuring the predetermined threshold value based on the likely signal-to-noise ratio; (Para. [0194], “…in addition to the heart beat/interval determination module 275, the heart beat validation module 285, and the window analysis module 295, Figures 2E-2F depict a constraint modification unit 287. The constraint modification unit 287 modifies at least one constraint for one or more of the at least one beat validity tests performed by the heart beat/interbeat interval determination module 275 and determines, in the event of a finding of an invalid beat by the beat validity test(s) (i.e., failure of a candidate heart beat to pass one or more tests), if the time since the last valid beat is greater than the threshold. If the time since the last valid beat is greater than the threshold, the constraint modification unit 287 modifies the constraint, such as by relaxing the constraint or tightening the constraint.”).
Osorio does not disclose:
and determining the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region for each of the applied correcting steps:
and choosing a correcting step corresponding to the lowest of the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region as a permanent correction for the electrocardiogram output.
Mateo describes “Analysis of Heart Rate Variability in the Presence of Ectopic Beats Using the Heart Timing Signal” (Title). Mateo is Applicant-admitted prior art. See MPEP 2129; Present Specification at Pg. 2, Ln. 31-34.
Mateo teaches:
and determining the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region for each of the applied correcting steps: (Pg. 335, Left Column, Second Paragraph through Pg. 355, Right Column, First Paragraph);
This limitation is being interpreted similarly to the similar Claim 1 limitation above. See explanation above at Claim 1.
and choosing a correcting step corresponding to the lowest of the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region as a permanent correction for the electrocardiogram output. (Pg. 337, Left Column, Third Paragraph through Pg. 338, Left Column, Third Paragraph)
This limitation is being interpreted similarly to the similar Claim 1 limitation above. See explanation above at Claim 1.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Osorio with the teachings of Mateo (i.e., to use the correction method taught by Mateo in place of that used by Osorio) in order to “better recover[] the original clinical indexes of interest” because Mateo’s method “has one order of magnitude lower error than usual ectopic beats removal strategies in preserving PSD” (Mateo at Abstract).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Osorio with the teachings of Mateo (i.e., to determine as part of Osorio’s methodology the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region for each of the applied correcting steps in the manner of Matteo, and to use the correcting step corresponding to the lowest of the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region as a permanent correction for the electrocardiogram output) because such determining and choosing are both required by Mateo’s methodology (see Mateo at Pg. 335, Left Column, Second Paragraph through Pg. 355, Right Column, First Paragraph; Pg. 337, Left Column, Third Paragraph through Pg. 338, Left Column, Third Paragraph), which as explained above it would have been obvious to adopt in order to “better recover[] the original clinical indexes of interest” because Mateo’s method “has one order of magnitude lower error than usual ectopic beats removal strategies in preserving PSD” (Mateo at Abstract).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Osorio and Mateo renders obvious the entirety of Claim 11 as explained above.
Osorio additionally teaches:
wherein the predetermined threshold value is configured to be a first value when the likely signal-to-noise ratio is above a first predetermined value. (Para. [0193], “he beat quality index module 286 is capable of setting an initial value of a beat quality index for a candidate heart beat, receiving information from heart beat validation module 285 about beat validity test(s) passed and/or failed by a candidate heart beat, receiving information from window analysis module 295 about window test(s) passed and/or failed by a window comprising a valid beat, and adjusting the value of the beat quality index based on the received information;” Para. [0194], “The constraint modification unit 287 modifies at least one constraint for one or more of the at least one beat validity tests performed by the heart beat/interbeat interval determination module 275 and determines, in the event of a finding of an invalid beat by the beat validity test(s) (i.e., failure of a candidate heart beat to pass one or more tests), if the time since the last valid beat is greater than the threshold. If the time since the last valid beat is greater than the threshold, the constraint modification unit 287 modifies the constraint, such as by relaxing the constraint or tightening the constraint.”).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Osorio and Mateo renders obvious the entirety of Claim 11 as explained above.
Osorio additionally teaches:
wherein the predetermined threshold value is configured to be a second value when the likely signal-to-noise ratio is above a second predetermined value. (Para. [0193], “he beat quality index module 286 is capable of setting an initial value of a beat quality index for a candidate heart beat, receiving information from heart beat validation module 285 about beat validity test(s) passed and/or failed by a candidate heart beat, receiving information from window analysis module 295 about window test(s) passed and/or failed by a window comprising a valid beat, and adjusting the value of the beat quality index based on the received information;” Para. [0194], “The constraint modification unit 287 modifies at least one constraint for one or more of the at least one beat validity tests performed by the heart beat/interbeat interval determination module 275 and determines, in the event of a finding of an invalid beat by the beat validity test(s) (i.e., failure of a candidate heart beat to pass one or more tests), if the time since the last valid beat is greater than the threshold. If the time since the last valid beat is greater than the threshold, the constraint modification unit 287 modifies the constraint, such as by relaxing the constraint or tightening the constraint.”).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Osorio and Mateo renders obvious the entirety of Claim 11 as explained above.
Osorio additionally teaches:
wherein the obtained information relates to the activity level of a person whose electrocardiogram output is being monitored. (Para. [0095], “In one embodiment, the upper and lower beat interval seizure duration thresholds are derived from at least one of the patient's own heart beat data, and heart beat data from a sample patient population based upon one or more of brain state, sex, age, weight, level of activity, time of day, type of epilepsy, use of drugs or substances (such as food) that affect cardiac function, ambient temperature, body temperature, respiration, and blood pressure, among others.”).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Osorio and Mateo renders obvious the entirety of Claim 11 as explained above.
Osorio additionally teaches:
wherein the obtained information relates to a characteristic of a person whose electrocardiogram output is being monitored. (Para. [0095], “In one embodiment, the upper and lower beat interval seizure duration thresholds are derived from at least one of the patient's own heart beat data, and heart beat data from a sample patient population based upon one or more of brain state, sex, age, weight, level of activity, time of day, type of epilepsy, use of drugs or substances (such as food) that affect cardiac function, ambient temperature, body temperature, respiration, and blood pressure, among others.”).
Regarding Independent Claim 17, Osorio teaches:
An electronics module comprising a controller and a memory coupled to the controller, the controller being arranged to receive signals from a sensor arrangement on a wearable article, wherein the controller is configured to obtain electrocardiogram output for a wearer of the wearable article from the sensor arrangement, (Para. [0179], “The medical device 200 (such as generator 110 from Figure 1) may comprise a controller 210 capable of controlling various aspects of the operation of the medical device 200. The controller 210 is capable of receiving internal data or external data…;” Para. [0180], “The controller 210 may comprise various components, such as a processor 215, a memory 217, etc. The processor 215 may comprise one or more microcontrollers, microprocessors, etc., capable of performing various executions of software components;” Para. [0185], “The medical device 200 may also comprise one or more sensor(s) 212 coupled via sensor lead(s) 211 to the medical device 200. The sensor(s) 212 are capable of receiving signals related to a physiological parameter, such as the patient's heart beat, blood pressure, and/or temperature, and delivering the signals to the medical device 200. In one embodiment, the sensor(s) 212 may be the same as implanted electrode(s) 126, 128 (Figure 1). In other embodiments, the sensor(s) 212 are external structures that may be placed on the patient's skin, such as over the patient's heart or elsewhere on the patient's torso.”);
the controller being further configured to: obtain a series heartrate values for the electrocardiogram output; (Para. [0079], “The cardiac data comprising a fiducial time marker for each of a plurality of heart beats can be gathered by any of a number of techniques. For example, the cardiac data may be gathered by an electrocardiogram (ECG) device;” Paras. [0080] through [0083] detail determining heartrate from ECG);
determine when the rate of change of the heartrate values exceeds a predetermined threshold value; (Fig. 3C, Paras. [0214] through [0216]; Para. [0216], “If the slope exceeds the slope threshold, the candidate heart beat is discarded as invalid.”);
and, in response to the predetermined threshold value being exceeded, sequentially apply one or more correcting steps to a region of the electrocardiogram output around a selected heartbeat where the rate of change of heartrate values occurred; (Para. [0219], “if a candidate heart beat is found to be invalid by (i.e., failed a test associated with) one or more of the units 505, 510, 515, and 520, a constraint modification unit 287 determines if the candidate heart beat occurred at a time after the most recent prior valid heart beat that is greater than a constraint modification time threshold for the determination made by one or more of units 505, 510, 515, 520. For example, if the physiologically plausible heart beat interval unit 505 has a constraint modification time threshold of 5 sec, and at least 5 sec have elapsed since the last valid beat when a candidate heart beat is declared invalid, the constraint modification unit 287 would modify the constraint, such as by relaxing the constraint or tightening the constraint.”);
obtain information indicative of the likely signal-to-noise ratio of the electrocardiogram output; (Para. [0193], “Figures 2C-2D depict the heart beat/interval determination module 275, the heart beat validation module 285, the window analysis module 295, along with a beat quality index module 286, as components of a beat quality analysis module 276. The beat quality index module 286 is capable of setting an initial value of a beat quality index for a candidate heart beat, receiving information from heart beat validation module 285 about beat validity test(s) passed and/or failed by a candidate heart beat, receiving information from window analysis module 295 about window test(s) passed and/or failed by a window comprising a valid beat, and adjusting the value of the beat quality index based on the received information.”);
configure the predetermined threshold value based on the likely signal-to-noise ratio; (Para. [0194], “…in addition to the heart beat/interval determination module 275, the heart beat validation module 285, and the window analysis module 295, Figures 2E-2F depict a constraint modification unit 287. The constraint modification unit 287 modifies at least one constraint for one or more of the at least one beat validity tests performed by the heart beat/interbeat interval determination module 275 and determines, in the event of a finding of an invalid beat by the beat validity test(s) (i.e., failure of a candidate heart beat to pass one or more tests), if the time since the last valid beat is greater than the threshold. If the time since the last valid beat is greater than the threshold, the constraint modification unit 287 modifies the constraint, such as by relaxing the constraint or tightening the constraint.”).
Osorio does not disclose:
and determine the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region for each of the applied correcting steps:
and choose a correcting step corresponding to the lowest of the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region as a permanent correction for the electrocardiogram output.
Mateo describes “Analysis of Heart Rate Variability in the Presence of Ectopic Beats Using the Heart Timing Signal” (Title). Mateo is Applicant-admitted prior art. See MPEP 2129; Present Specification at Pg. 2, Ln. 31-34.
Mateo teaches:
and determine the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region for each of the applied correcting steps: (Pg. 335, Left Column, Second Paragraph through Pg. 355, Right Column, First Paragraph);
This limitation is being interpreted similarly to the similar Claim 1 limitation above. See explanation above at Claim 1.
and choose a correcting step corresponding to the lowest of the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region as a permanent correction for the electrocardiogram output. (Pg. 337, Left Column, Third Paragraph through Pg. 338, Left Column, Third Paragraph).
This limitation is being interpreted similarly to the similar Claim 1 limitation above. See explanation above at Claim 1.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Osorio with the teachings of Mateo (i.e., to use the correction method taught by Mateo in place of that used by Osorio) in order to “better recover[] the original clinical indexes of interest” because Mateo’s method “has one order of magnitude lower error than usual ectopic beats removal strategies in preserving PSD” (Mateo at Abstract).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Osorio with the teachings of Mateo (i.e., to determine as part of Osorio’s methodology the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region for each of the applied correcting steps in the manner of Matteo, and to use the correcting step corresponding to the lowest of the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region as a permanent correction for the electrocardiogram output) because such determining and choosing are both required by Mateo’s methodology (see Mateo at Pg. 335, Left Column, Second Paragraph through Pg. 355, Right Column, First Paragraph; Pg. 337, Left Column, Third Paragraph through Pg. 338, Left Column, Third Paragraph), which as explained above it would have been obvious to adopt in order to “better recover[] the original clinical indexes of interest” because Mateo’s method “has one order of magnitude lower error than usual ectopic beats removal strategies in preserving PSD” (Mateo at Abstract).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Osorio and Mateo renders obvious the entirety of Claim 17 as explained above.
Osorio additionally teaches:
wherein the predetermined threshold value is configured to be a first value when the likely signal-to-noise ratio is above a first predetermined value(Para. [0193], “he beat quality index module 286 is capable of setting an initial value of a beat quality index for a candidate heart beat, receiving information from heart beat validation module 285 about beat validity test(s) passed and/or failed by a candidate heart beat, receiving information from window analysis module 295 about window test(s) passed and/or failed by a window comprising a valid beat, and adjusting the value of the beat quality index based on the received information;” Para. [0194], “The constraint modification unit 287 modifies at least one constraint for one or more of the at least one beat validity tests performed by the heart beat/interbeat interval determination module 275 and determines, in the event of a finding of an invalid beat by the beat validity test(s) (i.e., failure of a candidate heart beat to pass one or more tests), if the time since the last valid beat is greater than the threshold. If the time since the last valid beat is greater than the threshold, the constraint modification unit 287 modifies the constraint, such as by relaxing the constraint or tightening the constraint.”).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Osorio and Mateo renders obvious the entirety of Claim 17 as explained above.
Osorio additionally teaches:
wherein the predetermined threshold value is configured to be a second value when the likely signal-to- noise ratio is above a second predetermined value. (Para. [0193], “he beat quality index module 286 is capable of setting an initial value of a beat quality index for a candidate heart beat, receiving information from heart beat validation module 285 about beat validity test(s) passed and/or failed by a candidate heart beat, receiving information from window analysis module 295 about window test(s) passed and/or failed by a window comprising a valid beat, and adjusting the value of the beat quality index based on the received information;” Para. [0194], “The constraint modification unit 287 modifies at least one constraint for one or more of the at least one beat validity tests performed by the heart beat/interbeat interval determination module 275 and determines, in the event of a finding of an invalid beat by the beat validity test(s) (i.e., failure of a candidate heart beat to pass one or more tests), if the time since the last valid beat is greater than the threshold. If the time since the last valid beat is greater than the threshold, the constraint modification unit 287 modifies the constraint, such as by relaxing the constraint or tightening the constraint.”).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Osorio and Mateo renders obvious the entirety of Claim 17 as explained above.
Osorio additionally teaches:
wherein the obtained information relates to the activity level of a person whose electrocardiogram output is being monitored. (Para. [0095], “In one embodiment, the upper and lower beat interval seizure duration thresholds are derived from at least one of the patient's own heart beat data, and heart beat data from a sample patient population based upon one or more of brain state, sex, age, weight, level of activity, time of day, type of epilepsy, use of drugs or substances (such as food) that affect cardiac function, ambient temperature, body temperature, respiration, and blood pressure, among others.”).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Osorio and Mateo renders obvious the entirety of Claim 17 as explained above.
Osorio additionally teaches:
wherein the obtained information relates to a characteristic of a person whose electrocardiogram output is being monitored (Para. [0095], “In one embodiment, the upper and lower beat interval seizure duration thresholds are derived from at least one of the patient's own heart beat data, and heart beat data from a sample patient population based upon one or more of brain state, sex, age, weight, level of activity, time of day, type of epilepsy, use of drugs or substances (such as food) that affect cardiac function, ambient temperature, body temperature, respiration, and blood pressure, among others.”).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Osorio and Mateo renders obvious the entirety of Claim 17 as explained above.
Mateo additionally teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to: determine the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region for each of the applied correcting steps; and choose a correcting step corresponding to the lowest of the rate of change of heartrate values at the selected region as a permanent correction for the electrocardiogram output. (Pg. 335, Left Column, Second Paragraph through Pg. 355, Right Column, First Paragraph; Pg. 337, Left Column, Third Paragraph through Pg. 338, Left Column, Third Paragraph; see rejection of Claims and 17, above)
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Osorio and Mateo renders obvious the entirety of Claim 17 as explained above.
Mateo additionally teaches:
wherein controller is configured to derive the rate of change heart rate from the equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
56
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where rk is the rate of change of the heart rate, at the kth heartbeat, tk is the time of the kth heartbeat, and tk_1 and tk+1 are the times of the (k-1)th and (k+1)th heartbeat respectively either side of the kth heartbeat. (Pg. 335, Left Column, Fourth Paragraph; Equation (1); see Mateo Equation (1), reproduced above at Claim 7).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2563210 B1 to Osorio et al. (“Osorio”) in view of Mateo, J. and Laguna P., “Analysis of heart rate variability in the presence of ectopic beats using the heart timing signal” in the IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, Volume 50, No. 3, March 2013 (“Mateo”) as applied to Claim 8 above, and further in view of CN 109480825 A (“CN ‘825”).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Osorio and Mateo renders obvious the entirety of Claim 8 as explained above.
The combination of Osorio and Mateo does not disclose:
in which the step of obtaining a series heartrate values for the electrocardiogram comprises sampling a first set of heart beats and a second set of heart beats, removing the last two heart beats from the first set of heart beats, removing the last two heart beats of the second set of heart beats and combining the last two heart beats from the first set of heart beats with the remaining heart beats from the second set of heart beats.
CN ‘825 describes “Method And Device For Processing The Electrocardiogram Data” (Title). CN ‘825 is analogous art.
CN ‘825 teaches:
in which the step of obtaining a series heartrate values for the electrocardiogram comprises sampling a first set of heart beats and a second set of heart beats, removing the last two heart beats from the first set of heart beats, removing the last two heart beats of the second set of heart beats and combining the last two heart beats from the first set of heart beats with the remaining heart beats from the second set of heart beats. (Pg. 7 of 10, Second Paragraph, “…if the heartbeat sample set of cardiac beat number greater than a predetermined number, for example, heartbeat sample set there are 12 redundant heartbeat preset cardiac beat number 2, then, according to the R peak position sequence of ECG data to remove last two heartbeat, the heartbeat sample according to the identification method the remaining other heartbeat the heartbeat value identifier. If the cardiac beat number of heartbeat sample set is less than the preset number of cardiac beat, for example, heartbeat sample set of cardiac beat number is 6 the preset heartbeat number 4, at this time, the position sequence 4 according to the R peak of the electrocardiogram data 4 aligning the cardiac beat before sample set not to back the heartbeat sample set of cardiac beat number is also 10, the cardiac beat of the 10 numerical identifier.”)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of combined Osorio and Mateo with the teachings of CN ‘825 (i.e., to obtaining a series heartrate values in the manner of CN ‘825) in order to increase accuracy of the subsequent operations (CN ‘825 at Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J MUTCHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8012. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 4:00 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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached on 571-270-3061. 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.
/C.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/Jennifer Pitrak McDonald/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
1 EP 2563210 B1 was disclosed by Applicant in the IDS dated 4/30/2024.