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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 28 May 2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 3, 7-8, 11-13, 15, and 17 have been amended, claims 2, 9-10, and 14 have been canceled, and claims 21-23 have been added. Thus, claims 1, 3-8, 11-13, and 15-23 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
I. Objected to the Claims
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 28 May 2026, with respect to the objections to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments. The objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
However, new objections are made below, as necessitated by the claim amendments.
II. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 28 May 2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments. The rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been withdrawn.
However, new rejections are made below, as necessitated by the claim amendments.
Ill. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 28 May 2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments. The rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been withdrawn.
IV. Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on An and Texas Instruments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 28 May 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4, 7-15, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kamath et al. (US 20050038350 A1), hereinafter Kamath, in view of Luna et al. (US 20150282768 A1), hereinafter Luna, as explained in further detail below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 13, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: the commas in line 12 after “signals” should be omitted
Claim 8:
the commas in lines 10-11 after “signals” should be omitted
“the other of two groups” in line 6 should read “the other of the two groups”
Claim 13: the commas in page 6, line 7 after “signals” should be omitted
Claim 22: “include” in line 2 should read “includes”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21 is 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 21 recites the limitation "”the processing result" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 11-13, 15-17, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamath et al. (US 20050038350 A1), hereinafter Kamath, in view of Luna et al. (US 20150282768 A1), hereinafter Luna.
Regarding claim 1, Kamath discloses a signal processing system (paragraph [0044], "subcutaneous cardiac monitoring and/or stimulation device"), comprising:
a group of electrodes configured to fit a body of a user to collect physiological signals of the user in different time periods (paragraph [0044], "One such device is an implantable transthoracic cardiac sensing and/or stimulation (ITCS) device that may be implanted under the skin in the chest region of a patient. The ITCS device may, for example, be implanted subcutaneously such that all or selected elements of the device are positioned on the patient's front, back, side, or other body locations suitable for sensing cardiac activity and delivering cardiac stimulation therapy. It is understood that elements of the ITCS device may be located at several different body locations, such as in the chest, abdominal, or subclavian region with electrode elements respectively positioned at different regions near, around, in, or on the heart"; paragraph [0052], "During the signal recording process 154, one or more electrode signals are recorded for current or later processing, such as for signal source separation processing"); and
a processing circuit (Fig. 12, paragraph [0105], sensing circuitry 304) configured to read the physiological signals in a time-sharing mode (paragraph [0052], "The recording may be continuous or performed for a given period of time"; paragraph [0070], "sample and hold amplifiers 370 and 372 sample the first and second composite signals substantially synchronously"), wherein
the processing circuit has different input impedances in the different time periods of the time-sharing mode (paragraph [0054], "a selected electrode pair is switched between at least two input impedances, and a signal is recorded for each input impedance"),
wherein the processing circuit has a first input impedance in a first time period and a second input impedance in a second time period, and a ratio of the first input impedance to the second input impedance is not less than 10 (paragraph [0072], "four filters, F1-F4, having similar phase responses but different input impedances, are used to sense a composite signal. A first filter, F1, provides an input impedance of about 2.0M Ohms. A second filter, F2, provides an input impedance of about 958.3K Ohms. A third filter, F3, provides an input impedance of about 88.0K Ohms. A fourth filter, F4, provides an input impedance of about 45.0K Ohms"; F1:F3 = 22.7, F1:F4 = 44.4, F2:F3 = 10.9, F2:F4 = 21.3, which are all not less than 10),
wherein the first input impedance is configured to enhance a proportion of pure physiological signals in the collected physiological signals and the second input impedance is configured to amplify artifact signals in the collected physiological signals (paragraph [0075], "FIG. 9 is an overlay plot of signals sensed using the 45K Ohm input impedance filter, F4 ... Also evident is a noise component, which is significantly more prominent in FIG. 9 than is seen in the plot of FIG. 8"; paragraph [0074], "FIG. 8 is an overlay plot of signals sensed using the 958K Ohm input impedance filter, F2"),
so that the physiological signals read by the processing circuit in the first time period and the second time period include the motion artifact signals of different proportions (paragraph [0076], "FIGS. 8 and 9 demonstrate that a biopotential source separation method using measured differences in source impedance can provide for selective attenuation of far field cardiac signals versus near field myopotentials"), and
the processing circuit is configured to process the physiological signals read by the processing circuit based on the motion artifact signals of different proportions (paragraph [0069], "Outputs of the first and second sample and hold amplifiers 370, 372 are coupled to respective inputs of a multiplexer 374. A signal processor 375 is coupled to outputs of the multiplexer 374").
Kamath does not explicitly disclose that the artifact signals are motion artifact signals, nor that the motion artifact signals are caused by skin-electrode interface variations.
However, Luna teaches wearable computing devices in capturing and deriving physiological characteristic data (Abstract) that collect motion artifact signals in collected physiological signals caused by skin-electrode interface variations (paragraph [0063], "motion artifact signal 223 represents motion included or embodied within raw sensor signal 225 (e.g., with physiological signal(s)). Thus, a motion artifact signal can describe a motion signal, whether sensed by a motion sensor or integrated with one or more physiological signals").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kamath with the teachings of Luna so that the artifact signals are motion artifact signals, nor that the motion artifact signals are caused by skin-electrode interface variations, because doing so enables the detection of physiological signal at the extremities of user with minimal or reduced effects of motion-related artifacts and their influence on the desired measured physiological signal (Luna, paragraph [0085]).
Regarding claim 3, the signal processing system of claim 1 is obvious over Kamath and Luna, as explained above. Kamath further discloses that:
the processing circuit includes a switch and at least two signal processing sub-circuits (Fig. 4A, paragraph [0062], "electrode 335 is connected to one of the amplifiers 337, 338, 339, 340 through a switch 362"), and
in one of the different time periods, the switch is configured to control the group of electrodes to be connected to a first signal processing sub-circuit of the at least two signal processing sub-circuits and disconnected from a second signal processing sub-circuit of the at least two signal processing sub-circuits, the at least two signal processing sub-circuits having different input impedances (Fig. 4A, paragraph [0062], "a first amplifier 337 is provided at a first input impedance, a second amplifier 338 is provided at a second input impedance, a third amplifier 339 is provided at a third input impedance, and a fourth amplifier 340 is provided at a fourth input impedance").
Regarding claim 4, the signal processing system of claim 3 is obvious over Kamath and Luna, as explained above. Kamath further discloses that each of the at least two signal processing sub-circuits includes a differential amplifier configured to differentially amplify signals collected by the group of electrodes (paragraph [0065], "two sensing input impedances are selected such that the amplitude of a target signal is attenuated by one-half for purposes of separating the target signal from a composite signal. The differentially attenuated signals may be combined to remove the target signal from the composite signal. If an estimate of the source impedance of the desired signal is available, the amplifier input impedance may be automatically controlled and amplifier output signals combined so as to have continuous extraction of the desired signal").
Regarding claim 7, the signal processing system of claim 1 is obvious over Kamath and Luna, as explained above. Kamath further discloses that the processing circuit is configured to process the physiological signals read by the processing circuit based on the motion artifact signals of different proportions by:
obtaining a pure physiological signal by performing a filtering operation on the motion artifact signals from the physiological signals based on a correspondence of the physiological signals (paragraph [0098], "The noise reduction circuitry 203 operates to improve the SNR of sensed cardiac signals by removing noise content of the sensed cardiac signals introduced from various sources").
Luna further teaches obtaining a pure physiological signal by performing a filtering operation on the motion artifact signals from the physiological signals based on a correspondence of the physiological signals including the motion artifact signals of different proportions (paragraph [0049], "Motion artifact reduction unit 124 operates to eliminate the magnitude of the motion-related signal component, or to reduce the magnitude of the motion-related signal component relative to the magnitude of the physiological-related signal component, thereby yielding as an output the physiological-related signal component (or an approximation thereto). Thus, motion artifact reduction unit 124 can reduce the magnitude of the motion-related signal component (i.e., the motion artifact) by an amount associated with the motion-related signal generated by one or more accelerometers to yield the physiological-related signal component").
Regarding claim 8, Kamath discloses a signal processing system (paragraph [0044], "subcutaneous cardiac monitoring and/or stimulation device"), comprising:
a group of electrodes configured to fit a body of a user to collect physiological signals of the user in different time periods (paragraph [0044], "One such device is an implantable transthoracic cardiac sensing and/or stimulation (ITCS) device that may be implanted under the skin in the chest region of a patient. The ITCS device may, for example, be implanted subcutaneously such that all or selected elements of the device are positioned on the patient's front, back, side, or other body locations suitable for sensing cardiac activity and delivering cardiac stimulation therapy. It is understood that elements of the ITCS device may be located at several different body locations, such as in the chest, abdominal, or subclavian region with electrode elements respectively positioned at different regions near, around, in, or on the heart"; paragraph [0052], "During the signal recording process 154, one or more electrode signals are recorded for current or later processing, such as for signal source separation processing"); and
a processing circuit configured to read the physiological signals in a time-sharing mode (paragraph [0052], "The recording may be continuous or performed for a given period of time"; paragraph [0070], "sample and hold amplifiers 370 and 372 sample the first and second composite signals substantially synchronously"), wherein
wherein the processing circuit has a first input impedance in a first time period and a second input impedance in a second time period, and a ratio of the first input impedance to the second input impedance is not less than 10 (paragraph [0072], "four filters, F1-F4, having similar phase responses but different input impedances, are used to sense a composite signal. A first filter, F1, provides an input impedance of about 2.0M Ohms. A second filter, F2, provides an input impedance of about 958.3K Ohms. A third filter, F3, provides an input impedance of about 88.0K Ohms. A fourth filter, F4, provides an input impedance of about 45.0K Ohms"; F1:F3 = 22.7, F1:F4 = 44.4, F2:F3 = 10.9, F2:F4 = 21.3, which are all not less than 10),
wherein the first input impedance is configured to enhance a proportion of pure physiological signals in the collected physiological signals and the second input impedance is configured to amplify artifact signals in the collected physiological signals (paragraph [0075], "FIG. 9 is an overlay plot of signals sensed using the 45K Ohm input impedance filter, F4 ... Also evident is a noise component, which is significantly more prominent in FIG. 9 than is seen in the plot of FIG. 8"; paragraph [0074], "FIG. 8 is an overlay plot of signals sensed using the 958K Ohm input impedance filter, F2"),
so that the physiological signals read by the processing circuit in the first time period and the second time period include the motion artifact signals of different proportions (paragraph [0076], "FIGS. 8 and 9 demonstrate that a biopotential source separation method using measured differences in source impedance can provide for selective attenuation of far field cardiac signals versus near field myopotentials"), and
the processing circuit is configured to process the physiological signals read by the processing circuit based on the motion artifact signals of different proportions (paragraph [0069], "Outputs of the first and second sample and hold amplifiers 370, 372 are coupled to respective inputs of a multiplexer 374. A signal processor 375 is coupled to outputs of the multiplexer 374").
Kamath does not explicitly disclose that the artifact signals are motion artifact signals, nor that the motion artifact signals are caused by skin-electrode interface variations.
However, Luna teaches wearable computing devices in capturing and deriving physiological characteristic data (Abstract) that collect motion artifact signals in collected physiological signals caused by skin-electrode interface variations (paragraph [0063], "motion artifact signal 223 represents motion included or embodied within raw sensor signal 225 (e.g., with physiological signal(s)). Thus, a motion artifact signal can describe a motion signal, whether sensed by a motion sensor or integrated with one or more physiological signals").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kamath with the teachings of Luna so that the artifact signals are motion artifact signals, nor that the motion artifact signals are caused by skin-electrode interface variations, because doing so enables the detection of physiological signal at the extremities of user with minimal or reduced effects of motion-related artifacts and their influence on the desired measured physiological signal (Luna, paragraph [0085]).
Regarding claim 11, the signal processing system of claim 8 is obvious over Kamath and Luna, as explained above. Kamath further discloses that:
the processing circuit includes a switch and at least two signal processing sub-circuits (Fig. 4A, paragraph [0062], "electrode 335 is connected to one of the amplifiers 337, 338, 339, 340 through a switch 362"), and
in one of the different time periods, the switch is configured to control the group of electrodes to be connected to a first signal processing sub-circuit of the at least two signal processing sub-circuits and disconnected from a second signal processing sub-circuit of the at least two signal processing sub-circuits, the at least two signal processing sub-circuits having different input impedances (Fig. 4A, paragraph [0062], "a first amplifier 337 is provided at a first input impedance, a second amplifier 338 is provided at a second input impedance, a third amplifier 339 is provided at a third input impedance, and a fourth amplifier 340 is provided at a fourth input impedance").
Regarding claim 12, the signal processing system of claim 8 is obvious over Kamath and Luna, as explained above. Kamath further discloses that the processing circuit is configured to process the physiological signals read by the processing circuit based on the motion artifact signals of different proportions by:
obtaining a pure physiological signal by performing a filtering operation on the motion artifact signals from the physiological signals based on a correspondence of the physiological signals (paragraph [0098], "The noise reduction circuitry 203 operates to improve the SNR of sensed cardiac signals by removing noise content of the sensed cardiac signals introduced from various sources").
Luna further teaches obtaining a pure physiological signal by performing a filtering operation on the motion artifact signals from the physiological signals based on a correspondence of the physiological signals including the motion artifact signals of different proportions (paragraph [0049], "Motion artifact reduction unit 124 operates to eliminate the magnitude of the motion-related signal component, or to reduce the magnitude of the motion-related signal component relative to the magnitude of the physiological-related signal component, thereby yielding as an output the physiological-related signal component (or an approximation thereto). Thus, motion artifact reduction unit 124 can reduce the magnitude of the motion-related signal component (i.e., the motion artifact) by an amount associated with the motion-related signal generated by one or more accelerometers to yield the physiological-related signal component").
Regarding claim 13, Kamath discloses a signal processing method (paragraph [0051]), comprising:
collecting physiological signals through a group of electrodes that fit a body of a user (paragraph [0044], "One such device is an implantable transthoracic cardiac sensing and/or stimulation (ITCS) device that may be implanted under the skin in the chest region of a patient. The ITCS device may, for example, be implanted subcutaneously such that all or selected elements of the device are positioned on the patient's front, back, side, or other body locations suitable for sensing cardiac activity and delivering cardiac stimulation therapy. It is understood that elements of the ITCS device may be located at several different body locations, such as in the chest, abdominal, or subclavian region with electrode elements respectively positioned at different regions near, around, in, or on the heart"; paragraph [0052], "During the signal recording process 154, one or more electrode signals are recorded for current or later processing, such as for signal source separation processing"); and
reading the physiological signals through a processing circuit in a time-sharing mode (paragraph [0052], "The recording may be continuous or performed for a given period of time"; paragraph [0070], "sample and hold amplifiers 370 and 372 sample the first and second composite signals substantially synchronously"), wherein
the processing circuit has different input impedances in different time periods of the time-sharing mode (paragraph [0054], "a selected electrode pair is switched between at least two input impedances, and a signal is recorded for each input impedance"), wherein
the processing circuit has a first input impedance in a first time period and a second input impedance in a second time period, and a ratio of the first input impedance to the second input impedance is not less than 10 (paragraph [0072], "four filters, F1-F4, having similar phase responses but different input impedances, are used to sense a composite signal. A first filter, F1, provides an input impedance of about 2.0M Ohms. A second filter, F2, provides an input impedance of about 958.3K Ohms. A third filter, F3, provides an input impedance of about 88.0K Ohms. A fourth filter, F4, provides an input impedance of about 45.0K Ohms"; F1:F3 = 22.7, F1:F4 = 44.4, F2:F3 = 10.9, F2:F4 = 21.3, which are all not less than 10),
wherein the first input impedance is configured to enhance a proportion of pure physiological signals in the collected physiological signals and the second input impedance is configured to amplify artifact signals in the collected physiological signals (paragraph [0075], "FIG. 9 is an overlay plot of signals sensed using the 45K Ohm input impedance filter, F4 ... Also evident is a noise component, which is significantly more prominent in FIG. 9 than is seen in the plot of FIG. 8"; paragraph [0074], "FIG. 8 is an overlay plot of signals sensed using the 958K Ohm input impedance filter, F2"),
wherein the first input impedance is configured to enhance a proportion of pure physiological signals in the collected physiological signals and the second input impedance is configured to amplify artifact signals in the collected physiological signals (paragraph [0075], "FIG. 9 is an overlay plot of signals sensed using the 45K Ohm input impedance filter, F4 ... Also evident is a noise component, which is significantly more prominent in FIG. 9 than is seen in the plot of FIG. 8"; paragraph [0074], "FIG. 8 is an overlay plot of signals sensed using the 958K Ohm input impedance filter, F2"),
so that the physiological signals read by the processing circuit in the first time period and the second time period include the motion artifact signals of different proportions (paragraph [0076], "FIGS. 8 and 9 demonstrate that a biopotential source separation method using measured differences in source impedance can provide for selective attenuation of far field cardiac signals versus near field myopotentials").
Kamath does not explicitly disclose that the artifact signals are motion artifact signals, nor that the motion artifact signals are caused by skin-electrode interface variations.
However, Luna teaches wearable computing devices in capturing and deriving physiological characteristic data (Abstract) that collect motion artifact signals in collected physiological signals caused by skin-electrode interface variations (paragraph [0063], "motion artifact signal 223 represents motion included or embodied within raw sensor signal 225 (e.g., with physiological signal(s)). Thus, a motion artifact signal can describe a motion signal, whether sensed by a motion sensor or integrated with one or more physiological signals").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kamath with the teachings of Luna so that the artifact signals are motion artifact signals, nor that the motion artifact signals are caused by skin-electrode interface variations, because doing so enables the detection of physiological signal at the extremities of user with minimal or reduced effects of motion-related artifacts and their influence on the desired measured physiological signal (Luna, paragraph [0085]).
Regarding claim 15, the signal processing method of claim 13 is obvious over Kamath and Luna, as explained above. Kamath further discloses that:
the processing circuit includes a switch and at least two signal processing sub-circuits (Fig. 4A, paragraph [0062], "electrode 335 is connected to one of the amplifiers 337, 338, 339, 340 through a switch 362"), and
in one of the different time periods, the switch is configured to control the group of electrodes to be connected to a first signal processing sub-circuit of the at least two signal processing sub-circuits and disconnected from a second signal processing sub-circuit of the at least two signal processing sub-circuits, the at least two signal processing sub-circuits having different input impedances (Fig. 4A, paragraph [0062], "a first amplifier 337 is provided at a first input impedance, a second amplifier 338 is provided at a second input impedance, a third amplifier 339 is provided at a third input impedance, and a fourth amplifier 340 is provided at a fourth input impedance").
Regarding claim 16, the signal processing method of claim 15 is obvious over Kamath and Luna, as explained above. Kamath further discloses that a switching frequency at which the switch switches between the at least two signal processing sub-circuits is greater than a frequency of the physiological signals (paragraph [0061], "a switching frequency at which the switch switches between the at least two signal processing sub-circuits is greater than a frequency of the physiological signals").
Regarding claim 17, the signal processing method of claim 15 is obvious over Kamath and Luna, as explained above. Kamath further discloses that the time-sharing mode reads the physiological signals from a plurality of channels in a time-sharing multiplexing manner by employing a spliced signal strategy; the spliced signal strategy refers to sampling the physiological signals of each of the plurality of channels by slow switching of a time-sharing multiplexing switch (paragraph [0071], "A combination 344 of the first and second composite signals is made, using the selected target source impedance").
Kamath does not explicitly disclose that the slow switching of the time-sharing multiplexing switch refers to: when the user is in a motion state, a switching frequency at which the switch switches between the at least two signal processing sub-circuits is less than a frequency of the physiological signals and greater than an action frequency of the user.
However, Luna further teaches that the slow switching of the time-sharing multiplexing switch refers to: when the user is in a motion state, a switching frequency at which the switch switches between the at least two signal processing sub-circuits is less than a frequency of the physiological signals and greater than an action frequency of the user (paragraph [0053], "the motion of the wearer (e.g., impact forces experienced during running) may cause wearable device 170 to travel about the wrist. As such, physiological information generator 120 is configured to determine repeatedly whether to select other subsets of electrodes 110 as optimal subsets of electrodes 110 for acquiring physiological characteristics"; paragraph [0064], "if the arms of a wearer shakes with sufficient motion to displace a subset of electrodes from being adjacent a target location, the array of electrodes, as described herein, facilitates continued monitoring of a heart rate by repeatedly selecting subsets of electrodes that are positioned optimally (e.g., adjacent a target location) for receiving robust and accurate physiological-related signals").
Regarding claim 20, the signal processing method of claim 13 is obvious over Kamath and Luna, as explained above. Kamath further discloses that the processing circuit is configured to process the physiological signals read by the processing circuit based on the motion artifact signals of different proportions by:
obtaining a pure physiological signal by performing a filtering operation on the motion artifact signals from the physiological signals based on a correspondence of the physiological signals (paragraph [0098], "The noise reduction circuitry 203 operates to improve the SNR of sensed cardiac signals by removing noise content of the sensed cardiac signals introduced from various sources").
Luna further teaches obtaining a pure physiological signal by performing a filtering operation on the motion artifact signals from the physiological signals based on a correspondence of the physiological signals including the motion artifact signals of different proportions (paragraph [0049], "Motion artifact reduction unit 124 operates to eliminate the magnitude of the motion-related signal component, or to reduce the magnitude of the motion-related signal component relative to the magnitude of the physiological-related signal component, thereby yielding as an output the physiological-related signal component (or an approximation thereto). Thus, motion artifact reduction unit 124 can reduce the magnitude of the motion-related signal component (i.e., the motion artifact) by an amount associated with the motion-related signal generated by one or more accelerometers to yield the physiological-related signal component").
Regarding claim 23, the signal processing system of claim 3 is obvious over Kamath and Luna, as explained above. Kamath further discloses that the processing circuit further includes a control circuit configure to control a switching frequency of the switch according to a predefined strategy, the predefined strategy comprising or a splicing signal strategy (paragraph [0071], "If a switched system is employed, such as that illustrated in FIG. 4A, the first and second composite signals may be filtered 342 or synchronously sampled to remove content associated with the switching frequencies from these signals. For example, the first and second composite signals may be sampled substantially synchronously at a time when the first and second composite signals are valid in order to remove frequencies associated switching. A combination 344 of the first and second composite signals is made, using the selected target source impedance").
Claims 5-6 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamath et al. (US 20050038350 A1), hereinafter Kamath, in view of Luna et al. (US 20150282768 A1), hereinafter Luna, and further in view of Webler (US 20090240163 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the signal processing system of claim 1 is obvious over Kamath and Luna, as explained above. Kamath does not explicitly disclose that the processing circuit includes a switch and a resistor connected in parallel with an input end of the processing circuit, the switch being configured to control the resistor to be connected in parallel with or disconnected from the input end in the different time periods.
However, Webler teaches methods and apparatus for localization, diagnosis, contact or activity detection of bio-electric tissue (Abstract), wherein the processing circuit includes a switch and a resistor connected in parallel with an input end of the processing circuit (Figs. 1-3, paragraph [0013], "R.sub.N represents the resistance of the new resistor or variable/adjustable resistor or the combined resistance of the new resistors switchably coupled across the monitor input and/or across the electrode leads"), the switch being configured to control the resistor to be connected in parallel with or disconnected from the input end in the different time periods (paragraph [0022], "R.sub.N may be rapidly switched into and out of the sensing circuit").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kamath and Luna with the teachings of Webler so that the processing circuit includes a switch and a resistor connected in parallel with an input end of the processing circuit, the switch being configured to control the resistor to be connected in parallel with or disconnected from the input end in the different time periods, because doing so improves sensitivity to the distance between a sensing electrode and bio-electric tissue Webler, Abstract).
Regarding claim 6, the signal processing system of claim 1 is obvious over Kamath, Luna, and Webler, as explained above. Neither Kamath, nor Luna, nor Webler explicitly discloses that when the switch of the processing circuit is disconnected, a ratio of the input impedance of the processing circuit to the resistor is not less than 10.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose input impedances such that when the switch of the processing circuit is disconnected, a ratio of the input impedance of the processing circuit to the resistor is not less than 10, for the purpose of reducing the motion artifact of the physiological signal as much as possible, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 18, the signal processing method of claim 13 is obvious over Kamath and Luna, as explained above. Kamath does not explicitly disclose that the processing circuit includes a switch and a resistor connected in parallel with an input end of the processing circuit, the switch being configured to control the resistor to be connected in parallel with or disconnected from the input end in the different time periods.
However, Webler teaches methods and apparatus for localization, diagnosis, contact or activity detection of bio-electric tissue (Abstract), wherein the processing circuit includes a switch and a resistor connected in parallel with an input end of the processing circuit (Figs. 1-3, paragraph [0013], "R.sub.N represents the resistance of the new resistor or variable/adjustable resistor or the combined resistance of the new resistors switchably coupled across the monitor input and/or across the electrode leads"), the switch being configured to control the resistor to be connected in parallel with or disconnected from the input end in the different time periods (paragraph [0022], "R.sub.N may be rapidly switched into and out of the sensing circuit").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kamath and Luna with the teachings of Webler so that the processing circuit includes a switch and a resistor connected in parallel with an input end of the processing circuit, the switch being configured to control the resistor to be connected in parallel with or disconnected from the input end in the different time periods, because doing so improves sensitivity to the distance between a sensing electrode and bio-electric tissue Webler, Abstract).
Regarding claim 19, the signal processing method of claim 18 is obvious over Kamath, Luna, and Webler, as explained above. Neither Kamath, nor Luna, nor Webler explicitly discloses that when the switch of the processing circuit is disconnected, a ratio of the input impedance of the processing circuit to the resistor is not less than 10.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose input impedances such that when the switch of the processing circuit is disconnected, a ratio of the input impedance of the processing circuit to the resistor is not less than 10, for the purpose of reducing the motion artifact of the physiological signal as much as possible, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamath et al. (US 20050038350 A1), hereinafter Kamath, in view of Luna et al. (US 20150282768 A1), hereinafter Luna, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 20230084533 A1), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 21, the signal processing system of claim 1 is obvious over Kamath and Luna, as explained above. Although Kamath further discloses that the processing circuit includes an analog circuit configured to process the physiological signals (Fig. 12, paragraph [0100], detection circuitry 202), and feed back the processing result to a signal source (Fig. 3, paragraph [0055], "The separated signal may then be used 120 for some specified purpose, such as, for example, to confirm a normal sinus rhythm, determine a cardiac condition, define a noise signal, or other desired use), Kamath does not explicitly disclose that the analog circuit includes a right-leg drive circuit, which is configured to extract a common mode signal from the physiological signals, inversely amplify the common mode signal.
However, Liu teaches a signal measurement method and a signal measurement apparatus (Abstract) wherein the processing circuit includes an analog circuit configured to process the physiological signals, the analog circuit includes a right-leg drive circuit, which is configured to extract a common mode signal from the physiological signals, inversely amplify the common mode signal, and feed back the processing result to a signal source (paragraph [0072], "A right leg drive circuit including the right leg drive electrode implements essentially a negative feedback. A function of the right leg drive circuit is usually used to remove a common-mode signal input to an amplifier, to improve a common-mode rejection ratio (common-mode rejection ratio, CMRR). The common-mode signal is reversely amplified and connected to a human body, to eliminate a common mode. Right leg drive is mainly used to reduce a common-mode voltage in bioelectric collection. The right leg drive is a necessary method to reduce common-mode interference").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kamath and Luna with the teachings of Liu so that the processing circuit includes an analog circuit configured to process the physiological signals, the analog circuit includes a right-leg drive circuit, which is configured to extract a common mode signal from the physiological signals, inversely amplify the common mode signal, and feed back the processing result to a signal source, because doing so allows the common-mode signal to be eliminated from the signal of the single lead, to obtain the signal of the single lead with good quality (Liu, paragraph [0135]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamath et al. (US 20050038350 A1), hereinafter Kamath, in view of Luna et al. (US 20150282768 A1), hereinafter Luna, and further in view of Li et al. (US 20230106329 A1), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 22, the signal processing system of claim 1 is obvious over Kamath and Luna, as explained above. Kamath does not explicitly disclose that the group of electrodes includes a first electrode, a second electrode, and a reference electrode, and the reference electrode is configured to provide a reference potential for the first electrode or the second electrode, thereby reducing noise in the collected physiological signals.
However, Li teaches an electrocardiogram detection device (Abstract) comprising a first electrode, a second electrode, and a reference electrode (Fig. 2, paragraph [0065], "a first electrode P1, a second electrode P2, and a third electrode P3"), wherein the reference electrode is configured to provide a reference potential for the first electrode or the second electrode, thereby reducing noise in the collected physiological signals (paragraphs [0079]-[0080], "The right leg drive sub-circuit 202 is configured to provide a reference potential for the third electrode P3 under driving of the common-mode voltage Vcm and the reference power supply end VR. ... In this embodiment of this application, the right leg drive sub-circuit 202 serves as a negative feedback circuit, and can provide a reference potential for the third electrode after inverting and amplifying a received common-mode voltage, to eliminate common-mode interference of a human body").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kamath and Luna with the teachings of Li so that the group of electrodes includes a first electrode, a second electrode, and a reference electrode, and the reference electrode is configured to provide a reference potential for the first electrode or the second electrode, thereby reducing noise in the collected physiological signals, because doing so eliminates common-mode interference of a human body (Li, paragraph [0080]).
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 CHRISTINE SISON whose telephone number is (703)756-4661. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 5 pm PT, Mon - Fri.
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 at (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.
/CHRISTINE SISON/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/Jennifer Pitrak McDonald/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights