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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8 and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/17/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 01/26/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP 2024-009859 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/10/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 lines 3-4 read, "support being to be placed at" should read "support.
Claim 1, line 6 reads, “sensors has a” should read “sensors have a”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term Bluetooth, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 13 recites a system, therefore the claim is directed to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 13 recites the following claim limitations:
calculate a period of the biological signal using the largest intensity or a highest ratio to noise among a plurality of the biological signals
These limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind, as well as mathematical concepts. A human, provided biological signal data, could observe, compare, and evaluate a measured signal to determine if a portion of the signal contains noise. Thus, the claims recite limitations which fall within the ‘mental processes’, as well as mathematical calculations, which fall within the ‘mathematical concepts’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Claim 13 recites the following additional elements:
plurality of sensors disposed on a support
calculation unit
The additional element of “plurality of sensors” are recited at a high level of generality and are merely being used in their intended manner to gather biological signal data. The sensors are being used as a tool to carry out data acquisition, and fail to add significantly more to the abstract idea. The additional limitation of the support merely provides the structure of where the plurality of sensors are being disposed on, and does not provide a technological improvement to the function of the plurality of sensors.
The recitation of a “calculation unit” fails to recite any additional element or combination of additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. As recited, the calculation unit, which upon review of the applicant’s specification is an example of an algorithm in conjunction with a CPU (see para. 0025), is a convention component that does not impose any meaningful structural limitations on the system used to implement the judicial exception. The recitation of a processor in the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claim merely uses the processor as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The recitation of the plurality of sensors is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are recited at a high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional structure that distinguishes the elements from well-known, routine, and/or conventional elements. Recitation of the plurality of sensors as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not add significantly more than what is well-known, routine, and/or conventional in view of Sugiyama et al. (US 20150133804 A1), see para. 0052 (sensors function to detect a body potential of the seated person), and in further view of Eilebrecht et al. (US 20150094603 A1), see para. 0041 (the plurality of electrodes).
The recitation of a processor is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are recited at a high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional structure that distinguishes the elements from well-known, routine, and/or conventional elements. Recitation of a processor as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not add significantly more than what is well-known, routine, and/or conventional in view of Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
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 limitations are:
noise detection unit in claim 12
calculation unit in claim 13
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.
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.
For the purpose of this examination in the current Office action, claims have been interpreted as follows:
In light of the specification, the “noise detection unit” in claim 12, under the broadest reasonable interpretation can be an algorithm in conjunction with a processor, per figure 3 and para. 0025 (CPU executes a program to realize the function as a noise detection unit).
In light of the specification, the “calculation unit” in claim 13 under the broadest reasonable interpretation can be an algorithm in conjunction with a processor, per figure 3 and para. 0025 (CPU executes a program to realize the function as a calculation unit).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "organ" in line 7, which renders the claim indefinite. The term “organ” is not defined by the claim. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Accordingly, the scope of the limitation for the size of the plurality of sensors is unclear.
Dependent claims inherit the same deficiencies.
Claims 2-3 recite the limitation "centers" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugiyama et al. (US 20150133804 A1), hereinafter Sugiyama.
Regarding claim 1, Sugiyama teaches a biological signal detection module (Fig. 6, element 12 – heartbeat measuring device) comprising:
a plurality of sensors (Fig. 1, element 20 – sensor group) that detects a biological signal of a subject (para. 0052 (sensors function to detect a body potential of the seated person); and
a support on which the plurality of sensors are disposed (Fig. 2, element 104A – urethane pad),
the support being to be placed at a position with which a chest or a back of the subject comes into contact in an article (Fig. 1, element 104 – seat back) that comes into contact with an upper body of the subject (Fig. 2, element 800 – body),
wherein each of the plurality of sensors has a detection range of the biological signal that is smaller than an organ including a source of the biological signal (para. 0052 (each of the sensors 20A, 20B, and 20C is 25 mm in height, 75 mm in width, and 1 mm in thickness), the length and width of a typical heart is approximately 10cm)).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Sugiyama teaches the biological signal detection module according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensors is disposed so that a direction connecting the centers of the detection ranges of any two of the plurality of sensors intersects with a height direction of the support and with a width direction of the support (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Sugiyama teaches a biological signal detection system (Fig. 1) comprising:
the biological signal detection module according to claim 1 (Fig. 6, element 12 – heartbeat measuring device); and
a calculation unit that calculates a period of the biological signal using the biological signal having a largest intensity or a highest ratio to noise among a plurality of the biological signals detected by the plurality of sensors (para. 0079 (selection unit 704 selects the data synchronous with heartbeats and having the high amplitude of the R-waves from between the two voltage waveform data VAB and VAC, and sets the selected data as the electrocardiographic waveform data), 0080 (arithmetic operation device 70C computes a peak interval at which a voltage (R-wave potential) exceeding a set threshold is detected)).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama in view of Eilebrecht et al. (US 20150094603 A1), hereinafter Eilebrecht.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Sugiyama teaches the biological signal detection module according to claim 2, and the plurality of sensors (Fig. 1, element 20 – sensor group).
Sugiyama does not teach the plurality of sensors disposed so that a distance between adjacent sensors among the plurality of sensors is equal to or less than a length of the organ and wherein the distance is equal to or less than a width of the organ.
Eilebrecht teaches a plurality of sensors (Fig. 4, element 44 – sensor array, Fig. 4, element 24 – plurality of electrodes) disposed so that a distance between adjacent sensors among the plurality of sensors is equal to or less than a length of the organ and wherein the distance is equal to or less than a width of the organ (para. 0041 (the individual electrodes 24 in each case… are arranged with a distance of less than approximately 5 mm from one another, the length and width of a typical heart is approximately 10cm)).
Sugiyama and Eilebrecht are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of contactless sensors measuring a biological signal of a person. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sugiyama’s sensors to incorporate the teachings of Eilebrecht listed above and provide a plurality of sensors having a distance less than a length/width of a heart. Doing so ensures that the sensors are within a close range from each other to provide a stronger electrical connection to receive a signal and transfer it to the biological signal detection module for further analysis.
Regarding claim 7, Sugiyama teaches the biological signal detection module according to claim 2, and the plurality of sensors (Fig. 1, element 20 – sensor group).
Sugiyama does not teach wherein the plurality of sensors is arranged at an equal interval.
Eilebrecht teaches a plurality of sensors (Fig. 4, element 44 – sensor array, Fig. 4, element 24 – plurality of electrodes) arranged at an equal interval (para. 0041 (the plurality of electrodes arranged in a 3x15 matrix…. are arranged with a distance of less than approximately 5 mm from one another)).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sugiyama’s sensors to incorporate the teachings of Eilebrecht listed above and provide sensors arranged at an equal interval. Doing so allows the plurality of sensors to be arranged in a manner that covers the area of detection equally, to ensure that the signal is able to be detected within the support.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama in view of Eilebrecht and in further view of Lang et al. (US 20230247376 A1), hereinafter Lang.
Regarding claim 6, Sugiyama (in view of Eilebrecht) teaches the biological signal detection module according to claim 5, and the plurality of sensors (Fig. 1, element 20 – sensor group).
Sugiyama does not teach a piezoelectric sensor having a width of 4 cm or less.
Lang teaches a piezoelectric sensor having a width of 4 cm or less (para. 0037 (the width of the piezoelectric sensor 10 at the proximal end 52 may be about 3-4 mm)).
Sugiyama, Eilebrecht, and Lang are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sensors measuring a biological signal of a person. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sugiyama’s sensors to incorporate the teachings of Lang listed above, and provide a piezoelectric sensor. Sugiyama teaches sensors measuring the biological signal of a person when sitting on the chair (abstract (measure heartbeats even if seated persons physically differ and to measure the heartbeats of even a seated person)). Therefore, it would have been obvious that the sensors could be a piezoelectric sensor, by generating electrical signals in correspondence with mechanical force applied to them from the person sitting.
Regarding claim 10, Sugiyama (in view of Eilebrecht and in further view of Lang), teaches the biological signal detection module according to claim 6, further comprising:
a weight disposed on the support (Fig. 2, element 104B – urethane slab).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama in view of Eilebrecht and in further view of Lang and Shinar et al. (US 20250152041 A1), hereinafter Shinar.
Regarding claim 9, Sugiyama (in view of Eilebrecht and in further view of Lang) teaches the biological signal detection module according to claim 6.
Sugiyama does not disclose wherein the support has a thickness of 0.5 mm or more and 20 mm or less.
Shinar teaches a sensor (Fig. 9A, element 366 – sensor element) and a support (Fig. 9A, element 228 – sensor plate) wherein the support has a thickness of 0.5 mm or more and 20 mm or less (para. 0132 (a thickness of the edge region (e.g., thickness t described hereinbelow), measured between an inner perimeter of the edge region and an outer perimeter of the edge region, is at least 2 mm and/or less than 20 mm)).
Sugiyama, Eilebrecht, Lang, and Shinar are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sensors measuring a biological signal of a person. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sugiyama’s support to incorporate the teachings of Shinar listed above, and provide a support with a thickness range of 0.5 mm to 20 mm. Sugiyama does not explicitly disclose the support thickness, therefore adding a range to the support, taught by Shinar, would have ensured that the sensors are mounted properly within the support with a suitable dimension.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama and in view of Chou et al. (US 20220409095 A1), hereinafter Chou.
Regarding claim 14, Sugiyama teaches the biological signal detection module according to claim 1. Sugiyama does not disclose wherein the biological signal indicates a cardiac sound or a cardiac motion, and the biological signal has a frequency band of 10 Hz or more and 100 Hz or less.
Chou teaches a biological signal indicates a cardiac sound or a cardiac motion (para. 0013 (a flexible sensor detecting the bio logical vibrations from the user while the user is in contact with the flexible sensor), 0035 (force sensors and/or vibration sensors, collect biological vibrations, such as heart vibrations or sounds, lung vibrations or sounds… heart and lung vibrations or sounds , commonly occur within a [frequency] band of about 5 Hertz to about 1 kilohertz)), and the biological signal has a frequency band of 10 Hz or more and 100 Hz or less (Fig. 2, para. 0055 (heart vibrations or sounds can be sensed by a force sensor… extending from about 5Hz to 50Hz… 25Hz to 250Hz)).
Sugiyama, Eilebrecht, and Chou are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of contactless sensors measuring a biological signal of a person. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sugiyama’s sensor to incorporate the teachings of Chou listed, and provide a biological signal indicating a cardiac sound/motion within a specified frequency range. Doing so enhances the biological signal detection module by being able to further detect cardiac sound/motion, to further determine the state of the subject. Additionally, including a frequency band for detecting the cardiac activity would allow the module to reduce signal components outside the desired frequency range.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Sugiyama et al. (US 20150133804 A1) discloses a biological signal detection system (Fig. 1) comprising: the biological signal detection module according to claim 1 (Fig. 6, element 12 – heartbeat measuring device). However, the cited reference fails to individually disclose, or suggest when combined, a noise detection unit that detects noise in the biological signal and a noise sensor that detects a signal and is disposed in the article at a position opposite to a contact portion of the article with which the subject comes into contact with respect to the support in a thickness direction of the support, wherein when a timing of occurrence of a first amplitude of the biological signal detected by the plurality of sensors is later than a timing of occurrence of a second amplitude of the signal detected by the noise sensor corresponding to the first amplitude, or when an intensity of the first amplitude is smaller than an intensity of the second amplitude, the noise detection unit detects the first amplitude as the noise.
Babu et al. (US 20220338814 A1) discloses a noise sensor (abstract (reference sensor obtains a noise signal, but does not include the PCG signal)) and a noise detection unit (para. 0067 (processing circuitry 202 performs additional processing of the target signal and/or reference signal to determine 610 whether a particular noise condition is present)). However, the cited reference fails to individually disclose, or suggest when combined, a timing of occurrence of a first amplitude of the biological signal detected by the plurality of sensors is later than a timing of occurrence of a second amplitude, or when an intensity of the first amplitude is smaller than an intensity of the second amplitude, the noise detection unit detects the first amplitude as the noise.
No prior art was found teaching individually, or suggesting in combination, all of the features of the applicants' invention in combination with the recited structural limitations of the claimed invention. Specifically, a noise sensor disposed in the article at a position opposite to a contact portion of the article with which the subject comes into contact with respect to the support in a thickness direction of the support, wherein when a timing of occurrence of a first amplitude of the biological signal detected by the plurality of sensors is later than a timing of occurrence of a second amplitude of the signal detected by the noise sensor corresponding to the first amplitude, or when an intensity of the first amplitude is smaller than an intensity of the second amplitude, the noise detection unit detects the first amplitude as the noise.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure. Gallagher et al. (US 10034631 B1) and Vrazic et al. (US 20120010514) are additional examples of an array of piezoelectric sensors measuring a biological signal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EILEEN ROBLES whose telephone number is (571)429-9383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 - 5:00 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, Niketa Patel can be reached at (571) 272-4156. 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.
/EILEEN ROBLES/Examiner, Art Unit 3792 /William J Levicky/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights