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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Abstract, line 11: Please remove additional trailing period.
Pars. [0005-0007]: were the phrases “includes…” and “comprising: …” intentional? It seems that Applicant intended for more information here that is omitted/left out?
Par. [0017], line 17: “quicky” should be “quicker”.
Par. [00110], line 2: “the window is slides forward” should be changed to “the window slides forward”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 3-4: “each the one or more sensor frames” should be changed to “each of the one or more sensor frames”.
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2: “has amount of data” should be changed to “has an amount of data”.
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 3-4: “each the one or more sensor frames” should be changed to “each of the one or more sensor frames”.
Claim 18 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2: “has amount of data” should be changed to “has an amount of data”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The term “consensus” used in the claims is being interpreted based on Pars. [0073-0081] of Applicant’s specification, pasted below:
“Consensus
[0073] Consensus between multiple sensor streams results in each sensor having one of the following statuses:
[0074] Accept: all the required sensors have sufficient data within the window.
[0075] Reject: one of the required sensors has no data, consensus for all sensors is rejected.
[0076] Lag: this sensor has a data window, but its bounds in time lag the rest of the group.
[0077] Lead: this sensor has a data window, but its bounds in time lead the rest of the group.
[0078] Group Lag: one or more sensors is lagging the group.
[0079] Group Lead: one or more sensors are leading the group.
[0080] Group Fix: there is one or more sensors leading the group and one or more sensors lagging the group.
[0081] Unsynced: this sensor is not required to be time synced with the rest of the group in consensus.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
The term “valid” in claims 1, 16, and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “valid” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what would be considered a “valid window of data” that would read on the claim limitation. Likewise, it is unclear what would be considered an “invalid” window of data that would not read on the claim limitation.
The limitation “further comprising returning the valid window of data, … the valid window is returned” renders claim 6 indefinite. This limitation would have no meaning if it is determined in claim 1 that no valid window exists (Claim 1, lines 12-14). In other words, there would not exist a valid window of data to return if it was determined that one doesn’t exist. Please consider adding a limitation to claim 6 that is to the effect of “wherein it is determined the valid window of data exists, further comprising…”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the full “Window” size" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a full “Window” size” in lines 1-2, whereas a full “Window” size was already introduced in a claim that claim 10 depends from (claim 9). It is unclear whether the Applicant intended to claim the same or a different a full “Window” size. Consider changing to “the full “Window” size”.
The term “significantly” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “significantly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what would be considered a “significant” difference from the mean to meet the limitation of this claim.
*All other claims are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected claim.
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 an abstract idea (mental process of analyzing data to make a determination) without significantly more.
Step 1
Independent claims 1, 16, and 20 are directed to a method and apparatuses, and thus meet the requirements for step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding claims 1, 16, and 20, the following steps recite an abstract idea:
“determining a sampling rate of each sensor stream of the plurality of sensor streams” is a mental process when given its broadest reasonable interpretation. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the mental process grouping includes observations, evaluation, judgements, and opinions. In this case, a human could mentally observe or evaluate a sampling rate of each sensor stream. For instance, a human could count the total number of samples and divide by the total time in order to determine a sampling rate of each sensor stream.
“identifying a count of gaps and a length of each gap for each sensor stream of the plurality of sensor streams” is a mental process when given its broadest reasonable interpretation. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the mental process grouping includes observations, evaluation, judgements, and opinions. In this case, a human could mentally count/evaluate the number of gaps and mentally determine a length of each gap for each sensor stream.
“identifying a subset of a circular buffer for each sensor of the plurality of sensors that fits within a slice of time of interest” is a mental process when given its broadest reasonable interpretation. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the mental process grouping includes observations, evaluation, judgements, and opinions. In this case, a human could mentally group a portion/subset of data samples (e.g., based on time) of a circular buffer for each sensor.
“determining consensus between the plurality of sensor streams” is a mental process when given its broadest reasonable interpretation. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the mental process grouping includes observations, evaluation, judgements, and opinions. In this case, a human could mentally evaluate whether the plurality of sensor streams collectively satisfy one of a variety of requirements (i.e., consensus), such as those described in Pars. [0079-0088] in Applicant’s specification. For instance, a human could evaluate whether all of the required sensors have sufficient data within the window.
“determining whether a valid window of data exists for the plurality of sensor streams added to the circular buffer” is a mental process when given its broadest reasonable interpretation. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the mental process grouping includes observations, evaluation, judgements, and opinions. In this case, a human could mentally make a determination as to whether a valid window of data exists for the plurality of sensor streams added to the circular buffer. For instance, a human could determine if there is a window of time where there exists a sample point for each of the plurality of sensor streams.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding claims 1, 16, and 20, the claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The following elements do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea:
Receiving a plurality of sensor streams, each sensor stream of the plurality of sensor streams is received from a sensor of a plurality of sensors of a wearable electronic device – insignificant pre-solution activity, i.e. mere data gathering [MPEP 2106.05(g)]
… wherein the slice is characterized by a start timestamp and a stop timestamp – insignificant pre-solution activity, i.e. selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated [MPEP 2106.05(g)]
Adding the plurality of sensor streams to the circular buffer – insignificant pre-solution activity, i.e. mere data gathering and selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated [MPEP 2106.05(g)]
… for synchronizing two or more sensor streams of the plurality of sensor streams for a real time application – amounts to merely outputting data, which is insignificant extra-solution activity [MPEP 2106.05(g)].
Wearable electronic device – recited with a high level of generality in Applicant’s specification at Par. [0003]. For instance, Par. [0003] explains that wearable electronic devices can be smart watches, a wearable ring, fitness trackers, glucose trackers, etc., and include sensors for continuous monitoring of physiological and/or biological signals of a user when a wearable electronic device is worn by the user. Therefore, the wearable electronic device is interpreted generally as a wearable device for comprising the components that aid with insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and performing the mental process with a general computer.
A body/an annular body – recited with a high level of generality in Applicant’s specification at Pars. [0098-0099]. For instance, Par. [0098] of Applicant’s specification explains that by way of a non-limiting example, the device body may include components such as, but not limited to, processing units, memory, display, sensors, biosensors, speakers, microphones, haptic actuators, batteries, and so on. Therefore, the body/annular body is interpreted generally as a housing for containing components that aid with insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and performing the mental process with a general computer.
A plurality of sensors – recited with a high level of generality in Applicant’s specification at Par. [0003]. For instance, Par. [0003] explains that the sensors included in the wearable electronic device monitor health-related signals such as step count, heart rate, blood glucose level, blood pressure, respiratory rate, galvanic skin conductance (or electrodermal activity (EDA)), sleep patterns, skin temperature, and many others. The involvement of these sensors amounts to insignificant pre-solution activity, i.e. mere data gathering.
At least one memory – recited with a high level of generality as storing instructions and being communicatively coupled to the processor (Par. [0006]), that requires a circular buffer (Par. [0017]). The involvement of the memory is insignificant extra-solution activity in that it amounts to generic computer implementation of the abstract idea [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)].
At least one processor – recited generally as being communicatively coupled to memory and as being a computer processor in Applicant’s specification (Pars. [0006] and [0102]). The involvement of the processor is insignificant extra-solution activity in that it amounts to generic computer implementation of the abstract idea [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)].
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Step 2B
The additional elements of claims 1, 16, and 20, when considered either individually or in an ordered combination, are not enough to qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the “memory” and “processor”, along with their associated functions and components, are recited with a high level of generality and simply amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The additional elements that were considered insignificant extra-solution activity have been re-analyzed and do not amount to anything more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Also, simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept [MPEP 2106.05(d)].
Receiving a plurality of sensor streams, each sensor stream of the plurality of sensor streams is received from a sensor of a plurality of sensors of a wearable electronic device – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(“i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”)
… wherein the slice is characterized by a start timestamp and a stop timestamp – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(“i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”)
Adding the plurality of sensor streams to the circular buffer – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(“iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”)
… for synchronizing two or more sensor streams of the plurality of sensor streams for a real time application – Aggarwal, et al. (US 2019/0313039) explains that it is conventional to synchronize image sensors with differing exposure durations by aligning the beginning of the sensors’ respective exposure durations.
Wearable electronic device – Conchell Añó (US 2018/0035910) explains that there are conventional wearable electronic devices for measuring the electrodermal activity of a user’s skin (Par.[0003]).
A body/an annular body – Hussein, et al. (US 11,322,254) explains that conventional devices collect data through physical contact of the user's body and they are mostly in the form of wearable devices in various formfactor that include patches, chest-bands, rings, watches, paracletes, headbands, cloves, bodysuits, t-shirts, and similar wearable devices (Col. 7, lines 3-8).
A plurality of sensors – Kramer, et al. (US 2021/0085262) explains that heart rate sensors and PPG heart rate sensors are commercially available as wearables (Par. [0064]).
At least one memory – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(“iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”).
At least one processor – MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(“i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”).
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application and without significantly more.
Dependent claims
Regarding dependent claims 2-5 and 17-19, the limitations only further define insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data.
Regarding dependent claims 6-7 and 9-15, the limitations only further define insignificant post-solution activity of outputting/manipulating data.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations only further define the abstract idea and insignificant post-solution activity.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Holsti (US 2021/0202061).
Regarding claim 1, Holsti teaches (Fig. 9, # 932) a computer-implemented method (Par. [0099]) comprising:
(Fig. 1, # 102; Fig. 2, # 204; Fig. 4, # 400, 438, 448) receiving a plurality of sensor streams, each sensor stream of the plurality of sensor streams is received from a sensor of a plurality of sensors of a wearable electronic device (Par. [0015]; Par. [0030] – receiving (block 204) a data packet from each of a plurality of peripheral devices configured to perform measurements with respect to one or more users and to transmit physiological measurement data on the one or more users to the collector device; Par. [0038]; Par. [0041]);
(Fig. 6A, # 410, 420, 612, 614, 632, 634) determining a sampling rate of each sensor stream of the plurality of sensor streams (Par. [0058] – Arrows 612, 614, 632, 634 may represent samples, i.e. moments at which the device 410, 420 takes a measurement sample – Examiner notes that this represents determining a sampling rate of each sensor stream);
(Fig. 6A, # 612, 614, 632, 634) identifying a count of gaps and a length of each gap for each sensor stream of the plurality of sensor streams (Par. [0058]);
(Figs. 6A-D, # 642) identifying a subset of a circular buffer for each sensor of the plurality of sensors that fits within a slice of time of interest, wherein the slice is characterized by a start timestamp and a stop timestamp (Par. [0036] – It is possible that the measurements are buffered into memory of the peripheral device, but this may not be necessary in all examples; Par. [0051] – the collector device 400 broadcasts a timing signal 642 with a certain interval; Pars. [0057-0058]; Par. [0060] – the peripheral device 410, 420 is configured to stop the detection of timing signals 642 upon detecting the timing signal broadcasted by the collector device 400.);
(Fig. 4, # 432, 450; Fig. 6A, # 642, T1, T2) determining consensus between the plurality of sensor streams (Par. [0042] – the syncing may be performed based on clock values that are indicated in response to the same broadcasted timing signal (e.g. block 432); Par. [0057] – So, for device 410 the next transmission window is window 652A after reception of the timing signal 642 at time instant corresponding to clock value T1. For device 420 the next transmission window is window 654A after reception of the timing signal 642 at time instant corresponding to clock value T2. – i.e., consensus);
(Fig. 7A, # 708) adding the plurality of sensor streams to the circular buffer (Par. [0036]; Pars. [0065] – processing (block 708) the first and second data streams to obtain a physiological parameter derivable from the combination of the first and second data streams; Par. [0100]); and
(Fig. 4, # 450; Fig. 7A, # 708 and 710) determining whether a valid window of data exists for the plurality of sensor streams added to the circular buffer for synchronizing two or more sensor streams of the plurality of sensor streams for a real time application (Par. [0042]; Par. [0065]; Pars. [0068-0073] – there are different use cases for utilizing the synchronized data streams…).
Therefore, claim 1 is unpatentable over Holsti.
Regarding claim 2, Holsti teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein (Figs. 4 and 6A, # 410, 420, 612, 614, 632, 634) one or more sensor frames with raw data in one or more sensor streams of the plurality of sensor streams are arriving sporadically with contents whose timestamps differ considerably from an arrival time of each the one or more sensor frames (Par. [0040] – It is noted that the clock values may still be different due to, for example, different starting time of the measurement, different clock drifts, and/or different device configuration.; Par. [0058]).
Therefore, claim 2 is unpatentable over Holsti.
Regarding claim 3, Holsti teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein (Figs. 4, 5A, and 6A, # 410, 420, 612, 614, 632, 634) a sensor frame with raw data in a first sensor stream of the plurality of sensor streams has amount of data different or inconsistent from a sensor frame with raw data in a second sensor stream of the plurality of sensor streams (Par. [0040] – It is noted that the clock values may still be different due to, for example, different starting time of the measurement, different clock drifts, and/or different device configuration.; Par. [0047] – the data packets comprise raw measurement data; Par. [0058]).
Therefore, claim 3 is unpatentable over Holsti.
Regarding claim 4, Holsti teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein (Fig. 6A, # 410, 612, 614) a sensor frame in a first sensor stream of the plurality of sensor streams includes raw data before a gap in time (Par. [0058]), and wherein (Fig. 6A, # 420, 632, 634) a sensor frame in a second sensor stream of the plurality of sensor streams includes raw data after a gap in time (Par. [0058]).
Therefore, claim 4 is unpatentable over Holsti.
Regarding claim 5, Holsti teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensor streams includes at least one required sensor stream and at least one optional sensor stream (Pars. [0068-0073] – Examiner notes that these examples showcase different combinations of sensor streams that can be used for different purposes. It is noted that this is equivalent to certain sensor streams being required and others being optional, depending on the use case).
Therefore, claim 5 is unpatentable over Holsti.
Regarding claim 6, Holsti teaches The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising (Fig. 4, # 456, 458; Fig. 6C) returning the valid window of data, and sliding the window forward in time by a stride value to cause an overlap between the returned data each time the valid window is returned (Par. [0044] – after transmitting the data packet (blocks 438, 448), the device 410, 420 may continue to perform measurements and add obtained samples into next data packet (block 452, 454), and transmit said next data packet (block 456, 458); Par. [0049] – synced timewise and thus are better comparable with each other; Par. [0063] – the collector device 400 stops broadcasting the timing signal 642 upon reception of clock values of paired peripheral device 410, 420 (i.e. paired with the collector device 400)… When the broadcasting is stopped, the peripheral devices may continue measuring the physiological data and transmitting the data packets containing the physiological measurement data and time stamps indicating the (measurement) timing of the physiological measurement data; Examiner notes that once peripheral devices 410/420 are paired, a stride value is effectively enforced to overlap the returned data from each peripheral device).
Therefore, claim 6 is unpatentable over Holsti.
Regarding claim 7, Holsti teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein (Fig. 6A, # T1, T2, 410, 420) the returned data includes data of at least one synchronized sensor stream and at least one unsynchronized sensor stream (Par. [0058] – T1 is shown between clock beats (i.e., 602, 604) for peripheral device 410 (i.e., unsynchronized) while T2 is exactly at the clock beat for peripheral device 420 (i.e., synchronized)).
Therefore, claim 7 is unpatentable over Holsti.
Regarding claim 8, Holsti teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 6, further comprising (Figs. 6A-B, # 642) rejecting the returned data upon determining the returned data is missing sensor data of required sensors (Par. [0053-0054] – Timing signal 642 is repeated several times as peripheral devices may not receive all timing signals. Therefore, it would be implied that returned data not including timing signal would be rejected until timing signal is included).
Therefore, claim 8 is unpatentable over Holsti.
Regarding claim 14, Holsti teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein (Fig. 4, # 438 and 448 – data returned before, 456 and 458 – new data that has never been returned) the window of data includes data that has been returned before and new data that has never been returned (Par. [0044] – Similarly, after transmitting the data packet (blocks 438, 448), the device 410, 420 may continue to perform measurements and add obtained samples into next data packet (block 452, 454), and transmit said next data packet (block 456, 458).).
Therefore, claim 14 is unpatentable over Holsti.
Regarding claim 15, Holsti teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein (Fig. 6D, # 662, 664) the returned data is empty if the returned data does not include at least a “Minimum Number of Samples” (Par. [0053]; Par. [0064]; Examiner notes it would be implied that returned data would be empty if timing signals aren’t received by the peripheral devices, and if a physiological sample has not been received).
Therefore, claim 15 is unpatentable over Holsti.
Regarding claim 16, Holsti teaches (Fig. 1, # 102, 104A-C) a wearable electronic device (Par. [0015] – the user 100 may wear a wearable device, such as a wrist device 102, a head sensor unit 104C, a torso sensor 104B, and/or a leg sensor 104A) comprising:
(Fig. 1, # 102, 104A-C) a body (Par. [0015]);
(Fig. 1, # 102) a plurality of sensors disposed at or within the body, the plurality of sensors including one or more of a thermistor, an EDA sensor, a PPG sensor, an accelerometer, and/or an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor (Par. [0020] – The cardiac activity circuitry may comprise an optical cardiac activity sensor unit configured to measure the cardiac activity of the user 100. Example of such sensor may be a PPG (photoplethysmography) sensor.);
(Fig. 1, # 102 – wrist device (can function as collector device); Fig. 4, # 400; Fig. 9, # 900, 930 – memory) at least one memory storing instructions (Par. [0028] – Both sensors may transmit data to same collector device which can be, for example, the wrist device 102 or the PED 106, or potentially both.; Par. [0038]; Par. [0099-0100] – apparatus 900 comprises … at least one memory 930 including a computer program code (software) 932; Par. [0103] – In an embodiment, the apparatus 900 may be or be comprised in a collector device, such as the collector device 400.); and
(Fig. 9, # 910 – control circuitry, i.e. processor) at least one processor communicatively coupled with the at least one memory and configured to execute the instructions to perform operations (Par. [0099] – apparatus 900 comprises a control circuitry (CTRL) 910, such as at least one processor…) comprising:
(Fig. 2, # 204; Fig. 4, # 400, 438, 448) receiving a plurality of sensor streams, each sensor stream of the plurality of sensor streams is received from a sensor of the plurality sensors (Par. [0030] – receiving (block 204) a data packet from each of a plurality of peripheral devices configured to perform measurements with respect to one or more users and to transmit physiological measurement data on the one or more users to the collector device; Par. [0038]; Par. [0041]);
(Fig. 6A, # 410, 420, 612, 614, 632, 634) determining a sampling rate of each sensor stream of the plurality of sensor streams (Par. [0058] – Arrows 612, 614, 632, 634 may represent samples, i.e. moments at which the device 410, 420 takes a measurement sample – Examiner notes that this represents determining a sampling rate of each sensor stream);
(Fig. 6A, # 612, 614, 632, 634) identifying a count of gaps and a length of each gap for each sensor stream of the plurality of sensor streams (Par. [0058]);
(Figs. 6A-D, # 642) identifying a subset of a circular buffer for each sensor of the plurality of sensors that fits within a slice of time of interest, wherein the slice is characterized by a start timestamp and a stop timestamp (Par. [0036] – It is possible that the measurements are buffered into memory of the peripheral device, but this may not be necessary in all examples; Par. [0051] – the collector device 400 broadcasts a timing signal 642 with a certain interval; Pars. [0057-0058]; Par. [0060] – the peripheral device 410, 420 is configured to stop the detection of timing signals 642 upon detecting the timing signal broadcasted by the collector device 400.);
(Fig. 4, # 432, 450; Fig. 6A, # 642, T1, T2) determining consensus between the plurality of sensor streams (Par. [0042] – the syncing may be performed based on clock values that are indicated in response to the same broadcasted timing signal (e.g. block 432); Par. [0057] – So, for device 410 the next transmission window is window 652A after reception of the timing signal 642 at time instant corresponding to clock value T1. For device 420 the next transmission window is window 654A after reception of the timing signal 642 at time instant corresponding to clock value T2. – i.e., consensus);
(Fig. 7A, # 708) adding the plurality of sensor streams to the circular buffer (Par. [0036]; Pars. [0065] – processing (block 708) the first and second data streams to obtain a physiological parameter derivable from the combination of the first and second data streams; Par. [0100]); and
(Fig. 4, # 450; Fig. 7A, # 708 and 710) determining whether a valid window of data exists for the plurality of sensor streams added to the circular buffer for synchronizing two or more sensor streams of the plurality of sensor streams for a real time application (Par. [0042]; Par. [0065]; Pars. [0068-0073] – there are different use cases for utilizing the synchronized data streams…).
Therefore, claim 16 is unpatentable over Holsti.
Regarding claim 17, Holsti teaches the wearable electronic device of claim 16, wherein (Figs. 4 and 6A, # 410, 420, 612, 614, 632, 634) one or more sensor frames with raw data in one or more sensor streams of the plurality of sensor streams are arriving sporadically with contents whose timestamps differ considerably from an arrival time of each the one or more sensor frames (Par. [0040] – It is noted that the clock values may still be different due to, for example, different starting time of the measurement, different clock drifts, and/or different device configuration.; Par. [0058]).
Therefore, claim 17 is unpatentable over Holsti.
Regarding claim 18, Holsti teaches the wearable electronic device of claim 16, wherein (Figs. 4, 5A, and 6A, # 410, 420, 612, 614, 632, 634) a sensor frame with raw data in a first sensor stream of the plurality of sensor streams has amount of data different or inconsistent from a sensor frame with raw data in a second sensor stream of the plurality of sensor streams (Par. [0040] – It is noted that the clock values may still be different due to, for example, different starting time of the measurement, different clock drifts, and/or different device configuration.; Par. [0047] – the data packets comprise raw measurement data; Par. [0058]).
Therefore, claim 18 is unpatentable over Holsti.
Regarding claim 19, Holsti teaches the wearable electronic device of claim 16, wherein (Fig. 6A, # 410, 612, 614) a sensor frame in a first sensor stream of the plurality of sensor streams includes raw data before a gap in time (Par. [0058]), and wherein (Fig. 6A, # 420, 632, 634) a sensor frame in a second sensor stream of the plurality of sensor streams includes raw data after a gap in time (Par. [0058]).
Therefore, claim 19 is unpatentable over Holsti.
Regarding claim 20, Holsti teaches (Fig. 1, # 102, 104A-C) a wearable electronic device (Par. [0015] – the user 100 may wear a wearable device, such as a wrist device 102, a head sensor unit 104C, a torso sensor 104B, and/or a leg sensor 104A) comprising:
(Fig. 1, # 102, 104A-C) an annular body (Par. [0015]);
(Fig. 1, # 102) a plurality of sensors disposed at or within the body, the plurality of sensors including one or more of a thermistor, an EDA sensor, a PPG sensor, an accelerometer, and/or an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor (Par. [0020] – The cardiac activity circuitry may comprise an optical cardiac activity sensor unit configured to measure the cardiac activity of the user 100. Example of such sensor may be a PPG (photoplethysmography) sensor.);
(Fig. 1, # 102 – wrist device (can function as collector device); Fig. 4, # 400; Fig. 9, # 900, 930 – memory) at least one memory storing instructions (Par. [0028] – Both sensors may transmit data to same collector device which can be, for example, the wrist device 102 or the PED 106, or potentially both.; Par. [0038]; Par. [0099-0100] – apparatus 900 comprises … at least one memory 930 including a computer program code (software) 932; Par. [0103] – In an embodiment, the apparatus 900 may be or be comprised in a collector device, such as the collector device 400.); and
(Fig. 9, # 910 – control circuitry, i.e. processor) at least one processor communicatively coupled with the at least one memory and configured to execute the instructions to perform operations (Par. [0099] – apparatus 900 comprises a control circuitry (CTRL) 910, such as at least one processor…) comprising:
(Fig. 2, # 204; Fig. 4, # 400, 438, 448) receiving a plurality of sensor streams, each sensor stream of the plurality of sensor streams is received from a sensor of the plurality sensors (Par. [0030] – receiving (block 204) a data packet from each of a plurality of peripheral devices configured to perform measurements with respect to one or more users and to transmit physiological measurement data on the one or more users to the collector device; Par. [0038]; Par. [0041]);
(Fig. 6A, # 410, 420, 612, 614, 632, 634) determining a sampling rate of each sensor stream of the plurality of sensor streams (Par. [0058] – Arrows 612, 614, 632, 634 may represent samples, i.e. moments at which the device 410, 420 takes a measurement sample – Examiner notes that this represents determining a sampling rate of each sensor stream);
(Fig. 6A, # 612, 614, 632, 634) identifying a count of gaps and a length of each gap for each sensor stream of the plurality of sensor streams (Par. [0058]);
(Figs. 6A-D, # 642) identifying a subset of a circular buffer for each sensor of the plurality of sensors that fits within a slice of time of interest, wherein the slice is characterized by a start timestamp and a stop timestamp (Par. [0036] – It is possible that the measurements are buffered into memory of the peripheral device, but this may not be necessary in all examples; Par. [0051] – the collector device 400 broadcasts a timing signal 642 with a certain interval; Pars. [0057-0058]; Par. [0060] – the peripheral device 410, 420 is configured to stop the detection of timing signals 642 upon detecting the timing signal broadcasted by the collector device 400.);
(Fig. 4, # 432, 450; Fig. 6A, # 642, T1, T2) determining consensus between the plurality of sensor streams (Par. [0042] – the syncing may be performed based on clock values that are indicated in response to the same broadcasted timing signal (e.g. block 432); Par. [0057] – So, for device 410 the next transmission window is window 652A after reception of the timing signal 642 at time instant corresponding to clock value T1. For device 420 the next transmission window is window 654A after reception of the timing signal 642 at time instant corresponding to clock value T2. – i.e., consensus);
(Fig. 7A, # 708) adding the plurality of sensor streams to the circular buffer (Par. [0036]; Pars. [0065] – processing (block 708) the first and second data streams to obtain a physiological parameter derivable from the combination of the first and second data streams; Par. [0100]); and
(Fig. 4, # 450; Fig. 7A, # 708 and 710) determining whether a valid window of data exists for the plurality of sensor streams added to the circular buffer for synchronizing two or more sensor streams of the plurality of sensor streams for a real time application (Par. [0042]; Par. [0065]; Pars. [0068-0073] – there are different use cases for utilizing the synchronized data streams…).
Therefore, claim 20 is unpatentable over Holsti.
Prior Art
Claims 9-13 are not presently rejected 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 rejections. However, allowable subject matter is not presently indicated due to outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b) rejections detailed hereinabove. The Examiner notes that the prior art referenced herein (i.e., Holsti) does not appear to teach or suggest the limitation of instant claim 9, that is wherein the returned data allows for a “Minimum Window” size that grows until it reaches the full “Window” size. No other prior art could presently be found to teach or suggest this instant limitation, but prior art will be revisited upon receipt of Applicant’s response and overcoming of present 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b) rejections. It is noted that claims 10-13 depend from instant claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Barber (US 2014/0012509)
Thakur, et al. (US 2017/0196457) – see at least Par. [0016]
Sayed, et al. (US 2021/0409914) – see at least Fig. 2
Eng, et al. (US 2012/0004516)
Artz, Jr. et al. (US 7,895,355)
Murali, et al. (US 2021/0345270)
Boidol, et al. (WO2018/141410)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL TAYLOR HOLTZCLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-6626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. EST).
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.
/MICHAEL T. HOLTZCLAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights