DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Nonfinal Office Action is in response to the Amendment and Remarks filed on 3/9/2026. Claims 1, 3-6, 10-14, 17-18, 20-21 and 24-34 are pending and considered herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 10, 26-27, 30-31 and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2023/0333954 A1 to Hresko et al., hereinafter “Hresko,” in view of U.S. 2015/0382119 A1 to Fort, hereinafter “Fort.”
Regarding claim 1, Hresko discloses A health monitoring device, comprising: processing circuitry configured to generate a test monitor signal, the test monitor signal configured to imitate a monitor signal of interest (See Hresko at least at Paras. [0049]-[0051] (“[I]nformation regarding the operational status of a medical device monitoring a patient. In some examples, this information takes the form of a device health report that is provided by the medical device to the interested person on-demand and that may be accessed via a variety of channels.”), [0058]-[0063] (“[T]he medical device can include a plurality of sensing electrodes that are disposed at one or more locations of the patient's body and configured to sense or acquire cardiac signals of the patient.”), [0072] (“It is appreciated that the processor 418, during execution of a software process is capable of processing specific input signals and rendering specific output signals based on the one or more logic operations performed during execution of each software instruction.”), [0087]-[0088] (“[C]ritical components on the electrode subsystem may include accelerometer, gyro, heart sounds sensor, and analog front end for receiving ECG and/or electrical signals from the patient. The software and/or hardware test circuitry may include signal generators for generating test stimulus signals.”); Figs. 1-11).
Hresko may not specifically describe but Fort teaches transmission circuitry configured to: transmit the test monitor signal over a signal path to a host device, the test monitor signal for verifying at the host device an integrity of the signal path for transmission of the monitor signal of interest over the signal path (See Fort at least at Paras. [0022]-[0024], [0033]-[0034] (“The data integrity of the output signals 62 (including the encoded electronic signals and audio data) received by the second component 24 is important so that a recipient of the device 20 can accurately perceive the audible sounds 60 when the encoded electronic signals are applied to the recipient by the stimulation electronics.”); Claims 3-4; Figs. 1-5; See also Hresko at Paras. [0078]-[0079] (Operational integrity of subsystems of medical device, diagnostic tests, i.e., integrity), [0088]-[0095] (Software and hardware tests and signals, operational integrity of processing elements, sensing electrodes and deployment circuitry.); Figs. 1-4) and transmit verification data to the host device, the verification data defining content of test monitor signal for verifying the integrity of the signal path at the host device (See Fort at least at Abstract (“A method performed by a device includes generating a first signal in accordance with a first set of one or more operational settings, and determining whether the signal has an acceptable data integrity. If the device determines that the signal has an acceptable data integrity, the method includes maintaining a configuration of the device with the first set of one or more operational settings. If the device determines that the signal does not have an acceptable data integrity, then the method includes automatically configuring the device with a second set of one or more operational settings.”); Paras. [0006]-[0012] (“[G]ood data integrity of the transmitted electrical signals is important for proper operation of the device so that the audible data can be accurately and consistently perceived as sound [i.e., “content”] when the electrical signals are applied to the actuator. In practice, obtaining good data integrity can be achieved by implementing a combination or set of one or more data integrity strategies or settings.”), [0028]-[0033], [0044]-[0049]; Figs. 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hresko to incorporate the teachings of Fort and provide transmitting and verifying signals. Fort is directed to improving data integrity of signals. Incorporating the techniques for verifying the integrity of signals as in Fort with the patient assurance system and devices of Hresko would thereby improve the applicability, efficacy, and accuracy of the signal devices and overall health monitoring.
Regarding claim 3, Hresko as modified by Fort discloses the limitations of claim 1 and Fort further teaches wherein the verification data comprises an audio file representing the synthesized monitor signal (See Fort at least at Abstract; Paras. [0006]-[0012] (“[A]n external component that, in one example, is used to convert external audible sounds into electrical signals, which include audio data that represents the audible sounds […] good data integrity of the transmitted electrical signals is important for proper operation of the device so that the audible data can be accurately and consistently perceived as sound when the electrical signals are applied to the actuator.”), [0024]-[0028], [0032]-[0033] (Audio data and integrity), [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hresko to incorporate the teachings of Fort and provide verification data including an audio file and a synthetic signal. Fort is directed to improving data integrity of signals. Incorporating the techniques for verifying the integrity of signals as in Fort with the patient assurance system and devices of Hresko would improve the health devices and acoustic monitors.
Regarding claim 4, Hresko as modified by Fort discloses the limitations of claim 1 and Fort further teaches a first transducer configured to generate the monitor signal of interest (See Fort at least at Abstract; Paras. [0022]-[0024] (“[T]he transducer 28 may include telecoils or other sound transducing components that receive sound and convert the received sound to electronic signals. Further, the device 20 may be configured to receive sound information from other sources, such as electronic sound information received through the data interface 26 of the first component 22 or from the communication electronics 42 of the second component 24.”), [0028]-[0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hresko to incorporate the teachings of Fort and provide a transducer for generating or monitoring signals. Fort is directed to improving data integrity of signals. Incorporating the techniques for verifying the integrity of signals as in Fort with the patient assurance system and devices of Hresko would thereby improve the applicability, efficacy, and accuracy of the signal devices and overall health monitoring.
Regarding claim 10, Hresko as modified by Fort discloses the limitations of claim 1 and Hresko further discloses wherein the test monitor signal comprises one or more of a sweep of frequencies, a sweep of pitches, and a plurality of tones (See Hresko at least at Paras. [0013] (tones), [0058]-[0063] (signals), [0072], [0094] (tests at specific frequencies), ); Figs. 1-11).
Regarding claim 26, Hresko as modified by Fort discloses the limitations of claim 1 and Hresko further discloses wherein the health monitoring device comprises one of a telehealth monitoring device, a digital stethoscope, a wearable device, an analyte monitoring device, an analyte sensing device, a mobile computing device, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a games console, a remote control device, a home automation controller or a domestic appliance, a toy, a robot, an audio player, a video player, or a mobile telephone, and a smartphone (See id. at least at Abstract; Paras. [0107], [0153]; Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 27, Hresko as modified by Fort discloses the limitations of claim 1 and Hresko further discloses the host device communicatively coupled to the health monitoring device, the host device comprising circuitry in the signal path (See id. at least at Paras. [0049]-[0051] (“[I]nformation regarding the operational status of a medical device monitoring a patient. In some examples, this information takes the form of a device health report that is provided by the medical device to the interested person on-demand and that may be accessed via a variety of channels.”), [0058]-[0063] (“[T]he medical device can include a plurality of sensing electrodes that are disposed at one or more locations of the patient's body and configured to sense or acquire cardiac signals of the patient.”), [0064]-[0068] (Medical device controller), [0072] (“It is appreciated that the processor 418, during execution of a software process is capable of processing specific input signals and rendering specific output signals based on the one or more logic operations performed during execution of each software instruction.”), [0086]-[0088] (Integrity and test signals); Figs. 1-4 (Medical device controller)).
Regarding claim 30, Hresko as modified by Fort discloses the limitations of claim 27 and Hresko further discloses wherein the health monitoring device and the host device are substantially identical (See id. at least at Paras. [0058]-[0068] (Medical device controller), [0072], [0087]-[0088]; Figs. 1-4 (Medical device controller)).
Regarding claim 31, Hresko as modified by Fort discloses the limitations of claim 27 and Fort further teaches wherein the host device is configured to determine the integrity of the signal path (See Fort at least at Abstract (“A method performed by a device includes generating a first signal in accordance with a first set of one or more operational settings, and determining whether the signal has an acceptable data integrity. If the device determines that the signal has an acceptable data integrity, the method includes maintaining a configuration of the device with the first set of one or more operational settings. If the device determines that the signal does not have an acceptable data integrity, then the method includes automatically configuring the device with a second set of one or more operational settings.”); Paras. [0006]-[0012] (“[G]ood data integrity of the transmitted electrical signals is important for proper operation of the device so that the audible data can be accurately and consistently perceived as sound [i.e., “content”] when the electrical signals are applied to the actuator. In practice, obtaining good data integrity can be achieved by implementing a combination or set of one or more data integrity strategies or settings.”), [0028]-[0033], [0044]-[0049]; Figs. 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hresko to incorporate the teachings of Fort and provide the host device to determine integrity of a signal. Fort is directed to improving data integrity of signals. Incorporating the techniques for verifying the integrity of signals as in Fort with the patient assurance system and devices of Hresko would improve the applicability, efficacy, and accuracy of the test signal and overall health monitoring.
Regarding claims 33 and 34, claims 33 and 34 recite substantially the same limitations as included in independent claim 1 and are rejected under the same grounds of rejection and for the same reasoning as applied to claim 1, above.
Claims 5, 17-18, 20 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hresko, in view of Fort and further in view of U.S. 2019/0137566 A1 to Ormston, hereinafter “Ormston.”
Regarding claim 5, Hresko as modified by Fort and Ormston discloses the limitations of claim 4 and Ormston further teaches an output audio transducer located proximate the first transducer, the processing circuitry configured to output the test monitor signal via the output audio transducer, the signal path comprising the output audio transducer and the first transducer (See Ormston at least at Abstract (“A response signal resulting from the test signal may be acquired and used to obtain an impedance value and/or reflection coefficient value representative of the signal path and an additional signal path extending from the source of the test signal to the signal path.”); Paras. [0002] (“This invention relates generally to measurement and data acquisition systems and, more particularly, to improving system level health monitoring in test systems.”), [0005] (“A measurement system may typically include transducers, sensors, or other detecting means for providing “field” electrical signals representing a process, physical phenomena, equipment being monitored or measured, etc. The field signals are provided to the measurement hardware. In addition, a measurement system may also typically include actuators for generating output signals for stimulating a DUT or for influencing the system being controlled. These measurement systems, which can be generally referred to as data acquisition systems (DAQs), are primarily used for converting a physical phenomenon (such as temperature or pressure) into an electrical signal and measuring the signal in order to extract information.”), [0011] (“[A] pulse generator built into the instrument used in the system. For example, the pulse generator may be built into an input stage of the instrument, or the pulse generator and an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) may be built into the instrument, for example into a function generator. More generally, a pulse generator may be used for performing system level health monitoring according to the various embodiments described herein.”), [0023]-[0028] (“[T]he system and method of the present invention is operable to be used in any of various types of applications, including the control of other types of devices such as multimedia devices, video devices, audio devices, telephony devices, Internet devices, etc.”); Figs. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hresko and Fort to incorporate the teachings of Ormston and provide a transducer to generate a signal. Ormston is directed to system level health monitoring in test systems. Incorporating the health monitoring in test systems as in Ormston with the techniques for verifying the integrity of signals as in Fort and the patient assurance system and devices of Hresko would improve the test signal and overall health monitoring using transducers.
Regarding claim 17, Hresko as modified by Fort discloses the limitations of claim 1. The references may not specifically describe but Ormston teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: generate the test monitor signal based on a mode of operation of the health monitoring device (See id. at Paras. [0002]-[0003] (Test monitor and changing characteristics or operating parameters), [0010]-[0011], [0024]-[0025](“System 100 comprises a host computer 82 which may couple to one or more instruments configured to perform a variety of functions using system level health monitoring implemented according to various embodiments of the present invention. Host computer 82 may comprise a CPU, a display screen, memory, and one or more input devices such as a mouse or keyboard as shown. Computer 82 may operate with one or more instruments to analyze, measure, or control a unit under test (UUT) or process 150 […] The instruments may be coupled to the unit under test (UUT) or process 150, or may be coupled to receive field signals, typically generated by transducers […] Computer 82 may operate with the one or more devices and/or instruments to perform an automation function, such as MMI (Man Machine Interface), SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition), portable or distributed data acquisition, process control, and advanced analysis, among others, on process or device 150.”), [0036]-[0038]; Figs. 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hresko and Fort to incorporate the teachings of Ormston and provide a different test signals and modes of operation. Ormston is directed to system level health monitoring in test systems. Incorporating the health monitoring in test systems as in Ormston with the techniques for verifying the integrity of signals as in Fort and the patient assurance system and devices of Hresko would benefit health monitoring device testing and transmitting.
Regarding claim 18, Hresko as modified by Fort and Ormston discloses the limitations of claim 17 and Ormston further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: receive an indication of the mode of operation of the health monitoring device from the host device (See id. at Paras. [0036]-[0038] (“In various embodiments, the parameter value may provide an indication of one of a measured impedance representative of the signal path, a measured return voltage representative of the signal path, or a measured reflection coefficient representative of the signal path, while the expected parameter value may provide an indication of one of an expected impedance representative of the signal path, an expected return voltage representative of the signal path, or an expected reflection coefficient representative of the signal path. In some embodiments, the test circuit may include a pulse generator toggling from a low state to a high state to generate the test signal, which may thereby result in a plurality of pulses. The data acquisition circuit may sample the response signal to obtain a plurality of sample values, and obtain the measured response from the plurality of sample values.”); Claim 2; Figs. 1-7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hresko and Fort to incorporate the teachings of Ormston and provide an indication of a modes or operation from a test signal. Ormston is directed to system level health monitoring in test systems. Incorporating the health monitoring in test systems as in Ormston with the techniques for verifying the integrity of signals as in Fort and the patient assurance system and devices of Hresko would be useful for communicating between devices.
Regarding claim 20, Hresko as modified by Fort and Ormston discloses the limitations of claim 17 and Hresko further discloses wherein the mode of operation comprises an indication of one or more frequency bands of the monitor signal of interest (See Hresko at least at Paras. [0020]-[0021] (transmitting outputs of interest), [0076]-[0079] (test modes and other modes to enfable), [0094] (testing performance at specific frequencies); See also Fort at least at Paras. [0006]-[0007], [0022], [0031] (Frequency key shifting); Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 29, Hresko as modified by Fort discloses the limitations of claim 27. The references may not specifically describe but Ornstom teaches wherein the host device comprises: a transducer for playback of the received test monitor signal to a user of the host device (See Ormston at least at Abstract (“A response signal resulting from the test signal may be acquired and used to obtain an impedance value and/or reflection coefficient value representative of the signal path and an additional signal path extending from the source of the test signal to the signal path.”); Paras. [0002] (“This invention relates generally to measurement and data acquisition systems and, more particularly, to improving system level health monitoring in test systems.”), [0005] (“A measurement system may typically include transducers, sensors, or other detecting means for providing “field” electrical signals representing a process, physical phenomena, equipment being monitored or measured, etc. The field signals are provided to the measurement hardware. In addition, a measurement system may also typically include actuators for generating output signals for stimulating a DUT or for influencing the system being controlled. These measurement systems, which can be generally referred to as data acquisition systems (DAQs), are primarily used for converting a physical phenomenon (such as temperature or pressure) into an electrical signal and measuring the signal in order to extract information.”), [0011] (“[A] pulse generator built into the instrument used in the system. For example, the pulse generator may be built into an input stage of the instrument, or the pulse generator and an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) may be built into the instrument, for example into a function generator. More generally, a pulse generator may be used for performing system level health monitoring according to the various embodiments described herein.”), [0023]-[0028] (“[T]he system and method of the present invention is operable to be used in any of various types of applications, including the control of other types of devices such as multimedia devices, video devices, audio devices, telephony devices, Internet devices, etc.”); Figs. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hresko and Fort to incorporate the teachings of Ormston and provide a transducer and to read a test signal. Ormston is directed to system level health monitoring in test systems. Incorporating the health monitoring in test systems as in Ormston with the techniques for verifying the integrity of signals as in Fort and the patient assurance system and devices of Hresko would improve the transducer and test monitor device and functionality between devices.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hresko, in view of Fort, in view of Ormston and further in view of U.S. 2021/0099810 A1 to Leroux, hereinafter “Leroux.”
Regarding claim 6, Hresko as modified by Fort and Ormston discloses the limitations of claim 4. The references may not specifically describe but Leroux teaches a second transducer configured to generate the genuine monitor signal in combination with the first transducer, wherein the second transducer is located external to the health monitor device, the second transducer configured to remove noise from the genuine monitor signal (See Leroux at least at Abstract; Paras. [0004]-[0006] (“The method further comprises generating transducer output signals from the acoustic transducer and sensor output signals from the motion sensor. The method further comprises reducing noise in the transducer output signals in response to the sensor output signals to generate noise-reduced transducer output signals.”), [0083]-[0092] (“In an operational block 1330, the method 1300 further comprises reducing noise in the transducer output signals in response to the sensor output signals to generate noise-reduced transducer output signals. For example, the assembly 300 can comprise an adaptive filter circuit (e.g., as described herein with respect to FIGS. 4 and 5) which receives the transducer output signals Mic(k) and the sensor output signals Acc(k) and generates the noise-reduced transducer output signals.”); Figs. 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hresko, Fort and Ormston to incorporate the teachings of Leroux and provide a second transducer. Leroux is directed to a system for adaptive calibration of a subcutaneous microphone for health monitoring and using transducers. Incorporating the adaptive calibration of a subcutaneous microphone for health monitoring and using transducers as in Leroux with the health monitoring in test systems as in Ormston, the techniques for verifying the integrity of signals as in Fort and the patient assurance system and devices of Hresko would thereby improve the measuring of signals from transducers for health monitoring.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hresko, in view of Fort, and further in view of U.S. 2011/0301439 A1 to Albert et al., hereinafter “Albert.”
Regarding claim 11, Hresko as modified by Fort discloses the limitations of claim 1. The references may not specifically describe but Albert teaches wherein the test monitor signal comprises frequency components outside of a frequency range audible to a human (See Albert at least at Abstract (“A converter assembly, integrated with, and electrically connected to the sensor assembly, converts the electrical signals generated by the sensor assembly to a frequency modulated inaudible ultrasonic sound signal. The ultrasonic signal is demodulated from an aliased signal produced by undersampling.”); Paras. [0011] (inaudible), [0065]-[0066]; Figs. 1-5, 10, 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hresko and Fort to incorporate the teachings of Albert and provide inaudible signals. Albert is directed to an ultrasonic personal health monitoring system. Incorporating the ultrasonic personal health monitoring system of Albert with the techniques for verifying the integrity of signals as in Fort and the patient assurance system and devices of Hresko would thereby broaden the use of signals for health monitoring.
Regarding claim 12, Hresko as modified by Fort and Albert discloses the limitations of claim 11 and Fort further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to combine the test monitor signal with the monitor signal of interest to obtain a combined signal, the transmission circuitry configured to transmit the combined signal to the host device over the signal path (See Fort at least at Paras. [0005]-[0012] (“[A]n external component of a hearing prosthesis is configured to apply a combination of device settings, to generate an electronic signal by operating in accordance with the applied combination, and to transmit the electronic signal to an implanted component of the hearing prosthesis. The applied combination of device settings can be associated with a potential greatest power efficiency (or in any event, a relatively high power efficiency), as compared with power efficiencies associated with other combinations of device settings.”), [0054]-[0055] (“Alternatively or in combination, the device 20 may adjust the data detection thresholds of the second component based on statistics of the received electronic signal. Generally, adjusting data detection thresholds has little impact on power efficiency, but can be implemented to improve data integrity.”); Figs. 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hresko and Albert to incorporate the teachings of Fort and provide combined signals and other combinations to improve data integrity and signals. Fort is directed to generating signals and determining data integrity. Incorporating techniques for verifying the integrity of signals as in Fort with the ultrasonic personal health monitoring system of Albert and the patient assurance system and devices of Hresko would improve determining the integrity of a signal from a device.
Regarding claim 13, Hresko as modified by Fort and Albert discloses the limitations of claim 11 and Hresko further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to generate the test monitor signal and process the monitor signal of interest simultaneously (See Hresko at least at Paras. [0049]-[0051] (“[I]nformation regarding the operational status of a medical device monitoring a patient. In some examples, this information takes the form of a device health report that is provided by the medical device to the interested person on-demand and that may be accessed via a variety of channels.”), [0058]-[0063] (“[T]he medical device can include a plurality of sensing electrodes that are disposed at one or more locations of the patient's body and configured to sense or acquire cardiac signals of the patient.”), [0072] (“It is appreciated that the processor 418, during execution of a software process is capable of processing specific input signals and rendering specific output signals based on the one or more logic operations performed during execution of each software instruction.”), [0087]-[0088] (“[C]ritical components on the electrode subsystem may include accelerometer, gyro, heart sounds sensor, and analog front end for receiving ECG and/or electrical signals from the patient. The software and/or hardware test circuitry may include signal generators for generating test stimulus signals.”); Figs. 1-11).
Claims 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hresko, in view of Fort, and further in view of U.S. 2022/0218256 A1 to Thiagarajan, hereinafter “Thiagarajan.”
Regarding claim 14, Hresko as modified by Fort discloses the limitations of claim 1. The references may not specifically describe but Thiagarajan teaches wherein the test monitor signal comprises one or more recordings of sounds of interest, wherein sounds of interest comprise one or more of: a heart sound; a digestive sound; and a respiratory sound (See Thiagarjan at least at Abstract; Paras. [0055], [0063], [0068], [0076]; Figs. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hresko and Fort to incorporate the teachings of Thiagarajan and provide patient sounds of interest. Thiagarajan is directed to systems for a personal medical monitoring device. Incorporating the medical monitoring device of Thiagarajan with the techniques for verifying the integrity of signals as in Fort and the patient assurance system and devices of Hresko would thereby broaden the use of sounds and signals for health monitoring.
Regarding claim 21, Hresko as modified by Fort discloses the limitations of claim 17. The references may not specifically describe but Thiagarajan teaches wherein the mode of operation comprises one or more of: a cardiac mode; a respiratory mode; and digestive mode (See Thiagarjan at least at Abstract; Paras. [0055], [0063], [0068], [0076]; Figs. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hresko and Fort to incorporate the teachings of Thiagarajan and provide a particular operating mode. Thiagarajan is directed to systems for a personal medical monitoring device. Incorporating the medical monitoring device of Thiagarajan with the techniques for verifying the integrity of signals as in Fort and the patient assurance system and devices of Hresko would thereby improve the operation of the health monitoring device.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hresko, in view of Fort and further in view of U.S. 10,980,483 B2 to Kovacs et al., hereinafter “Kovacs.”
Regarding claim 24, Hresko as modified by Fort discloses the limitations of claim 1. The references may not describe but Kovacs teaches a temperature sensor (See Kovacs at least at Col. 9, ln. 34-53; Col. 11, ln. 44-53; Figs. 1, 5); a photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor (See id. at least at Col. 38, ln. 32-53; Fig. 16); and an accelerometer (See id. at least at Col. 39, ln. 25-51); Col. 48, ln. 41-49); and an electrocardiography sensor (See id. at least at Col. 1 ln. 21-65; Col. 9, ln. 34-53; Figs. 1, 5, 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hresko and Fort to incorporate the teachings of Kovacs and provide a particular sensor. Kovacs is directed to remote physiological parameter determinations. Incorporating the remote physiological parameter determinations of Kovacs with the techniques for verifying the integrity of signals as in Fort and the patient assurance system and devices of Hresko would thereby broaden the types and signals used for health monitoring.
Regarding claim 25, Hresko as modified by Fort discloses the limitations of claim 1. The references may not specifically describe but Kovacs teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: receive, from the host device, an integrity flag indicating the integrity of the signal path; and in response to receipt of the integrity flag, transmitting, using the transmission circuitry, the monitor signal of interest to the host device over the signal path (See Kovacs at least at Abstract; Col. 38, ln. 65 – Col., 39, ln. 15 (“[T]he integrity of signals is checked (e.g., SNR). If the signal integrity check is not met, the user's weight, balance, leg, and foot impedance are measured again (block 1705), if the signals integrity check is met, the leg impedance pulse timings are extracted (as is shown at block 1715). At block 1720, foot impedance and pulse timings are extracted, and at block 1725, BCG timings are extracted.”); Figs. 1, 15-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hresko and Fort to incorporate the teachings of Kovacs and provide a sensors and indicators for signal integrity. Kovacs is directed to remote physiological parameter determinations. Incorporating the remote physiological parameter determinations of Kovacs with the techniques for verifying the integrity of signals as in Fort and the patient assurance system and devices of Hresko would thereby improve the signal integrity and transmission of signals.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hresko, in view of Fort and further in view of U.S. 2021/0345939 A1 to Jumbe et al., hereinafter “Jumbe.”
Regarding claim 28, Hresko as modified by Fort discloses the limitations of claim 27. The references may not specifically describe but Jumbe teaches wherein the signal path comprises a voice over internet protocol, VOIP, channel (See Jumbe at least at Paras. [0332]-[0335]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hresko and Fort to incorporate the teachings of Jumbe and provide VOIP. Jumbe is directed to sensor systems and characterizing health conditions. Incorporating the sensor systems and characterizing health conditions and VOIP of Jumbe with the techniques for verifying the integrity of signals as in Fort and the patient assurance system and devices of Hresko would thereby improve the versatility and transmission of signals over various connections.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hresko, in view of Fort and further in view of U.S. 2020/0210823 A1 to Schaefer, hereinafter “Schaefer.”
Regarding claim 32, Hresko as modified by Fort discloses the limitations of claim 27. The references may not specifically describe but Schaefer teaches wherein the determining of the integrity of the signal path comprises: providing the received test monitor signal to trained neural network (See Schaefer at least at Abstract (“[A]ssigning at least one predefined signal integrity identifier to a corresponding distortion within the measurement signal; generating at least one input training vector based on the provided measurement signal and the corresponding assigned signal integrity identifier; and applying the generated input training vector on input terminals of the signal characterization neural network for training the signal characterization neural network.”); Paras. [0016]-[0018] (Signal integrity and providing signals to a trained neural network), [0023]-[0024], [0114]-[0115]; Claim 3; Figs. 1-4, 9-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Hresko and Fort to incorporate the teachings of Schaefer and provide determining signal integrity with a neural network. Schaefer is directed to training a neural network and characterizing a measurement signal. Incorporating the training of a neural network for a measurement signal as in Schaefer with the techniques for verifying the integrity of signals as in Fort and the patient assurance system and devices of Hresko would thereby enhance the connection and communication of signals between devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed March 9, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not entirely persuasive. The following explains why:
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to prior art rejections are persuasive. The amended claims have been addressed with regard to the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection discussed above. The arguments are moot at least in light of new references Hresko and Fort, cited above. As such, it is submitted that the cited prior art, including those identified by Applicant, in the same field of endeavor, i.e., techniques for using and confirming signals from a transducer and other medical and test signal devices, teaches and/or suggests all of the limitations of the pending claims under a broad and reasonable interpretation thereof.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM T. MONTICELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-4871. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th; 08:30-18:30 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, FONYA LONG can be reached at (571) 270-5096. 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.
/WILLIAM T. MONTICELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 3682
/FONYA M LONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights