DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
2. This communication is in response to the communication filed 12/18/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
3.1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because while the claims (1) are to a statutory category (i.e., process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, the claims (2A1) recite an abstract idea (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon); (2A2) do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and (2B) are not directed to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In regards to (1), the claims are to a statutory category (i.e., statutory categories including a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter). In particular, independent claims 1, 16 and 19, and their respective dependent claims are directed, in part, to for determining risk of cardiac conditions including atrial fibrillation.
In regards to (2A1), the claims, as a whole, recite and are directed to an abstract idea because the claims include one or more limitations that correspond to an abstract idea including mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity which encompasses both certain activity of a single person, certain activity that involves multiple people, and certain activity between a person and a computer. For example, independent claims 1, 16 and 19, as a whole, are directed to systems for determining risk of atrial fibrillation for a user by, inter alia, receiving force steams from a plurality of force sensors wherein the sensors sense force applied by a user; and determining an atrial fibrillation risk-metric for the user using the force stream data which are human activities and/or interactions and therefore, certain methods of organizing human activity which encompasses both certain activity of a single person, certain activity that involves multiple people, and certain activity between a person and a computer. The dependent claims include all of the limitations of their respective independent claims and thus are directed to the same abstract idea identified for the independent claims but further describe the elements and/or recite field of use limitations.
Furthermore, assuming arguendo, the claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activities, the claims, nevertheless, are directed to an abstract idea because the claims, except for certain limitations (* identified below in bold), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, can be reasonably and practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper using observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion. That is, other than reciting the certain additional elements, nothing in the claims precludes the limitations from being practically performed in the mind and/or with pen and paper.
CLAIM 1:
A system comprising:
a bed;
a plurality of force sensors configured to transmit, to a computing system,
a plurality of force streams, and wherein each of the force sensors in the plurality of force sensors is configured to:
sense force applied to the bed by a user; and
transmit, to the computing system, a stream of the plurality of force streams based on the sensing of the force applied to the bed; and
the computing system comprising at least one processor and memory, the computing system configured to:
receive the plurality of force streams from the plurality of force sensors; and
determine an atrial fibrillation (AF) risk-metric for the user using at least one of the force streams.
CLAIM 2
The system of claim 1, wherein the computing system is further configured to engage an automated device based on the determined AF risk-metric.
CLAIM 3
The system of claim 1, wherein the computing system is further configured to generate, using at least one of the force streams of the plurality of force streams:
inter-beat-interval data for the user; and
high-frequency power data for the user; and
generate, using at least two of the force streams of the plurality of force streams: stroke-volume data for the user.
CLAIM 4
The system of claim 3, wherein: the inter-beat-interval data comprises an estimate of a time between heartbeats of the user;
the high-frequency power data for the user comprises an estimate of a frequency-domain heart-rate variability (HRV) metric; and
the stroke-volume data for the user comprises an estimate of stroke volume created by the user.
CLAIM 5
The system of claim 3, wherein, to determine the AF risk-metric for the user, the computing system is further configured to use i) the inter-beat-interval data for the user, ii) the high-frequency power data for the user, and iii) the stroke-volume data for the user.
CLAIM 6
The system of claim 3, wherein the inter-beat-interval data comprises a time- indexed sequence of instant inter-beat-interval values within a single sleep session.
CLAIM 7
The system of claim 3, wherein to generate the inter-beat-interval data for the user, the computing system is further configured to:
generate heart-rate data for the user; and
convert the heart-rate data for the user into the inter-beat-interval data for the user.
CLAIM 8
The system of claim 3, wherein the high-frequency power data for the user comprises a frequency-domain heart-rate variability (HRV) metric.
CLAIM 9
The system of claim 3, wherein to generate the high-frequency power data for the user, the computing system is configured to calculate power in a frequency band from 0.15 to 0.4 Hz of a two-hertz-resampling of the inter-beat-interval data.
CLAIM 10
The system of claim 3, wherein the stroke-volume data for the user comprises an estimate of volume of blood pumped by a left ventricle in a single heartbeat.
CLAIM 11
The system of claim 3, wherein to generate, using at least one of the force streams of the plurality of force streams: inter-beat-interval data for the user, and high-frequency power data for the user, the computing system is further configured to use two or more of the force streams of the plurality of force streams.
CLAIM 12
The system of claim 3, wherein to generate, using at least two of the force streams of the plurality of force streams: stroke-volume data for the user, the computing system is configured to use three or more of the force streams of the plurality of force streams.
CLAIM 13
The system of claim 3, wherein to generate, using at least one of the force streams of the plurality of force streams: inter-beat-interval data for the user, and high-frequency power data for the user, the computing system is further configured to use only one of the force streams of the plurality of force streams.
CLAIM 14
The system of claim 3, wherein to generate, using at least two of the force streams of the plurality of force streams: stroke-volume data for the user, the computing system is configured to use only two the force streams of the plurality of force streams.
CLAIM 15
The system of claim 1, wherein the computing system is further configured to:
determine an arrhythmia risk-metric for the user using at least one of the force streams, wherein the arrhythmia risk-metric for the user is an estimate of risk of at least one of the group consisting of tachycardia, bradycardia, and long RR.
CLAIM 16
A computing system for determining an atrial fibrillation (AF) risk, the computing system comprising:
at least one processor; and
memory;
the computing system configured to:
receive a plurality of force streams from a plurality of force sensors; and
determine an atrial fibrillation (AF) risk-metric for a user using at least one of the force streams.
CLAIM 17
The computing system of claim 16, wherein the computing system is further configured to engage an automated device based on the determined AF risk-metric.
CLAIM 18
The computing system of claim 16, wherein the computing system is further configured to:
determine an arrhythmia risk-metric for the user using at least one of the force streams, wherein the arrhythmia risk-metric for the user is an estimate of risk of at least one of the group consisting of tachycardia, bradycardia, and long RR.
CLAIM 19
A system comprising:
a bed;
a plurality of force sensors configured to transmit, to a computing system, a plurality of force streams, and wherein each of the force sensors in the plurality of force sensors is configured to:
sense force applied to the bed by a user; and
transmit, to the computing system, a stream of the plurality of force streams based on the sensing of the force applied to the bed;
the computing system comprising at least one processor and memory, the computing system configured to:
receive the plurality of force streams from the plurality of force sensors; and
determine an arrhythmia risk-metric for the user using at least one of the force streams.
CLAIM 20
The system of claim 19, wherein the arrhythmia risk-metric for the user is an estimate of risk of at least one of the group consisting of tachycardia, bradycardia, and long RR.
* The limitations that are in bold are considered “additional elements” that are further analyzed below in subsequent steps of the 101 analysis. The limitations that are not in bold are abstract and/or can be reasonably and practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen paper.
In regards to (2A2), the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements in the claims (i.e., * identified above in bold) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea; merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; and/or simply append technologies and functions, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea (i.e., the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer).
Here, the additional elements (e.g., bed, sensors, computing system, processor, memory, etc.) are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer technologies. Moreover, the claims recite “computing system configured to”, etc. devoid of any meaningful technological improvement details and thus, further evidence the additional elements are merely being used to leverage generic technologies to automate what otherwise could be done manually. Accordingly, the 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.
Furthermore, the additional elements do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field—the additional elements merely recite general purpose computer technology; the additional elements do not recite applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition—there is no actual administration of a particular treatment; the additional elements do not recite applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine—the additional elements merely recite general purpose computer technology; the additional elements do not recite limitations effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing—the additional elements do not recite transformation such as a rubber mold process; the additional elements do not recite applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment—the additional elements merely leverage general purpose computer technology to link the abstract idea to a technological environment.
In regards to (2B), the claims, individually, as a whole and in combination with one another, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of (A) a generic computer structure(s) that serves to perform computer functions that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., computers); and/or (B) functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Here, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer technologies. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer technologies cannot provide an inventive concept.
Moreover, paragraphs [0038]-[0040] of applicant's specification (US 2025/0235115) recites that the system/method can be implemented using a smartphone, cell phone, laptop, tablet, computer, wearable device, home automation device, or other computing device which are well-known general purpose or generic-type computers and/or technologies. The use of generic computer components recited at a high level of generality to process information through an unspecified processor/computer does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Furthermore, the additional elements are merely well-known general purpose computers, components and/or technologies that receive, transmit, store, display, generate and otherwise process information which are akin to functions that courts consider well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry, such as, performing repetitive calculations; receiving or transmitting data over a network; electronic recordkeeping; retrieving and storing information in memory; and sorting information (See, for example, MPEP § 2106).
Therefore, the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
4.1. Claims 1-2, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al. (US 2022/0364905), in view of Halperin et al. (US 2015/0164438).
CLAIM 1
Young teaches a system (Young: abstract) comprising:
a bed (Young: abstract; ¶¶ [0026]-[0027] “systems and methods use multiple sensors to sense a single subject's or multiple subjects' body motions against the force of gravity on a substrate, including beds”; FIGS. 1-15); and
a plurality of force sensors configured to transmit, to a computing system (Young: abstract; ¶¶ [0026]-[0027] “systems and methods use multiple sensors to sense a single subject's or multiple subjects' body motions against the force of gravity on a substrate, including beds”, “sensors are connected either with a wire, wirelessly or optically to a host computer or processor”, “sensors are designed to be placed under, or be built into a substrate, such as a bed”; FIGS. 1-15),
a plurality of force streams, and wherein each of the force sensors in the plurality of force sensors is configured to (Young: abstract; ¶¶ [0037] “real-time data stream”; FIGS. 2A):
sense force applied to the bed by a user (Young: abstract; ¶¶ [0026]-[0027] “systems and methods use multiple sensors to sense a single subject's or multiple subjects' body motions against the force of gravity on a substrate, including beds”, “sensors are connected either with a wire, wirelessly or optically to a host computer or processor”, “sensors are designed to be placed under, or be built into a substrate, such as a bed”, [0039]; FIGS. 1-15); and
transmit, to the computing system, a stream of the plurality of force streams based on the sensing of the force applied to the bed (Young: abstract; ¶¶ [0037] “controller 200 can be wired or wirelessly connected to the sensor assemblies 104. Wiring 202 may electrically connect the sensor assemblies 104 to the controller 200”, [0039]; FIGS. 2A); and
the computing system comprising at least one processor and memory, the computing system configured to (Young: abstract; ¶¶ [0026] “sensors are connected either with a wire, wirelessly or optically to a host computer or processor”, [0087]; FIGS. 2A):
receive the plurality of force streams from the plurality of force sensors (Young: abstract; ¶¶ [0037] “controller 200 can be wired or wirelessly connected to the sensor assemblies 104. Wiring 202 may electrically connect the sensor assemblies 104 to the controller 200”, [0039]; FIGS. 2A); and
determine an atrial fibrillation (AF) risk for the user using at least one of the force streams (Young: abstract; ¶¶ [0028] “monitor cardiac signals for atrial fibrillation patterns”; FIGS. 1-15).
Young does not appear to explicitly teach the following:
risk-metric
Halperin, however, teaches the following:
risk-metric (Halperin: abstract; ¶¶ [0118] “Motion sensor 30 may comprise a ceramic piezoelectric sensor, vibration sensor, pressure sensor, or strain sensor, for example, a strain gauge, configured to be installed under a resting surface 37, and to sense motion of patient 12”, [0120] “other motion sensors 30, such as other pressure gauges”, [0122], [0131] “analyzes the data in order to predict and/or monitor a clinical event. For some applications, pattern analysis module 16 derives a score for each parameter”, [0132] “a cardiac-arrhythmia-detection functionality 110, a cardiac-risk-detection functionality 112”, [0180] “atrial fibrillation”; FIGS. 1-12B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the system for monitoring, predicting and treating clinical episodes including atrial fibrillation, as taught by Halperin, with the load sensor assembly for bed with load sensor assembly, as taught by Young, with the motivation of facilitating monitoring and predicting patient conditions (Halperin: ¶¶ [0022]-[0038]).
CLAIM 2
Young teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the computing system is further configured to engage an automated device based on the determined AF risk-metric (Young: abstract; ¶¶ [0027], [0031]-[0033]; FIGS. 1-15).
CLAIM 16-17 AND 19
Claims 16-17 and 19 repeat substantially the same limitations as those in claims 1-2. As such, claims 16-17 and 19 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for claims 1-2 and are incorporated herein.
4.2. Claims 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al. (US 2022/0364905), in view of Halperin et al. (US 2015/0164438), and further in view of Ferreira Dos Santos Da Fonseca et al. (US. 2020/0093422) and Official Notice.
CLAIM 3
Young teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the computing system is further configured to generate, using at least one of the force streams of the plurality of force streams: various heart measurements (Young: abstract; ¶¶ [0034], [0066]; FIGS. 1-15).
Young does not appear to explicitly teach inter-beat-interval data for the user; and high-frequency power data for the user; and generate, using at least two of the force streams of the plurality of force streams: stroke-volume data for the user.
Ferreira, however, teaches inter-beat-interval data for the user; and high-frequency power data for the user; and generate, using at least two of the force streams of the plurality of force streams: stroke-volume data for the user (Ferreira: abstract; ¶¶ [0005]-[0020], [0035]-[0046]; FIGS. 1-4; It is also Official Notice that calculating these measurements and data are well-known in the art.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the sleep stage classification system, as taught by Ferreira, with the system for monitoring, predicting and treating clinical episodes including atrial fibrillation, as taught by Halperin, with the load sensor assembly for bed with load sensor assembly, as taught by Young, with the motivation of determining health conditions of a sleeper (Ferreira: abstract; ¶¶ [0002]-[0020]).
CLAIM 4
Young teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the computing system is further configured to generate, using at least one of the force streams of the plurality of force streams: various heart measurements (Young: abstract; ¶¶ [0034], [0066]; FIGS. 1-15).
Young does not appear to explicitly teach the inter-beat-interval data comprises an estimate of a time between heartbeats of the user; the high-frequency power data for the user comprises an estimate of a frequency-domain heart-rate variability (HRV) metric; and the stroke-volume data for the user comprises an estimate of stroke volume created by the user.
Ferreira, however, teaches frequency power data for the user comprises an estimate of a frequency-domain heart-rate variability (HRV) metric; and the stroke-volume data for the user comprises an estimate of stroke volume created by the user (Ferreira: abstract; ¶¶ [0005]-[0020], [0035]-[0046]; FIGS. 1-4; It is also Official Notice that calculating these measurements and data are well-known in the art.).
The motivation to include the teachings of Ferreira with the teachings of Young and Halperin is the same as that of claim 3 above and is incorporated herein.
CLAIM 5
Young teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the computing system is further configured to generate, using at least one of the force streams of the plurality of force streams: various heart measurements (Young: abstract; ¶¶ [0034], [0066]; FIGS. 1-15).
Young does not appear to explicitly teach wherein, to determine the AF risk-metric for the user, the computing system is further configured to use i) the inter-beat-interval data for the user, ii) the high-frequency power data for the user, and iii) the stroke-volume data for the user.
Ferreira, however, teaches wherein, to determine the AF risk-metric for the user, the computing system is further configured to use i) the inter-beat-interval data for the user, ii) the high-frequency power data for the user, and iii) the stroke-volume data for the user (Ferreira: abstract; ¶¶ [0005]-[0020], [0035]-[0046]; FIGS. 1-4; It is also Official Notice that calculating these measurements and data are well-known in the art.).
The motivation to include the teachings of Ferreira with the teachings of Young and Halperin is the same as that of claim 3 above and is incorporated herein.
CLAIM 6
Young teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the computing system is further configured to generate, using at least one of the force streams of the plurality of force streams: various heart measurements (Young: abstract; ¶¶ [0034], [0066]; FIGS. 1-15).
Young does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the inter-beat-interval data comprises a time-indexed sequence of instant inter-beat-interval values within a single sleep session.
Ferreira, however, teaches wherein the inter-beat-interval data comprises a time-indexed sequence of instant inter-beat-interval values within a single sleep session (Ferreira: abstract; ¶¶ [0005]-[0020], [0035]-[0046]; FIGS. 1-4; It is also Official Notice that calculating these measurements and data are well-known in the art.).
The motivation to include the teachings of Ferreira with the teachings of Young and Halperin is the same as that of claim 3 above and is incorporated herein.
CLAIM 7
Young teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the computing system is further configured to generate, using at least one of the force streams of the plurality of force streams: various heart measurements (Young: abstract; ¶¶ [0034], [0066]; FIGS. 1-15).
Young does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the computing system is further configured to generate, using at least one of the force streams of the plurality of force streams: various heart measurements.
Ferreira, however, teaches wherein the computing system is further configured to generate, using at least one of the force streams of the plurality of force streams: various heart measurements (Ferreira: abstract; ¶¶ [0005]-[0020], [0035]-[0046]; FIGS. 1-4; It is also Official Notice that calculating these measurements and data are well-known in the art.).
The motivation to include the teachings of Ferreira with the teachings of Young and Halperin is the same as that of claim 3 above and is incorporated herein.
CLAIM 8
Young teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the computing system is further configured to generate, using at least one of the force streams of the plurality of force streams: various heart measurements (Young: abstract; ¶¶ [0034], [0066]; FIGS. 1-15).
Young does not appear to explicitly teach the system of claim 3, wherein the high-frequency power data for the user comprises a frequency-domain heart-rate variability (HRV) metric.
Ferreira, however, teaches wherein the high-frequency power data for the user comprises a frequency-domain heart-rate variability (HRV) metric (Ferreira: abstract; ¶¶ [0005]-[0020], [0035]-[0046]; FIGS. 1-4; It is also Official Notice that calculating these measurements and data are well-known in the art.).
The motivation to include the teachings of Ferreira with the teachings of Young and Halperin is the same as that of claim 3 above and is incorporated herein.
CLAIM 9
Young teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the computing system is further configured to generate, using at least one of the force streams of the plurality of force streams: various heart measurements (Young: abstract; ¶¶ [0034], [0066]; FIGS. 1-15).
Young does not appear to explicitly teach the system of claim 3, wherein to generate the high-frequency power data for the user, the computing system is configured to calculate power in a frequency band from 0.15 to 0.4 Hz of a two-hertz-resampling of the inter-beat-interval data.
Ferreira, however, teaches wherein to generate the high-frequency power data for the user, the computing system is configured to calculate power in a frequency band from 0.15 to 0.4 Hz of a two-hertz-resampling of the inter-beat-interval data (Ferreira: abstract; ¶¶ [0005]-[0020], [0035]-[0046]; FIGS. 1-4; It is also Official Notice that calculating these measurements and data are well-known in the art.).
The motivation to include the teachings of Ferreira with the teachings of Young and Halperin is the same as that of claim 3 above and is incorporated herein.
CLAIM 10
Young teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the computing system is further configured to generate, using at least one of the force streams of the plurality of force streams: various heart measurements (Young: abstract; ¶¶ [0034], [0066]; FIGS. 1-15).
Young does not appear to explicitly teach the system of claim 3, wherein the stroke-volume data for the user comprises an estimate of volume of blood pumped by a left ventricle in a single heartbeat.
Ferreira, however, teaches wherein the stroke-volume data for the user comprises an estimate of volume of blood pumped by a left ventricle in a single heartbeat (Ferreira: abstract; ¶¶ [0005]-[0020], [0035]-[0046]; FIGS. 1-4; It is also Official Notice that calculating these measurements and data are well-known in the art.).
The motivation to include the teachings of Ferreira with the teachings of Young and Halperin is the same as that of claim 3 above and is incorporated herein.
CLAIM 11
Young teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the computing system is further configured to generate, using at least one of the force streams of the plurality of force streams: various heart measurements (Young: abstract; ¶¶ [0034], [0066]; FIGS. 1-15).
Young does not appear to explicitly teach the system of claim 3, wherein to generate, using at least one of the force streams of the plurality of force streams: inter-beat-interval data for the user, and high-frequency power data for the user, the computing system is further configured to use two or more of the force streams of the plurality of force streams.
Ferreira, however, teaches wherein to generate, using at least one of the force streams of the plurality of force streams: inter-beat-interval data for the user, and high-frequency power data for the user, the computing system is further configured to use two or more of the force streams of the plurality of force streams (Ferreira: abstract; ¶¶ [0005]-[0020], [0035]-[0046]; FIGS. 1-4; It is also Official Notice that calculating these measurements and data are well-known in the art.).
The motivation to include the teachings of Ferreira with the teachings of Young and Halperin is the same as that of claim 3 above and is incorporated herein.
CLAIM 12
Young teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the computing system is further configured to generate, using at least one of the force streams of the plurality of force streams: various heart measurements (Young: abstract; ¶¶ [0034], [0066]; FIGS. 1-15).
Young does not appear to explicitly teach the system of claim 3, wherein to generate, using at least two of the force streams of the plurality of force streams: stroke-volume data for the user, the computing system is configured to use three or more of the force streams of the plurality of force streams.
Ferreira, however, teaches wherein to generate, using at least two of the force streams of the plurality of force streams: stroke-volume data for the user, the computing system is configured to use three or more of the force streams of the plurality of force streams (Ferreira: abstract; ¶¶ [0005]-[0020], [0035]-[0046]; FIGS. 1-4; It is also Official Notice that calculating these measurements and data are well-known in the art.).
The motivation to include the teachings of Ferreira with the teachings of Young and Halperin is the same as that of claim 3 above and is incorporated herein.
CLAIM 13
Young teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the computing system is further configured to generate, using at least one of the force streams of the plurality of force streams: various heart measurements (Young: abstract; ¶¶ [0034], [0066]; FIGS. 1-15).
Young does not appear to explicitly teach the system of claim 3, wherein to generate, using at least one of the force streams of the plurality of force streams: inter-beat-interval data for the user, and high-frequency power data for the user, the computing system is further configured to use only one of the force streams of the plurality of force streams.
Ferreira, however, teaches wherein to generate, using at least one of the force streams of the plurality of force streams: inter-beat-interval data for the user, and high-frequency power data for the user, the computing system is further configured to use only one of the force streams of the plurality of force streams (Ferreira: abstract; ¶¶ [0005]-[0020], [0035]-[0046]; FIGS. 1-4; It is also Official Notice that calculating these measurements and data are well-known in the art.).
The motivation to include the teachings of Ferreira with the teachings of Young and Halperin is the same as that of claim 3 above and is incorporated herein.
CLAIM 14
Young teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the computing system is further configured to generate, using at least one of the force streams of the plurality of force streams: various heart measurements (Young: abstract; ¶¶ [0034], [0066]; FIGS. 1-15).
Young does not appear to explicitly teach the system of claim 3, wherein to generate, using at least two of the force streams of the plurality of force streams: stroke-volume data for the user, the computing system is configured to use only two the force streams of the plurality of force streams.
Ferreira, however, teaches wherein to generate, using at least two of the force streams of the plurality of force streams: stroke-volume data for the user, the computing system is configured to use only two the force streams of the plurality of force streams (Ferreira: abstract; ¶¶ [0005]-[0020], [0035]-[0046]; FIGS. 1-4; It is also Official Notice that calculating these measurements and data are well-known in the art.).
The motivation to include the teachings of Ferreira with the teachings of Young and Halperin is the same as that of claim 3 above and is incorporated herein.
4.3. Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al. (US 2022/0364905), in view of Halperin et al. (US 2015/0164438), and further in view of Gopalakrishnan et al. (US. 2020/0022594).
CLAIM 15
Young and Halperin do not appear to explicitly teach the system of claim 1, wherein the computing system is further configured to: determine an arrhythmia risk-metric for the user using at least one of the force streams, wherein the arrhythmia risk-metric for the user is an estimate of risk of at least one of the group consisting of tachycardia, bradycardia, and long RR.
Gopalakrishnan, however, teaches wherein the computing system is further configured to: determine an arrhythmia risk-metric for the user using at least one of the force streams, wherein the arrhythmia risk-metric for the user is an estimate of risk of at least one of the group consisting of tachycardia, bradycardia, and long RR (Gopalakrishnan: abstract; ¶¶ [0010]-[0015], [0072], [0078]; FIGS. 1-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the method and system for arrhythmia tracking and scoring, as taught by Gopalakrishnan, with the system for monitoring, predicting and treating clinical episodes including atrial fibrillation, as taught by Halperin, with the load sensor assembly for bed with load sensor assembly, as taught by Young, with the motivation of managing diseases such as arrhythmia and atrial fibrillation (Ferreira: abstract; ¶¶ [0002]-[0020]).
CLAIMS 18 AND 20
Claims 18 and 20 repeat substantially the same limitations as those in claim 15. As such, claims 18 and 20 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for claim 15 and are incorporated herein.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tomaszewski whose telephone number is (313)446-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30 am - 2:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter H Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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 TOMASZEWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights