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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.
For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer
Claims 1 and 8-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,589,793 in view of “Hwang,” US 2020/0315480.
Claim 1 of instant application and patented claim 1 of US 11,589,793 recite same limitations of an electrocardiogram measurement apparatus/device comprising a first and second electrodes, two amplifiers, and a third electrode, an AD converter, a microcontroller, a communication means, a battery, two amplifiers receive and amplify electrocardiogram voltages simultaneously.
Patented claim 1 further recites “output impedance of the electrode driver is less than an input impedance of each of the two amplifiers.”
Claim 1 recites “a third electrode transmit a third electrocardiogram voltage to an input of the electrode driver” instead of patented claim 1 of “a third electrode transmit the output of the electrode driver to the body part.”
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in an ECG measurement devices, Hwang discloses configuration of claim 1 that a third electrode transmit a third electrocardiogram voltage to an input of the electrode driver (Figure 8 shows third electrode 113 providing transmitting voltage to electrode drive 813[0076]-[0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of patented claim 1 to be as claimed in the instant application, since such limitations were well known in the art as made obvious by Hwang. One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the elements as claimed by known method (e.g. modifying the circuits like Figure 8 by adding an amplifier) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination and/or modification would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have provide equivalent circuit model of removing power line interference ([0076]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claims 8-9, patented claims 2-3 set forth the claim.
Claims 1, 8-9, and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,642,066 in view of “Hwang,” US 2020/0315480.
Claim 1 of instant application and patented claim 1 of US 11,642,066 recite same limitations of an electrocardiogram measurement apparatus/device comprising a first and second electrodes, two amplifiers, and a third electrode, an AD converter, a microcontroller, a communication means, a battery, two amplifiers receive and amplify electrocardiogram voltages simultaneously.
Claim 1 recites “a third electrode transmit a third electrocardiogram voltage to an input of the electrode driver” instead of patented claim 1 of “a third electrode transmit the output of the electrode driver to the body part.”
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in an ECG measurement devices, Hwang discloses configuration of claim 1 that a third electrode transmit a third electrocardiogram voltage to an input of the electrode driver (Figure 8 shows third electrode 113 providing transmitting voltage to electrode drive 813[0076]-[0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of patented claim 1 to be as claimed in the instant application, since such limitations were well known in the art as made obvious by Hwang. One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the elements as claimed by known method (e.g. modifying the circuits like Figure 8 by adding an amplifier) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination and/or modification would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have provide equivalent circuit model of removing power line interference ([0076]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claims 8-9, patented claims 2-3 set forth the claim.
Regarding to claim 11, patented claim 4 set forth the claim.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,931,156 in view of “Hwang,” US 2020/0315480 (hereinafter Hwang).
Claim 1 of instant application and patented claim 1 of US 11,931,156 recite same limitations of an electrocardiogram measurement apparatus/device comprising a first and second electrodes, two amplifiers, and a third electrode, an AD converter, a microcontroller, a communication means, a battery, two amplifiers receive and amplify electrocardiogram voltages simultaneously.
Patented claim 1 further recites “six electrocardiogram voltages” and displaying on smartphone screens,” and arrangement of first, second and third electrodes on the surface of the case.” is essentially and collectively same limitations as claims 13-14 of instant application.
Claim 1 recites “a third electrode transmit a third electrocardiogram voltage to an input of the electrode driver” instead of patented claim 1 of “a third electrode transmit the output of the electrode driver to the body part.”
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in an ECG measurement devices, Hwang discloses configuration of claim 1 that a third electrode transmit a third electrocardiogram voltage to an input of the electrode driver (Figure 8 shows third electrode 113 providing transmitting voltage to electrode drive 813[0076]-[0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of patented claim 1 to be as claimed in the instant application, since such limitations were well known in the art as made obvious by Hwang. One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the elements as claimed by known method (e.g. modifying the circuits like Figure 8 by adding an amplifier) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination and/or modification would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have provide equivalent circuit model of removing power line interference ([0076]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claim 8, patented claim 2 set forth the limitations of claim 8.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,414,724 in view of “Hwang,” US 2020/0315480.
Claim 1 of instant application and patented claim 1 of US 12,414,724 recite same limitations of an electrocardiogram measurement apparatus/device comprising a first and second electrodes, two amplifiers, and a third electrode, an AD converter, a microcontroller, a communication means, a battery, two amplifiers receive and amplify electrocardiogram voltages simultaneously.
Claim 1 recites “a third electrode transmit a third electrocardiogram voltage to an input of the electrode driver” instead of patented claim 1 of “a third electrode transmit the output of the electrode driver to the body part.”
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in an ECG measurement devices, Hwang discloses configuration of claim 1 that a third electrode transmit a third electrocardiogram voltage to an input of the electrode driver (Figure 8 shows third electrode 113 providing transmitting voltage to electrode drive 813[0076]-[0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of patented claim 1 to be as claimed in the instant application, since such limitations were well known in the art as made obvious by Hwang. One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the elements as claimed by known method (e.g. modifying the circuits like Figure 8 by adding an amplifier) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination and/or modification would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have provide equivalent circuit model of removing power line interference ([0076]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claim 8, patented claim 2 set for the claim.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 15 and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 414,723 in view of “Hwang,” US 2020/0315480.
Claim 1 of instant application and patented claims 1, 8, 12, and 22 of US 12,414,723 recite same limitations of an electrocardiogram measurement apparatus/device comprising a first and second electrodes, two amplifiers, and a third electrode, an AD converter, a microcontroller, a communication means, a battery, two amplifiers receive and amplify electrocardiogram voltages simultaneously.
Patented claim 1 further recites “apparatus is included in a wristwatch comprising a watch body and a watch band.”
Patented claim 8 further recites “apparatus is included in a wristwatch comprising a watch body and a watch band.”
Patented claim 15 further recites “apparatus is included in a finger ring.”
Patented claim 22 further recites “attachment that attaches a watch band by one or two clips or slide guides.”
Thus, patented limitations set forth above in claims 1, 8, 15, and 22 is a species to a generic claim 1 of instant application (i.e. entire scope of the reference claim falls within the scope of the examined claim).
Claim 1 further recites “a third electrode transmit a third electrocardiogram voltage to an input of the electrode driver” instead of patented claim 1 of “a third electrode transmit the output of the electrode driver to the body part.”
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in an ECG measurement devices, Hwang discloses configuration of claim 1 that a third electrode transmit a third electrocardiogram voltage to an input of the electrode driver (Figure 8 shows third electrode 113 providing transmitting voltage to electrode drive 813[0076]-[0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of patented claim 1 to be as claimed in the instant application, since such limitations were well known in the art as made obvious by Hwang. One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the elements as claimed by known method (e.g. modifying the circuits like Figure 8 by adding an amplifier) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination and/or modification would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have provide equivalent circuit model of removing power line interference ([0076]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, and 18-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6-7, and 12-15 of co-pending Application No. 18/380,642 in view of “Hwang,” US 2020/0315480.
Claims 1 and 3 of instant application and claim 1 of co-pending application 18,380,642 recite same limitations of an electrocardiogram measurement apparatus/device comprising a first and second electrodes, two amplifiers, and a third electrode, an AD converter, a microcontroller, a communication means, a battery, two amplifiers receive and amplify electrocardiogram voltages simultaneously.
Claim 1 recites “a third electrode transmit a third electrocardiogram voltage to an input of the electrode driver” instead of co-pending claim 1 of “a third electrode transfer the output of the electrode driver to the body part.”
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in an ECG measurement devices, Hwang discloses configuration of claim 1 that a third electrode transmit a third electrocardiogram voltage to an input of the electrode driver (Figure 8 shows third electrode 113 providing transmitting voltage to electrode drive 813[0076]-[0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of patented claim 1 to be as claimed in the instant application, since such limitations were well known in the art as made obvious by Hwang. One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the elements as claimed by known method (e.g. modifying the circuits like Figure 8 by adding an amplifier) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination and/or modification would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have provide equivalent circuit model of removing power line interference ([0076]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claim 4, co-pending claim 2 set for the claim.
Regarding to claim 5, co-pending claim 3 set for the claim.
Regarding to claim 8, co-pending claim 6 set for the claim.
Regarding to claim 9, co-pending claim 7 set for the claim.
Regarding to claims 18-19, co-pending claims 12-15collectively set for the claim.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 8-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 6-7 of co-pending Application No. 18/235,346 in view of “Hwang,” US 2020/0315480.
Claims 1 and 3 of instant application and claim 1 of co-pending application 18,235,346 recite same limitations of an electrocardiogram measurement apparatus/device comprising a first and second electrodes, two amplifiers, and a third electrode, an AD converter, a microcontroller, a communication means, a battery, two amplifiers receive and amplify electrocardiogram voltages simultaneously.
Claim 1 recites “a third electrode transmit a third electrocardiogram voltage to an input of the electrode driver” instead of co-pending claim 1 of “a third electrode transfer the output of the electrode driver to the body part.”
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in an ECG measurement devices, Hwang discloses configuration of claim 1 that a third electrode transmit a third electrocardiogram voltage to an input of the electrode driver (Figure 8 shows third electrode 113 providing transmitting voltage to electrode drive 813[0076]-[0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of patented claim 1 to be as claimed in the instant application, since such limitations were well known in the art as made obvious by Hwang. One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the elements as claimed by known method (e.g. modifying the circuits like Figure 8 by adding an amplifier) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination and/or modification would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have provide equivalent circuit model of removing power line interference ([0076]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claim 4, co-pending claim 2 set for the claim.
Regarding to claim 5, co-pending claim 3 set for the claim.
Regarding to claim 8, co-pending claim 6 set for the claim.
Regarding to claim 9, co-pending claim 7 set for the claim.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a communication element” in claim 1.
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.
In specification, communication means is defined as a Bluetooth low energy device.
Thus, for a purpose of examination, “communication element” will be interpreted as a Bluetooth device and/or equivalent 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.
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 4-5 and 19-20 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.
Claims 4 and 5 recite “the electrode” but it is not definite whether “the electrode” refers to which of previously recited “first electrode,” “second electrode,” and “third electrode.”
Claim 19 recites the limitation "additional electrocardiogram lead signals" in line 13 page 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since “electrocardiogram lead signals” were not previously recited in claims 1, 18 and 19.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "Lead II has the least power line interference" in line 14 page 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since “power line interference” was not previously recited.
Moreover, since Lead I, II, and presumably lead III, IV, V, and VI were not previously recited in claims 1, 13-14, and 20, thus it is not clear whether what Lead II refers to.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 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 (i.e. claims 1, 13-14) and amended to overcome 112 and double patenting rejections for claims 1, 13-14, and 20 as set forth above.
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 1-5, 8-9, and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Hwang,” US 2020/0315480 (hereinafter Hwang).
Regarding to claim 1, Hwang teaches an electrocardiogram measurement apparatus (electrocardiogram measurement apparatus [0037] Figure 1) comprising:
a first electrode and a second electrode configured to respectively receive a first
electrocardiogram voltage and a second electrocardiogram voltage of a first human body part and a second human body part in contact therewith (first and second electrode configured to receive two electrocardiogram voltages of a body part, in contact wherewith, respectively [0027]);
two amplifiers configured to respectively receive the first electrocardiogram voltage and the second electrocardiogram voltage from the first electrode and the second electrode (two amplifiers to receive voltages from first and second electrode, respectively [0028]);
an electrode driver configured to output a driving voltage (electrode driver configured to output a driving voltage [0029]);
a third electrode configured to contact a third human body part (third electrode configured to receive the output of electrode drive and transmit the output of the electrode driver to the body part in contact [0030])
an AD converter connected to output terminals of the two amplifiers and configured to convert output signals of the two amplifiers into two digital signals (an AD converter connected to output terminal of each of two amplifiers to convert output signals of the two amplifiers into two digital signals [0031]);
a microcontroller configured to receive the two digital signals from the AD converter (a microcontroller configured to receive the two digital signals of the AD converter [0032]); and
a communication element configured to transmit the two digital signals (communication means to configured to transmit the two digital signals [0033]); wherein:
the microcontroller is supplied with power from a battery (the microcontroller is supplied with a battery power [0034]);
controls the AD converter and the communication element (microcontr5oller controls the AD converter and the communication means [0035]); and
each of the two amplifiers, respectively and simultaneously, receives and amplifies one electrocardiogram voltage (two amplifiers each receive and amplify one electrocardiogram voltage simultaneously [0035]).
Hwang teaches a third electrode transmit a third electrocardiogram voltage to an input of the electrode driver in Figure 8 (Figure 8 shows third electrode 113 providing transmitting voltage to electrode driver 813 [0077]-[0078]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify smart watch as taught by Hwang to incorporate teaching of Hwang’s Figure 8, since ECG circuit of electrode transmitting ECG voltage to an input of the electrode driver was well known in the art as taught by Hwang. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Hwang with no change in their respective functions, modifying the circuit to be like Figure 8, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to effectively remove power line interference ([0076]). and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claims 2-5, 8-9, and 11-17, Hwang teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above.
Hwang further teaches following limitations:
Of claim 2, wherein an output of the electrode driver is connected to the second electrode (one electrode driver 813 applies a driving voltage to a human body part in contact with the electrode 112 [0077])
Of claim 3, further comprising a fourth electrode connected to an output of the electrode driver, wherein the fourth electrode is installed adjacent to one electrode among the three electrodes, so that the fourth electrode and the adjacent electrode among the three electrodes contact the same human body part (Four electrodes Figure 22 show 111, 112 electrodes on one side and 113 and 114 adjacent to each other on the other side contacting the same human body parts as claimed, [0139]-[0140]).
Of claim 4, wherein the electrode connected to the input of the electrode driver and an electrode connected to an output of the electrode driver contact a human body part (input of the electrode driver is connected to one electrode and output of the electrode driver drives the electrode [0049]; drive one electrode using an electrode driver to a human body that is in contact with the electrode [0079] Figure 5 shows electrode 112 is input of the electrode driver 413, and output of the electrode driver is electrode 113 which comes in contact with a human body part 430 , 9, and 10).
Of claim 5, wherein the electrode connected to the input of the electrode driver and an electrode connected to an output of the electrode driver contact different human body parts (Two limb leads [0008]; [0140]).
Of claim 8, wherein at least one of the two amplifiers of the electrocardiogram measurement apparatus is a single-ended input amplifier (Figure 9 electrocardiogram using one single-ended input amplifier and one differential amplifier [0076]).
Of claim 9, wherein at least one of the two amplifiers of the electrocardiogram measurement apparatus is a differential amplifier (Figure 9 electrocardiogram using one single-ended input amplifier and one differential amplifier [0076]).
Of claim 11, wherein the electrode driver is a band-pass filter (electrode driver may have a frequency characteristic of band pass, described as band pass filter [0049]).
Of claim 12, wherein the electrode driver is a constant voltage source, and the third electrode is connected to an output of the constant voltage source instead of the input of the electrode driver (Figure 10 shows constant voltage source 1013 outputting the voltage via electrode 112 to body part 430; one constant voltage source is used as one electrode driver, driving voltage to a human body part in contact with the electrode [0078]; [0096]).
Of claim 13, wherein the electrocardiogram measurement apparatus obtains six electrocardiogram lead signals (v1-v6 [0039]).
Of claim 14, wherein the electrocardiogram measurement apparatus displays the six electrocardiogram lead signals on a screen of a smartphone (leads displayed on smartphone [0114]).
Of claim 15, wherein one electrode of the electrocardiogram measurement apparatus contacts a left leg (left leg [0039]).
Of claim 16, further comprising a current detector, wherein the electrocardiogram measurement apparatus starts an electrocardiogram measurement when the current detector detects contact of both hands (when an event of touching two electrodes by both hands occurs and the current detector generates an output signal, the microcontroller is activated to power the electrocardiogram circuit to perform electrocardiogram measurement [0110]).
Of claim 17, further comprising a photoplethysmograph, wherein the electrocardiogram measurement apparatus starts an electrocardiogram measurement when the photoplethysmograph detects an occurrence of an arrhythmia and generates an alarm (PPG and electrocardiogram measurement apparatus are installed together on a watch or ring, the PPG may generate an alarm signal upon detecting occurrence of arrhythmia symptoms, and the user who receives the alarm signal can measure the electrocardiogram using the electrocardiogram measurement apparatus [0127]).
Claims 6-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Qin,” US 2023/0172548 (hereinafter Qin).
Regarding to claims 6-7, Hwang teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above.
Hwang does not further disclose following limitations:
Of claim 6, wherein the input of the electrode driver is connected to a central point of one voltage divider and receives signals from two electrodes among the first, second, and third electrodes.
Of claim 7, wherein the input of the electrode driver is connected to a central point of three resistors and receives signals from the first, second, and third electrodes (three resistors at one point
Of claim 10, wherein the electrode driver is an amplifier
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in electrocardiogram measurement apparatus, Qin teaches ECG device discloses following limitations:
Of claim 6, wherein the input of the electrode driver is connected to a central point of one voltage divider and receives signals from two electrodes among the first, second, and third electrodes (voltage output 503 is a Wilson voltage acting as a central point and receiving from electrodes 115-3 to 115-5).
Of claim 7, wherein the input of the electrode driver is connected to a central point of three resistors and receives signals from the first, second, and third electrodes (three resistors at one point, 500 amplifier acts as driver and its input is connected to a central point of three resistors 506 connected to electrodes Figure 5).
Of claim 10, wherein the electrode driver is an amplifier (operational amplifier driving the current through ECG electrodes [0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify smart watch as taught by Hwang to incorporate teaching of Qin, since using amplifier to drive electrodes and configuring a central point of voltage divider using resistors to receive signals from electrodes were well known in the art as taught by Qin. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Hwang with no change in their respective functions, using Wilson Central Terminal and using operational amplifier to drive the electrodes, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide circuits of ECG using resistive components to obtain a more accurate measure of a contact impedance ([0017]), and determine which hand the device is worn ([0116]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Galm et al.,” US 2019/0223733 (hereinafter Galm).
Regarding to claim 18, Hwang teaches all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above.
Hwang teaches wearable electrocardiogram apparatus (watch [0105]), but does not further disclose wherein the electrocardiogram measurement apparatus stores, in a memory of the electrocardiogram measurement apparatus, a parameter indicating a hand on which the electrocardiogram measurement apparatus is worn.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in electrocardiogram measurement apparatus, Galm teaches wearable monitoring device wherein the electrocardiogram measurement apparatus stores, in a memory of the electrocardiogram measurement apparatus (a memory store information [0034], [0039]), a parameter indicating a hand on which the electrocardiogram measurement apparatus is worn (identify whether it is worn in left or right [0116]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify smart watch as taught by Hwang to incorporate teaching of Galm, since wearable device with memory for storing information and determining which hand the device is worn was well known in the art as taught by Galm. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Hwang with no change in their respective functions, implementing a memory in the smart watch and configuring processor to perform determination of which hand the device worn, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to store various functionalities and information for processing data ([0046]) and determine which hand the device is worn ([0116]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claim 19, Hwang and Galm together teach all limitations of claim 18 as set forth above.
Galm further teaches wherein the electrocardiogram measurement apparatus selects calculation formulas according to the parameter indicating the wearing hand stored in the memory and calculates and obtains additional electrocardiogram lead signals (recognize key components of the ECG signals, orientation of QRS complex and use software algorithms to identify whether the mobile electronic device is being worn on the right or left hand, the device automatically determine whether the user is wearing device on right or left hand and adjust accordingly to correctly orientate the ECG signal prior to processing [0116]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA J PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 am - 3 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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at 571-272-2714. 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.
/PATRICIA J PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights