CTNF 18/851,794 CTNF 100462 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 27 th , 2024 is being considered by the examiner. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority. The certified copy has been filed in parent Application PCT/EP2023/058033 filed on March 28 th , 2023. The current application claims benefit of provisional application 63325768, filed on March 31 st , 2022. Examiner acknowledges the applicant’s claim for priority. Drawings 06-22-03 AIA The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “ 53 ” has been used to designate both signal application module in [0058] and noise cancellation module in [0059] of the USPGPub. version of the specification . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 06-27 AIA In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a signal application module” in claims 1 and 6. The specification discloses that the “signal application module” can be an electronic circuit or software program, as depicted in paragraph [0057]. “noise cancellation module” in claims 1-6, and 8-11. The specification discloses that the “noise cancelation module” can be “a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium” (see [0058]) and noise cancellation process disclosed in [0041]-[0044]. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-15 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. In claims 1, 8, and 12, the antecedent basis for the limitation of “the analog signal” in the last line seems improper since there are three different types of analog signals recited in the claims, “an analog signal” (lines 2-3 in claim 1, line 4 in claim 8, and lines 1-2 in claim 12), “standard analog signal” (line 7 in claim 1, line 6 in claim 8, and line 4 in claim 12) and “nonstandard analog signal” (line 7 in claim 1, line 6 in claim 8, and line 4 in claim 12). For the purpose of examination, “the analog signal” in the last line has been interpreted as the “an analog signal” (lines 2-3 in claim 1, line 4 in claim 8, and lines 1-2 in claim 12). Applicant is recommended to use a term such as “measured analog signal” to distinguish from standard and nonstandard analog signals. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-11, and 13-15 are also indefinite for the same reasons set forth for claims 1, 8, and 12. Claim limitations “signal application module” in claim 1 and “noise cancellation module” in claim 8 and all their dependent claims thereof invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph as set forth above. The specification discloses the following: [0058] In practice, signal application module 53 encompasses an electronic circuit (e.g., electronic components and/or hardware) and/or an executable program (e.g., executable software stored on non-transitory computer readable medium(s) and/or firmware) for executing an active notice cancellation method of the present disclosure, such as, for example, flowchart 60 of FIG. 3. According to [0058] of the specification, it seems that noise cancellation module can be part of the signal application module, which is different than embodiments illustrated in Fig.’s 1, 2, 4, and 5. As such, this part of the specification that provides support for the corresponding structure for the means-plus-function limitations is not consistent with the separately claimed limitations of “signal application module” and “noise cancellation module.” For the purpose of examination, the limitations are interpreted as being separate structures. The terms “standard” and “nonstandard” in claims 1, 8, and 12 and all their dependent claims thereof are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “standard” and “nonstandard” are not defined by the claim. The specification provides the following for the terms “standard” and “nonstandard.” [0004] For purposes of describing and claiming the present disclosure, the term “standard analog signal” encompasses a signal that is a standard data input into a signal monitoring application and/or a signal measuring application in support of a medical procedure that results in a reliable monitoring and/or measuring in support of the medical procedure (e.g., noise-free or low noise ECG leads inputted into a ECG monitoring application resulting in a reliable display of an ECG or inputted into an ECG measuring application resulting in an optimal conditional application of a shock therapy). [0005] For purposes of describing and claiming the present disclosure, the term “nonstandard analog signal” encompasses a signal that is a nonstandard data input into a signal monitoring application and/or a signal measuring application of signal in support of a medical procedure that results in an unreliable monitoring and/or measuring in support of the medical procedure (e.g., high noise ECG leads inputted into a ECG monitoring application resulting in a unreliable display of an ECG or inputted into a an ECG measuring application resulting in a sub-optimal conditional application of a shock therapy). However, the specification’s support for the two terms uses another relative term (signal allowing for a reliable or unreliable monitoring). As such, 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. Therefore, the classification of analog signals as standard of nonstandard is rendered indefinite by the use of the relative terms “standard” and “nonstandard.” 07-30-01 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. 07-31-01 Claims 1-15are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1-15 are directed to a medical device and method for active noise cancellation in a measured analog signal. Analog signal as recited in claims 1, 8, and 12 and all their dependent claims thereof is directed to a broad genus encompassing variety of different types of signals. MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a)(ii)states the following: The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice (see i)(A) above), reduction to drawings (see i)(B) above), or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the inventor was in possession of the claimed genus (see i)(C) above). See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. See Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc., 10 F.4th 1330, 1337, 2021 USPQ2d 893 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ( "[T]he written description must lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand that the inventor possessed the entire scope of the claimed invention. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1353–54 ('[T]he purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor's contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.' (internal quotation marks omitted)."). While analog signal is broad enough to encompass variety of different types of signals including electrical, optical, audio, etc., the specification discloses only one type of signal, ECG. With only single species of analog signal, the specification does not adequately disclose species that would be representative of the entire genus as claimed. Since a representative number of adequately described species are not disclosed for the limitation of “analog signal”, as-filed specification lacks adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 : Claims 1-11 recite a medical device and a module and therefore are products. Claim 12-15 recite a method and therefore is a process. Therefore, the claims fall within the statutory categories. Step 2A, Prong 1 : Claims 1, 8, and 12 recite following limitations: “monitor and measure an analog signal in support of a medical procedure” “extract signal information from a sample of the analog signal” “classify the analog signal as a standard analog signal or a nonstandard analog signal based on the signal information extracted from the sample of the analog signal” “when the sample of the analog signal is classified as a nonstandard analog signal, construct a noise cancellation signal having a magnitude equal to a magnitude of the sample of the analog signal and further having a phase opposite to the phase of the sample of the analog signal” “inject the constructed noise cancellation signal into the analog signal for cancelling the noise within the analog signal” The limitations, as drafted, describe a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, includes performance of the limitation in the mind except for the recitation of “signal application module” in claim 1 and “noise cancellation module” in claims 1 and 8. Claim 12 does not recite any additional limitations. For the limitations of “signal application module” and “noise cancellation module” , the specification discloses electronic circuit or software program and a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium as set forth in the 112(f) section above. Therefore, all “signal application module” and “noise cancellation module” recited at a high level of generality would be nothing more than a generic computer. That is, other than reciting that “signal application module” and “noise cancellation module” (nothing more than a generic computer) are performing these tasks, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind or being considered as methods of organizing human activity. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) states that the sub-grouping "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states that the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. For example, aside from the recitations of “signal application module” and “noise cancellation module” language, the claims encompass a person simultaneously observing analog signal (e.g., sound), determining whether or not signal represents noise and reevaluating signal based on the determination of noise. Step 2A Prong 2 : The claims recite “signal application module” and “noise cancellation module” to perform the abstract steps in claims 1 and 8. These limitations read on a computer implemented system and are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor, performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Step 2B : As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial except into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Under 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification in [0167] does not provide any indication that the computer is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim, as a whole, amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). Accordingly, a conclusion that the generic computer functions merely being used to implement an abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-11, and 13-15 further limit the abstract idea already indicated in independent claims 1, 8, and 12 and they are ineligible for the same reasons provided for claims 1, 8, and 12 above. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claims and thus they are ineligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-3, 6-9, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Nduka et al. (WO 2020/201761). US20220167900, which is an equivalent document for WO 2020/201671, has been used for the prior art rejections below . Regarding claim 1, Nduka teaches an active noise cancellation medical device, comprising: ([0009] “an apparatus for measuring biological electrical activity, including… a noise calculation unit configured to form an active cancellation signal”) a signal application module configured to at least one of monitor and measure an analog signal in support of a medical procedure ([0009] “a lift-detection unit configured to receive signals from the plurality of sensors” ; and a noise cancellation module for cancelling noise within the analog signal ([0009] “a noise calculation unit configured to form an active cancellation signal”) , wherein the noise cancellation module is configured to: extract signal information from a sample of the analog signal ([0009] “a lift-detection unit configured to receive signals from the plurality of sensors”) ; classify the analog signal [i.e., degree of contact] as a standard analog signal [contact] or a nonstandard analog signal [non-contact] based on the signal information extracted from the sample of the analog signal ([0009] “noise calculation unit configured to form an active cancellation signal by combining the signals detected by the sensors in dependence on their respective measures of the degree of contact with the body”) ; when the sample of the analog signal is classified as a nonstandard analog signal (see [0009] above, optionally [0046] “The measure of the degree of contact may be a binary indication, e.g. an indication of either contact or no contact. The binary indication may be determined depending on whether or not the magnitude of the lift-detect signal received by a given sensor 204 is above or below a predetermined threshold”) construct a noise cancellation signal having a magnitude equal to a magnitude of the sample of the analog signal and further having a phase opposite to the phase of the sample of the analog signal ([0050] “The noise calculation unit 214 may operate in… averaging the received signals, inverting the average, and feeding it back to the body”) ; and inject the constructed noise cancellation signal into the analog signal for cancelling the noise within the analog signal ([0050] “The noise calculation unit 214 is configured to cause the signal injector 206 to provide the active cancellation signal to the body”.) Regarding claim 2, Nduka teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Nduka also teaches wherein the noise cancellation module ([0009] “an apparatus for measuring biological electrical activity, including… a noise calculation unit”) includes a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium encoded with instructions for execution by at least one processor ([0043] “Each sensor 204 may be … processed by digital electronics.”) , the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium for cancelling noise within the analog signal including the instructions to perform the steps of claim 1. ( [0057] “The functions of the lift-detection unit 212 and noise calculation unit 214 may be … implemented using one or more of: algorithms programmed into firmware, hardware and software”) Regarding claim 3, Nduka teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Nduka also teaches wherein the noise cancellation module is configured to ([0009] “an apparatus for measuring biological electrical activity, including… a noise calculation unit configured to form an active cancellation signal”) extract at least one of frequency information [i.e., frequency range] and magnitude information [i.e., magnitude of the signals] from the sample of the analog signal. ([0042] “The sensors 204 are configured such that they can detect signals across a frequency range that encompasses the frequencies of the biological electrical and the lift-detect signal.” And [0043] “lift-detection unit 212 may be configured to determine the magnitude of the signals received by each of the sensors”) Regarding claim 5, Nduka teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 11, Nduka teaches all of the limitations of claim 8. Regarding claim 15, Nduka teaches all of the limitations of claim 12. Nduka also teaches wherein the noise cancellation module is configured to ([0009] “an apparatus for measuring biological electrical activity, including… a noise calculation unit configured to”) implement time domain matching [i.e., optionally scaled copy] to synchronize an injection of the constructed noise cancellation signal ([0052] “filter configured to attenuate signals at or above the frequency … by combining each received signal with an inverted and optionally scaled copy of the lift-detect signal so as to cancel the lift-detect signals present the signals from the sensors.”) into the analog signal for cancelling the noise within the analog signal. ([0050] “The noise calculation unit 214 may operate in… averaging the received signals, inverting the average, and feeding it back to the body”) Regarding claim 6, Nduka teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Nduka also teaches further comprising: a signal splitter/combiner [i.e., ADC] configured to communicate the analog signal to the signal application module and the noise cancellation module. ([0043] “Each sensor 204 may be connected to an analogue-to-digital converter (ADC) 208 that … pass the converted signals to a lift-detection unit”) Regarding claim 7, Nduka teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Nduka also teaches further comprising: at least one signal source ([0039] “FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary apparatus 200 including a plurality of biological electrical activity sensors”) configured to communicate the analog signal to the signal splitter/combiner. ([0043] “Each sensor 204 may be connected to an analogue-to-digital converter (ADC) 208 that… pass the converted signals to a lift-detection unit”) Regarding claim 8, Nduka teaches a noise cancellation module, comprising: a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium encoded with instructions for execution by at least one processor ([0043] “Each sensor 204 may be … processed by digital electronics.”) , the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium for cancelling noise within an analog signal including the instructions to ( [0057] “The functions of the lift-detection unit 212 and noise calculation unit 214 may be … implemented using one or more of: algorithms programmed into firmware, hardware and software”) perform the steps of the noise cancellation module as described in claim 1 (see [0009], [0046], and [0050]) . Regarding claim 9, Nduka teaches all of the limitations of claim 8. Nduka also teaches wherein the signal information is at least one of frequency information [i.e., frequency range] and magnitude information [i.e., magnitude of the signals] extracted from the sample of the analog signal. ([0042] “The sensors 204 are configured such that they can detect signals across a frequency range that encompasses the frequencies of the biological electrical and the lift-detect signal.” And [0043] “lift-detection unit 212 may be configured to determine the magnitude of the signals received by each of the sensors”) Regarding claim 11, Nduka teaches all of the limitations of claim 8. Nduka also teaches wherein the noise cancellation module is configured to ([0009] “an apparatus for measuring biological electrical activity, including… a noise calculation unit configured to”) implement time domain matching [i.e., optionally scaled copy] to synchronize an injection of the constructed noise cancellation signal ([0052] “filter configured to attenuate signals at or above the frequency … by combining each received signal with an inverted and optionally scaled copy of the lift-detect signal so as to cancel the lift-detect signals present the signals from the sensors.”) into the analog signal for cancelling the noise within the analog signal. ([0050] “The noise calculation unit 214 may operate in… averaging the received signals, inverting the average, and feeding it back to the body”) Regarding claim 12, Nduka teaches a n active noise cancellation method for cancelling noise within an analog signal in support of a medical procedure, the active noise cancellation method comprising ([0023] “There is also provided a method for measuring biological electrical activity using a plurality of sensors adapted for contact with a human or animal body, the method including”) the steps of the noise cancellation module as described in claim 1 (see [0009], [0046], and [0050]) . Regarding claim 13, Nduka teaches all of the limitations of claim 12. Nduka also teaches wherein the signal information is at least one of frequency information [i.e., frequency range] and magnitude information [i.e., magnitude of the signals] extracted from the sample of the analog signal. ([0042] “The sensors 204 are configured such that they can detect signals across a frequency range that encompasses the frequencies of the biological electrical and the lift-detect signal.” And [0043] “lift-detection unit 212 may be configured to determine the magnitude of the signals received by each of the sensors”) Regarding claim 15, Nduka teaches all of the limitations of claim 12. Nduka also teaches wherein the noise cancellation module is configured to ([0009] “an apparatus for measuring biological electrical activity, including… a noise calculation unit configured to”) implement time domain matching [i.e., optionally scaled copy] to synchronize an injection of the constructed noise cancellation signal ([0052] “filter configured to attenuate signals at or above the frequency … by combining each received signal with an inverted and optionally scaled copy of the lift-detect signal so as to cancel the lift-detect signals present the signals from the sensors.”) into the analog signal for cancelling the noise within the analog signal. ([0050] “The noise calculation unit 214 may operate in… averaging the received signals, inverting the average, and feeding it back to the body”) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 4, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nduka et al. (US20220167900) as applied to claim s 1, 8, and 12 above, and further in view of Evermen et al. (Pat. 11595749) . Regarding claim 4, Nduka teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 10, Nduka teaches all of the limitations of claim 8. Regarding claim 14, Nduka teaches all of the limitations of claim 12. Nduka also teaches wherein… trained on the signal information classifies the analog signal ([0021] “The lift-detection unit may be further configured to identify patterns in the signals detected by the sensors”) as the standard analog signal [i.e., contact] or the nonstandard analog signal [i.e., non-contact] based on the signal information extracted from the sample of the analog signal. ( [0046] “The measure of the degree of contact may be a binary indication, e.g. an indication of either contact or no contact. The binary indication may be determined depending on whether or not the magnitude of the lift-detect signal received by a given sensor 204 is above or below a predetermined threshold”) Regarding claims 4, 10, and 14, Nduka does not explicitly teach, as taught by Evermen: machine learning trained on signal information. ([col. 24, lines 10-15] “a physiological state may … us[e] machine learning as described below, to be associated with entry into such one or more physiological state”) Like Nduka, Evermen processes analog physiological signals using destructive interference. Evermen and Nduka both disclose devices that contain signal sensors for tracking physiological parameters. 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 have modified Nduka with the teachings of Evermen, with a reasonable expectation of success, by explicitly processing analog signals using machine learning. These initial processing by machine learning would have improved the initial processing of the data, to reduce signal to noise ratio [Col. 27]. Pertinent Prior Art 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dave et al. (Pat. 11699422) discloses a system for determining a signal from a medical device, inverting the signal, and masking the noisy signal with the inverted signal. Govari et al. (US20160248434) discloses a system for analog noise cancelation for the bio signals of a patient . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT ANTHONY SKROBARCZYK whose telephone number is (571)272-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30AM -5PM CST. 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, Unsu Jung can be reached at 5712728506. 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. /R.A.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3792 /UNSU JUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/851,794 Page 2 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/851,794 Page 3 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/851,794 Page 4 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/851,794 Page 5 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/851,794 Page 6 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/851,794 Page 7 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/851,794 Page 8 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/851,794 Page 9 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/851,794 Page 10 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/851,794 Page 11 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/851,794 Page 12 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/851,794 Page 13 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/851,794 Page 14 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/851,794 Page 15 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/851,794 Page 16 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/851,794 Page 17 Art Unit: 3792 Application/Control Number: 18/851,794 Page 18 Art Unit: 3792
Prosecution Insights