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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11: the comma after “sub-circuits” in line 2 should be omitted
Claim 15: the comma after “and” in line 2 should be omitted
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “an enhancement operation” in claims 7, 12, and 20 will be interpreted as identifying the motion artifact signal to be filtered out from the physiological signal, per paragraph [0082] of the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the other signal processing sub-circuit of the at least two signal processing sub-circuits" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “one of the at least two signal processing sub-circuits” in line 4 will be interpreted as “a first signal processing sub-circuit of the at least two signal processing sub-circuits”, and “the other signal processing sub-circuit of the at least two signal processing sub-circuits” will be interpreted as “a second signal processing sub-circuit of the at least two signal processing sub-circuits”.
Claim 4 is also rejected because it is dependent on claim 3.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the other signal processing sub-circuit of the at least two signal processing sub-circuits" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “one of the at least two signal processing sub-circuits” in line 4 will be interpreted as “a first signal processing sub-circuit of the at least two signal processing sub-circuits”, and “the other signal processing sub-circuit of the at least two signal processing sub-circuits” will be interpreted as “a second signal processing sub-circuit of the at least two signal processing sub-circuits”.
Claims 16-17 are also rejected because they are dependent on claim 15.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Determination as to whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility is a stepwise process (MPEP 2016).
Step 1: Does the claim fall within a statutory category of invention?
Claims 1 and 8 recite a machine (system), and claim 13 recites a process (method), which are within the four statutory categories. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 13 are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Claims 1, 8, and 13 are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 is directed to a signal processing system comprising: a group of electrodes configured to fit a body of a user to collect physiological signals of the user in different time periods; and a processing circuit configured to read the physiological signals in a time-sharing mode, wherein the processing circuit has different input impedances in the different time periods of the time-sharing mode, wherein
the different input impedances include at least two input impedances, and a ratio of the greatest input impedance in the at least two input impedances to the smallest input impedance in the at least two input impedances is not less than 10, the physiological signals read by the processing circuit in the different time periods include motion artifact signals of different proportions, 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.
Claim 8 is directed to a signal processing system comprising: two groups of electrodes, each group of electrodes in the two groups of electrodes being configured to fit a body of a user to collect physiological signals; and a processing circuit configured to read the physiological signals collected by the two groups of electrodes with different input impedances, wherein a ratio of the greatest input impedance in the different input impedances to the smallest input impedance in the different input impedances is not less than 10, the physiological signals read by the processing circuit include motion artifact signals of different proportions, and the processing circuit is configured to process the physiological signals collected by the two groups of electrodes based on the motion artifact signals of different proportions.
Claim 13 is directed to a signal processing method comprising: collecting physiological signals through a group of electrodes that fit a body of a user; and reading the physiological signals through a processing circuit in a time-sharing mode, wherein: the processing circuit has different input impedances in different time periods of the time-sharing mode, wherein the different input impedances include at least two input impedances, and a ratio of the greatest input impedance in the at least two input impedances to the smallest input impedance in the at least two input impedances is not less than 10, the physiological signals read by the processing circuit include motion artifact signals of different proportions, 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.
The limitations of processing the physiological signals based on the motion artifact signals, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, are merely mental processes, because these steps are akin to having a doctor or other human actor performing these operations with pen and paper.
The limitations of collecting and reading physiological signals encompasses nothing more than a human actor collecting these pieces of information by hand.
Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 13 recite an abstract idea.
Claims 2-7 depend on claim 1, claims 9-12 depend on claim 8, and claims 14-20 depend on claim 13. These dependent claims only recite additional features of the analysis and data collection described in claims 1, 8, and 13, which may also be performed by a human actor mentally and using a pen and paper. Claims 7, 12, and 20 recite performing a filtering operation and/or an enhancement operation (which is described in paragraph [0082] of the specification as identifying the motion artifact signal to be filtered out from the physiological signal), which encompasses nothing more than a human actor either evaluating the data mentally or with pen and paper.
Therefore, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claims 1, 8, and 13 recite the additional limitations of a processing circuit and electrodes. Paragraphs [0076]-[0077] of the specification describe the processing circuit and paragraphs [0046] describes the electrodes. These components amount to no more than mere pre-solution activity of data gathering. Therefore the claimed processing circuit and electrodes do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. As described above, dependent claims 2-7, 9-12, and 14-20 only recite other limitations of the data collection apparatus and data processing steps, which may be done mentally by a human actor and/or with a pen and paper.
Step 2B: Does the claim include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 1, 8, and 13 recite the additional limitations of a processing circuit and electrodes. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2), the additional elements of a processing circuit and electrodes to collect data amounts to no more than mere pre-solution activity of data gathering. This pre-solution activity of data gathering using a processing circuit and electrodes is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of electrocardiography. For example, see Prutchi et al. (In Design and Development of Medical Electronic Instrumentation, Chapter 1, 2004), which describes known methods of constructing amplification circuits to reject artifacts in the measured signal. Therefore, the claimed processing circuit and electrodes are all well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of electrocardiography .
Therefore, claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 1-4, 7-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al. (Adaptive Motion Artifact Reduction in Wearable ECG Measurements Using Impedance Pneumography Signal. Sensors, 2022, cited in 22 Jan 2025 IDS), hereinafter An, in view of Texas Instruments (ADS129x Low-Power, 2-Channel, 24-Bit Analog Front-End for Biopotential Measurements datasheet, cited in 22 Jan 2025 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, An discloses a signal processing system, comprising:
a group of electrodes configured to fit a body of a user (Fig. 6, Section 3.1, "textile electrodes were used to measure wearable ECG and IP signals, two of which were connected to the ELA and ERA pin of the AFE circuit board for 1-lead ECG recording and IP recording, and the remaining one textile electrode was connected as a ground electrode to the ERL pin of the AFE circuit board for common mode noise rejection") to collect physiological signals of the user in different time periods (Section 3.1, 1-lead ECG recording and IP recording); and
a processing circuit configured to read the physiological signals in a time-sharing mode (Section 2.1, "specially designed hardware to simultaneously record both the ECG signal and the reference input signal"; Section 2.2, "The measurement of the respiration impedance uses the same pair of electrodes for ECG measurement, so the measured IP signal has some correlation with the motion artifacts in the ECG signal. Figure 4 shows the designed analog front-end (AFE) circuit board. The configuration of the peripheral circuit of ADS1292R is referred to the recommendation of the technical datasheet by Texas Instruments"), wherein
the processing circuit has different input impedances in the different time periods of the time-sharing mode (Fig. 4a, ELA and ERA pins are connected to input ports IN2P and IN2N for acquiring ECG signals, and IN1P and IN1N for IP signals; the capacitors and resistors between ELA and ERA and the input ports are different), wherein
the different input impedances include at least two input impedances (Fig. 4a, the capacitors and resistors between ELA and ERA and the input ports are different), and
the physiological signals read by the processing circuit in the different time periods include motion artifact signals of different proportions (Section 2.2, "In fact, if we consider the IP signal generated by the change in impedance as noise, it reflects the respiratory motion artifact as well as the motion artifact caused by skin deformation"; circuit ADS1292R contains a multiplexer (MUX) and two amplifiers (PGA 1 and PGA2), one for the ECG signal and the other for the impedance pneumography), 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 (Fig. 3, denoised ECG is a result of processing the noisy ECG and IP).
An does not explicitly disclose that a ratio of the greatest input impedance in the at least two input impedances to the smallest input impedance in the at least two input impedances 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 a ratio of the greatest input impedance in the at least two input impedances to the smallest input impedance in the at least two input impedances 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 2, the signal processing system of claim 1 is obvious over An and Texas Instruments, as explained above. An does not explicitly disclose that the greatest input impedance is not less than 1 MΩ, and the smallest input impedance is not greater than 100 KΩ. 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 the greatest input impedance is not less than 1 MΩ, and the smallest input impedance is not greater than 100 KΩ, 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 3, the signal processing system of claim 1 is obvious over An and Texas Instruments, as explained above. An further discloses that:
the processing circuit includes a switch (circuit ADS1292R contains a multiplexer (MUX)) and at least two signal processing sub-circuits (Fig. 4a, circuits connected to IN1P/IN1N and IN2P/IN2N), 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 (ADS1292R datasheet, page 31, "Figure 35 shows the RLD signal generated from channel 1 and routed to the N-side of channel 2. This feature can be used to dynamically change the electrode that is used as the reference signal to drive the patient body. Note that the corresponding channel cannot be used and can be powered down."),
the at least two signal processing sub-circuits having different input impedances (Fig. 4a, the capacitors and resistors between ELA and ERA and the input ports are different).
Regarding claim 4, the signal processing system of claim 3 is obvious over An and Texas Instruments, as explained above. An 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 (ADS1292R datasheet, page 18, amplifiers PGA1 and PGA2).
Regarding claim 7, the signal processing system of claim 1 is obvious over An and Texas Instruments, as explained above. An 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 including the motion artifact signals of different proportions (Section 2.1, "The reference signal S(n) is fed into a digital filter to produce an output N’(n), which is as close as possible to the replica of the noise N(n). Subsequently, this filtered signal output y(n) is subtracted from the primary input d(n) to obtain the estimated desired signal X’(n) [5]. As can be seen from Figure 1, the performance of an adaptive filter in noise reduction is mainly determined by the adaptive algorithm and the reference input."), and/or
obtaining a target physiological signal by performing an enhancement operation on the pure physiological signal (Section 2.1, "The reference signal S(n) is fed into a digital filter to produce an output N’(n), which is as close as possible to the replica of the noise N(n). Subsequently, this filtered signal output y(n) is subtracted from the primary input d(n) to obtain the estimated desired signal X’(n) [5]. As can be seen from Figure 1, the performance of an adaptive filter in noise reduction is mainly determined by the adaptive algorithm and the reference input.").
Regarding claim 8, An discloses a signal processing system, comprising:
two groups of electrodes configured to fit a body of a user (Fig. 6, Section 3.1, "textile electrodes were used to measure wearable ECG and IP signals, two of which were connected to the ELA and ERA pin of the AFE circuit board for 1-lead ECG recording and IP recording, and the remaining one textile electrode was connected as a ground electrode to the ERL pin of the AFE circuit board for common mode noise rejection") to collect physiological signals of the user in different time periods (Section 3.1, 1-lead ECG recording and IP recording); and
a processing circuit configured to read the physiological signals (Section 2.1, "specially designed hardware to simultaneously record both the ECG signal and the reference input signal"; Section 2.2, "The measurement of the respiration impedance uses the same pair of electrodes for ECG measurement, so the measured IP signal has some correlation with the motion artifacts in the ECG signal. Figure 4 shows the designed analog front-end (AFE) circuit board. The configuration of the peripheral circuit of ADS1292R is referred to the recommendation of the technical datasheet by Texas Instruments") collected by the two groups of electrodes with different input impedances (Fig. 4a, the capacitors and resistors between ELA and ERA and the input ports are different), wherein
the physiological signals read by the processing circuit in the different time periods include motion artifact signals of different proportions (Section 2.2, "In fact, if we consider the IP signal generated by the change in impedance as noise, it reflects the respiratory motion artifact as well as the motion artifact caused by skin deformation"; circuit ADS1292R contains a multiplexer (MUX) and two amplifiers (PGA 1 and PGA2), one for the ecg signal and the other for the impedance pneumography), 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 (Fig. 3, denoised ECG is a result of processing the noisy ECG and IP).
An does not explicitly disclose that a ratio of the greatest input impedance in the at least two input impedances to the smallest input impedance in the at least two input impedances 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 a ratio of the greatest input impedance in the at least two input impedances to the smallest input impedance in the at least two input impedances 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 9, the signal processing system of claim 8 is obvious over An and Texas Instruments, as explained above. An further discloses that each group of electrodes includes two electrodes (Fig. 4a, Section 3.1, group 1 includes ERA and ELA electrodes, group 2 includes ELA and ground electrodes).
An does not explicitly disclose that a minimum distance between the two electrodes in different groups of the two groups of electrodes is less than 5 cm. However, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the electrodes no more than 5 cm apart, for the purpose of improving the correspondence between the physiological signal and the motion artifact signal, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 10, the signal processing system of claim 8 is obvious over An and Texas Instruments, as explained above. An does not explicitly disclose that the greatest input impedance is not less than 1 MΩ, and the smallest input impedance is not greater than 100 KΩ. 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 the greatest input impedance is not less than 1 MΩ, and the smallest input impedance is not greater than 100 KΩ, 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 11, the signal processing system of claim 8 is obvious over An and Texas Instruments, as explained above. An further discloses that:
the processing circuit includes at least two processing sub-circuits configured to connect to each of the two groups of electrodes, respectively (Fig. 4a, circuits connected to IN1P/IN1N and IN2P/IN2N), and
the at least two processing sub-circuits having different input impedances (Fig. 4a, the capacitors and resistors between ELA and ERA and the input ports are different).
Regarding claim 12, the signal processing system of claim 8 is obvious over An and Texas Instruments, as explained above. An further discloses that the processing circuit is configured to process the physiological signals collected by the two groups of electrodes 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 including the motion artifact signals of different proportions (Section 2.1, "The reference signal S(n) is fed into a digital filter to produce an output N’(n), which is as close as possible to the replica of the noise N(n). Subsequently, this filtered signal output y(n) is subtracted from the primary input d(n) to obtain the estimated desired signal X’(n) [5]. As can be seen from Figure 1, the performance of an adaptive filter in noise reduction is mainly determined by the adaptive algorithm and the reference input."), and/or
obtaining a target physiological signal by performing an enhancement operation on the pure physiological signal (Section 2.1, "The reference signal S(n) is fed into a digital filter to produce an output N’(n), which is as close as possible to the replica of the noise N(n). Subsequently, this filtered signal output y(n) is subtracted from the primary input d(n) to obtain the estimated desired signal X’(n) [5]. As can be seen from Figure 1, the performance of an adaptive filter in noise reduction is mainly determined by the adaptive algorithm and the reference input.").
Regarding claim 13, An discloses a signal processing method, comprising:
collecting physiological signals through a group of electrodes that fit a body of a user (Fig. 6, Section 3.1, "textile electrodes were used to measure wearable ECG and IP signals, two of which were connected to the ELA and ERA pin of the AFE circuit board for 1-lead ECG recording and IP recording, and the remaining one textile electrode was connected as a ground electrode to the ERL pin of the AFE circuit board for common mode noise rejection") to collect physiological signals of the user in different time periods (Section 3.1, 1-lead ECG recording and IP recording); and
reading the physiological signals through a processing circuit in a time-sharing mode (Section 2.1, "specially designed hardware to simultaneously record both the ECG signal and the reference input signal"; Section 2.2, "The measurement of the respiration impedance uses the same pair of electrodes for ECG measurement, so the measured IP signal has some correlation with the motion artifacts in the ECG signal"), wherein
the processing circuit has different input impedances in different time periods of the time-sharing mode (Fig. 4a, ELA and ERA pins are connected to input ports IN2P and IN2N for acquiring ECG signals, and IN1P and IN1N for IP signals; the capacitors and resistors between ELA and ERA and the input ports are different), wherein
the different input impedances include at least two input impedances (Fig. 4a, the capacitors and resistors between ELA and ERA and the input ports are different), and
the physiological signals read by the processing circuit in the different time periods include motion artifact signals of different proportions (Section 2.2, "In fact, if we consider the IP signal generated by the change in impedance as noise, it reflects the respiratory motion artifact as well as the motion artifact caused by skin deformation"; circuit ADS1292R contains a multiplexer (MUX) and two amplifiers (PGA 1 and PGA2), one for the ecg signal and the other for the impedance pneumography), 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 (Fig. 3, denoised ECG is a result of processing the noisy ECG and IP).
An does not explicitly disclose that a ratio of the greatest input impedance in the at least two input impedances to the smallest input impedance in the at least two input impedances 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 a ratio of the greatest input impedance in the at least two input impedances to the smallest input impedance in the at least two input impedances 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 14, the signal processing method of claim 13 is obvious over An and Texas Instruments, as explained above. An does not explicitly disclose that the greatest input impedance is not less than 1 MΩ, and the smallest input impedance is not greater than 100 KΩ. 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 the greatest input impedance is not less than 1 MΩ, and the smallest input impedance is not greater than 100 KΩ, 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 15, the signal processing method of claim 13 is obvious over An and Texas Instruments, as explained above. An further discloses that:
the processing circuit includes a switch (circuit ADS1292R contains a multiplexer (MUX)) and at least two signal processing sub-circuits (Fig. 4a, circuits connected to IN1P/IN1N and IN2P/IN2N), 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 (ADS1292R datasheet, page 31, "Figure 35 shows the RLD signal generated from channel 1 and routed to the N-side of channel 2. This feature can be used to dynamically change the electrode that is used as the reference signal to drive the patient body. Note that the corresponding channel cannot be used and can be powered down."),
the at least two signal processing sub-circuits having different input impedances (Fig. 4a, the capacitors and resistors between ELA and ERA and the input ports are different).
Regarding claim 17, the signal processing method of claim 15 is obvious over An and Texas Instruments, as explained above. An does not explicitly disclose that 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, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make 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, 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 20, the signal processing method of claim 13 is obvious over An and Texas Instruments, as explained above. An 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 including the motion artifact signals of different proportions (Section 2.1, "The reference signal S(n) is fed into a digital filter to produce an output N’(n), which is as close as possible to the replica of the noise N(n). Subsequently, this filtered signal output y(n) is subtracted from the primary input d(n) to obtain the estimated desired signal X’(n) [5]. As can be seen from Figure 1, the performance of an adaptive filter in noise reduction is mainly determined by the adaptive algorithm and the reference input."), and/or
obtaining a target physiological signal by performing an enhancement operation on the pure physiological signal (Section 2.1, "The reference signal S(n) is fed into a digital filter to produce an output N’(n), which is as close as possible to the replica of the noise N(n). Subsequently, this filtered signal output y(n) is subtracted from the primary input d(n) to obtain the estimated desired signal X’(n) [5]. As can be seen from Figure 1, the performance of an adaptive filter in noise reduction is mainly determined by the adaptive algorithm and the reference input.").
Claims 1-4, 7-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al. (Adaptive Motion Artifact Reduction in Wearable ECG Measurements Using Impedance Pneumography Signal. Sensors, 2022, cited in 22 Jan 2025 IDS), hereinafter An, in view of Texas Instruments (ADS129x Low-Power, 2-Channel, 24-Bit Analog Front-End for Biopotential Measurements datasheet, cited in 22 Jan 2025 IDS).
Regarding claim 5, the signal processing system of claim 1 is obvious over An and Texas Instruments, as explained above. Although An further discloses that the processing circuit includes a switch and a resistor (ADS1292R datasheet, page 18, switches and resistors connected to amplifiers PGA1 and PGA2) An 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, Pekonen teaches a measurement system configured to measure biometric signals (paragraph [0029]), wherein 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 (Fig. 6, paragraph [0047], "a plurality of impedance components arranged in parallel and a switch circuitry arranged to connect and disconnect selectively each impedance component to/from the impedance circuitry 42"; Fig. 8, paragraph [0060], switch 218 and impedance components 44 and 46 are connected in parallel with electrodes 200 and 202).
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 An and Texas Instruments with the teachings of Pekonen 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 allows a person to tune the impedance circuit and the measurement apparatus for different measurement scenarios (Pekonen, paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 6, the signal processing system of claim 1 is obvious over An, Texas Instruments, and Pekonen, as explained above. Neither An, nor Texas Instruments, nor Pekonen 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 16, the signal processing method of claim 15 is obvious over An and Texas Instruments, as explained above. An does not explicitly disclose 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.
However, Pekonen teaches a measurement system configured to measure biometric signals (paragraph [0029]), wherein 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 [0079], "the frequency of the clock signal may be selected to be higher than a highest frequency component of the measured biometric signal"; paragraph [0077], "the frequency of the clock signal closing the switches 218, 402, 404 is the same as the frequency of the sampling instants of the ND converter 224. However, in other embodiments where the interference is lower, the frequency of the sampling instants of the ND converter 224 is a multiple (higher than one) of the frequency of the clock signal closing the switches 218, 402, 404"; paragraph [0047], "the impedance circuitry 42 may comprise a plurality of impedance components arranged in parallel and a switch circuitry arranged to connect and disconnect selectively each impedance component to/from the impedance circuitry 42").
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 An and Texas Instruments with the teachings of Pekonen so 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, because doing so reduces the amount of potential difference that may be generated in the skin electrodes 200, 202 before a given sampling instant (Pekonen, paragraph [0078]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make 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, 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 An and Texas Instruments, as explained above. Although An further discloses that the processing circuit includes a switch and a resistor (ADS1292R datasheet, page 18, switches and resistors connected to amplifiers PGA1 and PGA2) An 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, Pekonen teaches a measurement system configured to measure biometric signals (paragraph [0029]), wherein 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 (Fig. 6, paragraph [0047], "a plurality of impedance components arranged in parallel and a switch circuitry arranged to connect and disconnect selectively each impedance component to/from the impedance circuitry 42"; Fig. 8, paragraph [0060], switch 218 and impedance components 44 and 46 are connected in parallel with electrodes 200 and 202).
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 An and Texas Instruments with the teachings of Pekonen 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 allows a person to tune the impedance circuit and the measurement apparatus for different measurement scenarios (Pekonen, paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 19, the signal processing method of claim 18 is obvious over An, Texas Instruments, and Pekonen, as explained above. Neither An, nor Texas Instruments, nor Pekonen 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.
Conclusion
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