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 .
Claim Interpretation
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.
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 limitation(s) is/are: spectral analyzer in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“spectral analyzer” does not have an equivalent structure within the disclosure. Specification paras [0011-0013] and [0086-0094] disclose the different functions the spectral analyzer may perform but do not provide a structure to the component. Fig 3 and para [0047] disclose that the spectral analyzer may include a machine learning resource as a component, but do not specifically state that the spectral analyzer is a machine learning model. For the purposes of examination, the spectral analyzer will be assumed to be a processor.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) 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 § 101
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 1 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 1 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “determine a ballistocardiogram signal based on the one or more motion signals detected by the inertial measurement unit”, “obtain, based on the ballistocardiogram signal, biometric information of the user,”, and “output the biometric information of the user.” This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). The steps recited may be performed a person observing sensor data, converting a motion signal to a BCG signal, and determining biometric data from the converted signal using a pen and paper. Furthermore, the use of a mobile computing device and inertial measurement unit to perform these tasks does not contribute significantly because they are well-known, routine, and/or conventional (see below) and generic computer structures such as “a processor” and “memories” are not significantly more according to Alice v. CLS.
The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The disclosed technologies do not improve a technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), affect a particular treatment for a disease or medical condition (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)), apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), or apply the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e)). As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are “mobile computing device” and “inertial measurement unit”. However, these elements are not “significantly more” because they are well-known, routine, and/or conventional as evidenced by Kim et al. (US 20160109861 A1) para [0003]: “As the distribution and use of portable devices, such as smart phones, become more common” and para [0035]: “(IMUs) that are in common use within mobile devices and augmented reality or virtual reality headsets. IMUs typical incorporate a number of motion and position-based sensors such as gyroscopes, gravitometers, accelerometers, and other, similar sensors, then output positional data in a form suitable for use by other processors or integrated circuits.” of Smith (US 20180374269 A1). Regarding claim 1 a generic computer structure such as “a processor” is not significantly more according to Alice v. CLS. Therefore, these elements do not add significantly more and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 1 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claim(s) 2-16 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1 by merely reciting additional abstract ideas, further limitations on abstract ideas already recited, and/or additional elements that are not significantly more. Thus, claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 17 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 17 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “determining a ballistocardiogram signal based on the one or more motion signals detected by the inertial measurement unit”, “obtaining, based on the ballistocardiogram signal, biometric information of the user,”, and “outputting the biometric information of the user.” This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). The steps recited may be performed a person observing sensor data, converting a motion signal to a BCG signal, and determining biometric data from the converted signal using a pen and paper. Furthermore, the use of a mobile computing device and inertial measurement unit to perform these tasks does not contribute significantly because they are well-known, routine, and/or conventional (see below) and generic computer structures are not significantly more according to Alice v. CLS.
The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The disclosed technologies do not improve a technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), affect a particular treatment for a disease or medical condition (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)), apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), or apply the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e)). As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are “mobile computing device” and “inertial measurement unit”. However, these elements are not “significantly more” because they are well-known, routine, and/or conventional as evidenced by Kim et al. (US 20160109861 A1) para [0003]: “As the distribution and use of portable devices, such as smart phones, become more common” and para [0035]: “(IMUs) that are in common use within mobile devices and augmented reality or virtual reality headsets. IMUs typical incorporate a number of motion and position-based sensors such as gyroscopes, gravitometers, accelerometers, and other, similar sensors, then output positional data in a form suitable for use by other processors or integrated circuits.” of Smith (US 20180374269 A1). Regarding claim 17 a generic computer structure such as “a processor” is not significantly more according to Alice v. CLS. Therefore, these elements do not add significantly more and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 17 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claim(s) 18-19 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 17 by merely reciting additional abstract ideas, further limitations on abstract ideas already recited, and/or additional elements that are not significantly more. Thus, claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 1 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “determine a ballistocardiogram signal based on the one or more motion signals detected by the inertial measurement unit”, “obtain, based on the ballistocardiogram signal, biometric information of the user,”, and “output the biometric information of the user.” This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). The steps recited may be performed a person observing sensor data, converting a motion signal to a BCG signal, and determining biometric data from the converted signal using a pen and paper. Furthermore, the use of a mobile computing device and inertial measurement unit to perform these tasks does not contribute significantly because they are well-known, routine, and/or conventional (see below) and generic computer structures such as “a processor” and “memories” are not significantly more according to Alice v. CLS.
The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The disclosed technologies do not improve a technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), affect a particular treatment for a disease or medical condition (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)), apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), or apply the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e)). As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are “mobile computing device” and “inertial measurement unit”. However, these elements are not “significantly more” because they are well-known, routine, and/or conventional as evidenced by Kim et al. (US 20160109861 A1) para [0003]: “As the distribution and use of portable devices, such as smart phones, become more common” and para [0035]: “(IMUs) that are in common use within mobile devices and augmented reality or virtual reality headsets. IMUs typical incorporate a number of motion and position-based sensors such as gyroscopes, gravitometers, accelerometers, and other, similar sensors, then output positional data in a form suitable for use by other processors or integrated circuits.” of Smith (US 20180374269 A1). A generic computer structure such as “non-transitory computer-readable medium” is not significantly more according to Alice v. CLS. Therefore, these elements do not add significantly more and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 20 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 1010. Thus, claim(s)20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 is 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 claim(s) contains 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 inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. “spectral analyzer” does not have an equivalent structure within the disclosure. Specification paras [0011-0013] and [0086-0094] disclose the different functions the spectral analyzer may perform but do not provide a structure to the component. Fig 3 and para [0047] disclose that the spectral analyzer may include a machine learning resource as a component, but do not specifically state that the spectral analyzer is a machine learning model. For the purposes of examination, the spectral analyzer will be assumed to be a processor.
Claims 7-10 are rejected due to dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitation “6” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Claim 6 discloses the limitation “spectral encoder” but does not disclose a corresponding structure (see rejection above). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “determine a difference between a maximum energy level of the ballistocardiogram signal and a median energy level of the ballistocardiogram signal during the predetermined window, and determine the ballistocardiogram signal satisfies the third predetermined condition when the difference between the maximum energy level and the median energy level is greater than the threshold sparsity level.”. Per para [0046] of applicant’s specification “the sparsity level may be determined based on a difference between a maximum energy level of the BCG signal and a median energy level of the BCG signal. That is, the sparsity level may be acceptable when the difference between the maximum energy level and the median energy level is greater than a threshold level, and unacceptable when the difference between the maximum energy level and the median energy level is less than the threshold level”. Per the claim language and the specification, the sparsity level is determined based on a difference between maximum and median energy. However, this is inconsistent with the definition of a sparsity level, which is understood in the art as the number of coefficients close to zero in comparison to a total length of a signal. It is unclear how the difference between a maximum energy value and a median energy would represent the number of coefficients close to zero. Should the term sparsity refer to a concept different from the commonly accepted understanding, applicant’s disclosure does not make that clear.
Claims 7-9 are rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 11-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li (US20190046077A1, as cited by applicant’s IDS filed 07/31/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a mobile computing device ([0033]: “an electronic device, such as the user-wearable device 100”), comprising: one or more memories configured to store one or more instructions ([0040]: “The control block 110 may include a processor 200, memory 210”); an inertial measurement unit ([0028]: “a motion sensor”); and one or more processors configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the one or more memories to ([0033]: “and/or the processor 112 may also be referred to as a diagnostic processor, and may be able to execute instructions.”): control the inertial measurement unit to detect one or more motion signals ([0037]: “The sensor 122 may be any suitable device that may be used to detect/monitor motion”) generated when the mobile computing device is held against a head of a user of the mobile computing device ([0034]: “The user-wearable device 100 may also be designed to be worn… on the head like a headband”), determine a ballistocardiogram signal based on the one or more motion signals detected by the inertial measurement unit ([0052]: “take BCG measurements using, for example, an accelerometer of the user-wearable device 100.”), obtain, based on the ballistocardiogram signal, biometric information of the user ([0059]: “BCG background heart rate and heartbeat event detection”), and output the biometric information of the user ([0070]: “One or more of the outputs of the system at 518, 520, and/or 522 may be provided, for example, to be displayed on the display 102 if the system is part of the user-wearable device 100”).
Regarding claim 6, Li discloses a ballistocardiographic autoencoder ([0083]: “A fully trained denoising autoencoder in this case may be considered as a nonlinear PCA.”); and a spectral analyzer ([0099]: “the HR calculation, the HR confidence calculation, the BCG heartbeat events generation, and the HR confidence indicator generation may be performed by hardware circuitry and/or one or more processors executing software instructions.”), wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the ballistocardiogram signal by controlling the ballistocardiographic autoencoder to convert the one or more motion signals detected by the inertial measurement unit to the ballistocardiogram signal ([0093]: “Pre-processing may also comprise feature extraction approaches such as principle component analysis (PCA), factor analysis, etc., where denoising autoencoder may be used to reduce BCG nonlinear dimensionality, and a fully trained denoising autoencoder may be considered as a nonlinear PCA.”), and the one or more processors are configured to obtain the biometric information of the user by controlling the spectral analyzer to: perform a Fast Fourier transform with respect to the ballistocardiogram signal over a predetermined window of the ballistocardiogram signal, detect peaks, with respect to the ballistocardiogram signal, during the predetermined window, and obtain the biometric information of the user based on the peaks which are detected during the predetermined window ([0084]: “for a single BCG segment, a fast Fourier transform (FFT) of the segment may be directly calculated and dominate frequency peaks may be identified as heart rate candidates”, wherein the heart rate is the biometric information).
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses the ballistocardiographic autoencoder is configured to convert the one or more motion signals detected by the inertial measurement unit to the ballistocardiogram signal using a machine learning resource which predicts the ballistocardiogram signal based on training data that maps a relationship between previous motion signals and corresponding ground truth ballistocardiogram signals ([0093]: “Pre-processing may also comprise feature extraction approaches such as principle component analysis (PCA), factor analysis, etc., where denoising autoencoder may be used to reduce BCG nonlinear dimensionality, and a fully trained denoising autoencoder may be considered as a nonlinear PCA”, wherein the autoencoder is pretrained).
Regarding claim 8, Li further discloses the spectral analyzer is configured to determine whether the ballistocardiogram signal satisfies one or more predetermined conditions before determining the biometric information of the user based on the ballistocardiogram signal, and the one or more predetermined conditions are associated with at least one of a noise level of the ballistocardiogram signal, a motion of the user, or a sparsity level of the ballistocardiogram signal ([0107]: “A processor may be configured to identify motion samples, where the motion sample is a sample that has a magnitude greater than a first threshold.”).
Regarding claim 11, Li further discloses the inertial measurement unit includes one or more accelerometers and one or more gyroscopes to detect the one or more motion signals generated when the mobile computing device is held against the head of the user ([0036]: “The sensor 122 and/or the sensor 124 may comprise, for example, one or more of an accelerometer, a gyroscope,”), the one or more motion signals include a six-dimensional motion signal, and the ballistocardiographic autoencoder is configured to convert the six-dimensional motion signal to a one-dimensional ballistocardiogram signal ([0083]: “denoising autoencoder may be used to reduce BCG nonlinear dimensionality”).
Regarding claim 12, Li further discloses wherein the mobile computing device is a mobile phone or a smartphone ([0006]: “The device may comprise a mobile telecommunications device, for example a smartphone.”).
Regarding claim 13, Li further discloses wherein the biometric information of the user includes at least one of a heart rate of the user or a heart rate variability of the user ([0007]: “the output may simply be a measurement of the heart rate.”).
Regarding claim 14, Li further discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to output the biometric information of the user by at least one of storing the biometric information of the user in at least one of a database, the one or more memories, or one or more memories of an external computing device, presenting the biometric information of the user on a display of the mobile computing device, or generating a report which summarizes the biometric information of the user ([0022]: “The processor 5 is also connected to the display 9, and is arranged to control the display to provide various outputs, whereby the user can view results produced by the device.”).
Regarding claim 15, Li further discloses further comprising an output device, wherein the one or more processors are configured to analyze the biometric information of the user to determine whether the biometric information of the user indicates a presence of an abnormality or an irregularity in the biometric information of the user ([0007]: “the output can include a suggested diagnosis of a heart disease.”), and the one or more processors are configured to control the output device to provide at least one of a warning, an alert, or a notification to the user in response to determining the biometric information of the user indicates the presence of the abnormality or the irregularity in the biometric information of the user ([0007]: “The device can be used to prompt the patient to seek medical treatment while making the data available to medical staff for preliminary diagnosis.”).
Regarding claim 16, Li further discloses an input device configured to receive a request from the user to obtain the biometric information of the user ([0022]: “a mobile telecommunications device 1 comprises a smartphone”); and an output device configured to provide information regarding a measurement time period for which the mobile computing device is to be held against the head of the user of the mobile computing device ([0022]: “a display 9… and is arranged to control the display to provide various outputs, whereby the user can view results produced by the device”).
Regarding claim 17, Li discloses A computer-implemented method (abstract), comprising: detecting, by an inertial measurement unit of a mobile computing device ([0033]: “an electronic device, such as the user-wearable device 100, [0028]: “a motion sensor”); and one or more processors configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the one or more memories to ([0033]: “and/or the processor 112 may also be referred to as a diagnostic processor, and may be able to execute instructions.”) detect one or more motion signals ([0037]: “The sensor 122 may be any suitable device that may be used to detect/monitor motion”) generated when the mobile computing device is held against a head of a user of the mobile computing device ([0034]: “The user-wearable device 100 may also be designed to be worn… on the head like a headband”), converting the one or more motion signals detected by the inertial measurement unit to a ballistocardiogram signal ([0052]: “take BCG measurements using, for example, an accelerometer of the user-wearable device 100.”); obtaining, based on the ballistocardiogram signal, biometric information of the user ([0059]: “BCG background heart rate and heartbeat event detection”); and outputting the biometric information of the user ([0070]: “One or more of the outputs of the system at 518, 520, and/or 522 may be provided, for example, to be displayed on the display 102 if the system is part of the user-wearable device 100”).
Regarding claim 19, Li discloses wherein converting the one or more motion signals detected by the inertial measurement unit to the ballistocardiogram signal includes using a machine learning resource which predicts the ballistocardiogram signal based on training data that maps a relationship between previous motion signals and corresponding ground truth ballistocardiogram signals ([0093]: “Pre-processing may also comprise feature extraction approaches such as principle component analysis (PCA), factor analysis, etc., where denoising autoencoder may be used to reduce BCG nonlinear dimensionality, and a fully trained denoising autoencoder may be considered as a nonlinear PCA”, wherein the autoencoder is pretrained).
Regarding claim 20, Li discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium which stores instructions that are executable by one or more processors of a mobile computing device ([0033]), the instructions comprising: instructions to cause the one or more processors to control an inertial measurement unit of the mobile computing device ([0033]: “an electronic device, such as the user-wearable device 100, [0028]: “a motion sensor”); and one or more processors configured to execute the one or more instructions stored in the one or more memories to ([0033]: “and/or the processor 112 may also be referred to as a diagnostic processor, and may be able to execute instructions.”) to detect one or more motion signals ([0037]: “The sensor 122 may be any suitable device that may be used to detect/monitor motion”) generated when the mobile computing device is held against a head of a user of the mobile computing device ([0034]: “The user-wearable device 100 may also be designed to be worn… on the head like a headband”); instructions to cause the one or more processors to convert the one or more motion signals detected by the inertial measurement unit to a ballistocardiogram signal ([0052]: “take BCG measurements using, for example, an accelerometer of the user-wearable device 100.”); instructions to cause the one or more processors to obtain, based on the ballistocardiogram signal, biometric information of the user ([0059]: “BCG background heart rate and heartbeat event detection”); and outputting the biometric information of the user ([0070]: “One or more of the outputs of the system at 518, 520, and/or 522 may be provided, for example, to be displayed on the display 102 if the system is part of the user-wearable device 100”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Sahu (US 20130190057 A1, as cited by applicant’s IDS filed 07/31/2025).
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses the mobile computing device of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the one or more processors are configured to automatically execute the one or more instructions stored in the one or more memories to control the inertial measurement unit to detect the one or more motion signals, in response to a telephone call being conducted using the mobile computing device.
Sahu discloses a mobile computing device (title), wherein: the one or more processors are configured to automatically execute the one or more instructions stored in the one or more memories to control the inertial measurement unit to detect the one or more motion signals, in response to a telephone call being conducted using the mobile computing device ([0007]: “commencing monitoring signals from one or more of a motion sensor, a positional sensor and an orientation sensor when the device engages in a call.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the mobile computing device disclosed by Li to include the detection of motion signals in response to a telephone call being conducted as disclosed by Sahu in order to improve the accuracy of a detection position of the mobile computing device (Sahu [0051]).
Regarding claim 3, Li further discloses wherein the one or more motion signals are generated based on blood vessel volume changes in a temple region of the head of the user ([0051]: “These peaks can be categorized into three major groups: pre-systolic, systolic, and diastolic.”, [0034]: “on the head like a headband”).
Regarding claim 4, Sahu further discloses further comprising an output device configured to provide, during the telephone call, an indication that the mobile computing device is performing a process to obtain the biometric information of the user ([0030]: “may have a touch sensitive display 117 comprising a display part 116 and a tactile interface 118.”, [0040]: “Detection of such a positional change causes the note taking application 126, stored in the memory 122, to be started, resumed and/or displayed on the display 116.”).
Regarding claim 5, Sahu further discloses wherein the indication includes at least one of a sound provided by the output device or haptic feedback provided by the output device ([0009]: “responding to the change in position by enabling a speaker mode of the device”).
Regarding claim 18, Li discloses the method of claim 17, but fails to disclose automatically controlling the inertial measurement unit to detect the one or more motion signals in response to a telephone call being conducted using the mobile computing device.
Sahu discloses a mobile computing device (title), wherein: automatically controlling the inertial measurement unit to detect the one or more motion signals in response to a telephone call being conducted using the mobile computing device ([0007]: “commencing monitoring signals from one or more of a motion sensor, a positional sensor and an orientation sensor when the device engages in a call.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the mobile computing device disclosed by Li to include the detection of motion signals in response to a telephone call being conducted as disclosed by Sahu in order to improve the accuracy of a detection position of the mobile computing device (Sahu [0051]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Tedgue Beltrao et al. (US 20240335140 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Li further discloses when a first predetermined condition among the one or more predetermined conditions relates to the noise level of the ballistocardiogram signal ([0052]: “into account the movements of the user wearing the user-wearable device 100 as these movements may act as noise to the BCG measurements”), the spectral analyzer is configured to determine the ballistocardiogram signal satisfies the first predetermined condition when the noise level associated with the ballistocardiogram signal is less than a threshold noise level ([0056]: “identify artifacts in the signals of a 3-axis accelerometer to generate a heartbeat signal.”), when a second predetermined condition among the one or more predetermined conditions relates to the motion of the user, the spectral analyzer is configured to determine the ballistocardiogram signal satisfies the second predetermined condition when the user is determined to be at rest ([0066]: “the system may be in a normal mode because the user may be in a low-activity level state such as when sleeping or being in a prolonged resting state with minimal motion”).
Li fails to disclose when a third predetermined condition among the one or more predetermined conditions relates to the sparsity level of the ballistocardiogram signal, the spectral analyzer is configured to determine the ballistocardiogram signal satisfies the third predetermined condition when the sparsity level of the ballistocardiogram signal is greater than a threshold sparsity level.
Tedgue Beltrao discloses a third predetermined condition among the one or more predetermined conditions relates to the sparsity level of the ballistocardiogram signal ([0105]: “The magnitude of a filtered spectrogram |{circumflex over (X)}| in which time basis component h.sub.i indicating the presence of random body movement or external interference are eliminated”, wherein a spectral signal of a body movement is used to create the ballistocardiogram signal), the spectral analyzer is configured to determine the ballistocardiogram signal satisfies the third predetermined condition when the sparsity level of the ballistocardiogram signal is greater than a threshold sparsity level ([0105]: “Additionally, sparsity of the time basis component h.sub.i is verified based on a condition comprising that an amplitude of all the other components of the selected basis is negligible, i.e. smaller by at least a predefined factor.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the mobile computing device disclosed by Li to include analysis of a sparsity level as disclosed by Tedgue Beltrao in order to improve the accuracy of the signal (Tedgue Beltrao [0105]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Derakhshani et al. (US 20160371555 A1) – discloses detection of a ballistocardiogram using a smart phone
Slyusarenko et al. (US 20210177286 A1) – discloses detection of a ballistocardiogram using a smartphone placed against the user’s head
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVYA SHOBANA BALAJI whose telephone number is (703)756-5368. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 2:00 - 6:00 ET.
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, Jaqueline Cheng can be reached at 571-272-5596. 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.
/KAVYA SHOBANA BALAJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/DEVIN B HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
