Patent Application 18171460 - MEASUREMENT APPARATUS MEASUREMENT METHOD AND - Rejection
Patent Application 18171460 - MEASUREMENT APPARATUS MEASUREMENT METHOD AND
Title: MEASUREMENT APPARATUS, MEASUREMENT METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY STORAGE MEDIUM
Application Information
- Invention Title: MEASUREMENT APPARATUS, MEASUREMENT METHOD, AND NON-TRANSITORY STORAGE MEDIUM
- Application Number: 18171460
- Submission Date: 2025-05-14T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2023-02-20T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2023-02-20T00:00:00.000Z
- National Class: 600
- National Sub-Class: 301000
- Examiner Employee Number: 93818
- Art Unit: 3792
- Tech Center: 3700
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 1
- 103 Rejections: 1
Cited Patents
The following patents were cited in the rejection:
Office Action Text
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [0047] (using the Pg Pub for paragraph numbers) recites “For example, AN(BV) is represented by Expression (1) below, where AN(BV) represents the activity level of the autonomic nerve at a respiratory rate BV, RRHF(BV) represents the total sum of the power spectrums of the high-frequency components,” then in expression (1) it recites AN(BV) =
B
R
L
F
(
B
V
)
B
R
H
F
(
B
V
)
. There doesn’t seem to a be a mention of what the “BR” is and it is unclear what the difference between RRHF and BRHF is.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “a second biometric sensor configured to measures a respiratory rate”.
Claim 1 recites “an activity level analysis unit configured to analyzes an activity level”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“differential operation unit” in claim 1 see [0041] including “The controller 20 controls the units of the measurement apparatus 10 respectively. The controller 20 is implemented by, for example, causing a central processing unit (CPU), a micro processing unit (MPU), or the like to execute a program (for example, the program according to the present application) that is stored in a storage (not illustrated) by using a random access memory (RAM) or the like as a work area.”; [0042] including “The controller 20 includes a biological information acquisition unit 21, a differential operation unit 22, an activity level analysis unit 23, an activity level correction unit 24, an activity level output unit 25, and a communication controller 26.”
“activity level analysis unit” in claim 1 see [0041]-[0042]
“activity level correction unit” in claim 1 see [0041]-[0042]
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.
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 1-6 are rejected under 101 see the analysis below.
Step 1
The invention claimed in claims 1-6 are directed to statutory subject matter as the claims recite a mental process and/or mathematical concept.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Claims 1, 5-6, the recited step of “a differential operation unit configured to calculate a differential value of a periodic feature of the biological signal; an activity level analysis unit configured to analyzes an activity level of an autonomic nerve of the living body based on the differential value of the periodic feature of the biological signal; and an activity level correction unit configured to correct the activity level of the autonomic nerve of the living body by eliminating a component that is caused by respiration of the living body and that is included in the activity level of the autonomic nerve of the living body, based on the respiratory rate of the living body per unit time.” is directed to a mental process of performing concepts in the human mind (including by a human using the aid of pen and paper) and/or the application of a mathematical relationships. For example, this limitation simply amounts to the mental process of a clinician reading a data printout and making a mental determination as differential/variability value of the data, determine a autonomic activity based on the differential/variability value and correct the autonomic activity by correcting/adjusting the autonomic activity; and/or, receiving the data and applying mathematical relationships determining a differential/variability of the data, determine a autonomic activity based on the differential/variability value (such as using an FFT and PSD, Applicants Expression 2) and correct the autonomic activity by correcting/adjusting the autonomic activity (Applicants expression 3).
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Claims 1, 5-6, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim includes the additional elements of “a first biometric sensor configured to measure, as a biological signal, at least one of a brain wave signal and a pulse wave signal of a living body; a second biometric sensor configured to measures a respiratory rate of the living body per unit time;”. The steps of “measure . . .” amounts to insignificant, extra-solution activity in that the it is data gathering. The processor (i.e., “processor”, “computer processor”, “cloud-computing device”, “mobile device”, “user device”, “operation unit”, “analysis unit”) in computing steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determining outputs from inputs) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Regarding Claims 1, 5-6, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As with step 2A, Prong 2 above, the additional elements of “a first biometric sensor configured to measure, as a biological signal, at least one of a brain wave signal and a pulse wave signal of a living body; a second biometric sensor configured to measures a respiratory rate of the living body per unit time;”. The steps of “measure . . .” amounts to insignificant, extra-solution activity in that the it is data gathering. The processor (i.e., “processor”, “computer processor”, “cloud-computing device”, “mobile device”, “user device”, “operation unit”, “analysis unit”) in computing steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determining outputs from inputs) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Additionally, per the Berkheimer requirement: the respiration sensor, brain wave/pulse wave signal sensor and processor: (1) Nan see citations below; (2) Keen see recitations below; (3) US 20170231490 to Toth et al. [0185] processor receives data for processing using algorithm, [0229] including “one or more patch module pairs configured to monitor EKG, heart rate, heart rate variability, breathing rate,”, Figs. 1A-2, 4A see also [0087]-[0090], [0100], [0183], [0258], [0275]; (4) US 20170095670 to Ghaffari et al. see [0027]-[0028] data gathered by sensors sent to processor, [0030]-[0032] including “electrodes and electrode arrays for measuring electrocardiogram (ECG) waveforms, heart rate, heart rate variability, electromyography (EMG) from distinct muscle groups (e.g. tibialis anterior muscle), electroencephalograms (EEG), electro-oculagrams, skin conductivity and galvanic skin response; Strain gauges for measuring pulse waveforms from superficial arteries and respiration patterns;” see also [0067], [0070]-[0071], [0112], Fig. 3. As such the elements are shown to be WRC.
The claim limitations when viewed individually and in combination therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are therefore ineligible.
Claims 2-3 only further define elements of the model (i.e., only further define the mental process/mathematical concept). Therefore, the claims do not include any additional elements that show integration into a practical application and do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
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.
(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, 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20100228139 to Nanba et al. (hereinafter Nan).
Regarding Claim 1, and interpretation of Nan disclose a measurement apparatus comprising:
a first biometric sensor configured to measure, as a biological signal, at least one of a pulse wave signal of a living body ([0017] including “It is noted that a signal for indicating a heartbeat variation includes a signal which changes according to the heartbeat variation such as a signal of electrocardiography, a signal of pulse wave, . . . the sensor which detects a signal for indicating the heartbeat variation includes a pulse wave sensor (plethysmograph), an electrocardiography sensor (electrocardiograph), a heart rate meter, a pulsometer, a blood flow meter,”, [0074] including “pulse wave signals measured by the pulse wave sensor 1”);
a second biometric sensor configured to measures a respiratory rate of the living body per unit time ([0175]-[0176] including “a signal from the respiration sensor.”, [0177]-[0178] including “the respiration has a frequency” see also [0141]-[0143]; respiration frequency is respiration per unit time);
a differential operation unit configured to calculate a differential value of a periodic feature of the biological signal ([0014] including “variation component of heart rate (heart rate variability: HRV, or heartbeat fluctuation or variation)”, [0049] including "an index indicating an autonomic nerve activity", [0075]-[0077] including " the low frequency components of 0.04 to 0.15 Hz, and the high frequency components of 0.15 to 0.4 Hz are extracted from the result of the frequency analysis. At this time, as an index . . . , low frequency components/high frequency components (i.e., LF/HF) is obtained.", [0177]-[0178]);
an activity level analysis unit configured to analyzes an activity level of an autonomic nerve of the living body based on the differential value of the periodic feature of the biological signal ([0049] including "an index indicating an autonomic nerve activity", [0075]-[0077] including " the low frequency components of 0.04 to 0.15 Hz, and the high frequency components of 0.15 to 0.4 Hz are extracted from the result of the frequency analysis. At this time, as an index . . . , low frequency components/high frequency components (i.e., LF/HF) is obtained." see also [0156], [0177]-[0178]; recites determining LF/HF which represents the autonomic nerve activity); and
an activity level correction unit configured to correct the activity level of the autonomic nerve of the living body by eliminating a component that is caused by respiration of the living body and that is included in the activity level of the autonomic nerve of the living body, based on the respiratory rate of the living body per unit time ([0049] including "an index indicating an autonomic nerve activity", [0075]-[0077] including " the low frequency components of 0.04 to 0.15 Hz, and the high frequency components of 0.15 to 0.4 Hz are extracted from the result of the frequency analysis. At this time, as an index . . . , low frequency components/high frequency components (i.e., LF/HF) is obtained.", [0177] including “the respiration has a frequency of about 0.25 Hz, thus having no influence on the detection of RLS. In cases where the respiration becomes slowly . . . the respiration is overlapped on the low frequency components effective in detecting RLS, thus potentially affecting the detection of RLS”, [0178] including “Thus, for instance, the following is desirable: excluding the frequency components resulting from the respiration using a frequency-dependent filter; then, RLS is determined.” See also [0175]-[0176]; Nan recites using frequency dependent filter when the respiration rate slows down).
Regarding Claim 5, an interpretation of Nan discloses a measurement method comprising:
measuring, as a biological signal, at least one of a pulse wave signal of a living body ([0017] including “It is noted that a signal for indicating a heartbeat variation includes a signal which changes according to the heartbeat variation such as a signal of electrocardiography, a signal of pulse wave, . . . the sensor which detects a signal for indicating the heartbeat variation includes a pulse wave sensor (plethysmograph), an electrocardiography sensor (electrocardiograph), a heart rate meter, a pulsometer, a blood flow meter,”, [0074] including “pulse wave signals measured by the pulse wave sensor 1”);
measuring a respiratory rate of the living body per unit time ([0175]-[0176] including “a signal from the respiration sensor.”, [0177]-[0178] including “the respiration has a frequency” see also [0141]-[0143]; respiration frequency is respiration per unit time);
calculating a differential value of a periodic feature of the biological signal ([0014] including “variation component of heart rate (heart rate variability: HRV, or heartbeat fluctuation or variation)”, [0049] including "an index indicating an autonomic nerve activity", [0075]-[0077] including " the low frequency components of 0.04 to 0.15 Hz, and the high frequency components of 0.15 to 0.4 Hz are extracted from the result of the frequency analysis. At this time, as an index . . . , low frequency components/high frequency components (i.e., LF/HF) is obtained.", [0177]-[0178]);
analyzing an activity level of an autonomic nerve of the living body based on the differential value of the periodic feature of the biological signal ([0049] including "an index indicating an autonomic nerve activity", [0075]-[0077] including " the low frequency components of 0.04 to 0.15 Hz, and the high frequency components of 0.15 to 0.4 Hz are extracted from the result of the frequency analysis. At this time, as an index . . . , low frequency components/high frequency components (i.e., LF/HF) is obtained." see also [0156], [0177]-[0178]; recites determining LF/HF which represents the autonomic nerve activity); and
correcting the activity level of the autonomic nerve of the living body by eliminating a component that is caused by respiration of the living body and that is included in the activity level of the autonomic nerve of the living body based on the respiratory rate of the living body per unit time ([0049] including "an index indicating an autonomic nerve activity", [0075]-[0077] including " the low frequency components of 0.04 to 0.15 Hz, and the high frequency components of 0.15 to 0.4 Hz are extracted from the result of the frequency analysis. At this time, as an index . . . , low frequency components/high frequency components (i.e., LF/HF) is obtained.", [0177] including “the respiration has a frequency of about 0.25 Hz, thus having no influence on the detection of RLS. In cases where the respiration becomes slowly . . . the respiration is overlapped on the low frequency components effective in detecting RLS, thus potentially affecting the detection of RLS”, [0178] including “Thus, for instance, the following is desirable: excluding the frequency components resulting from the respiration using a frequency-dependent filter; then, RLS is determined.” See also [0175]-[0176]; Nan recites using frequency dependent filter when the respiration rate slows down).
Regarding Claim 6, an interpretation of Nan discloses a non-transitory storage medium that stores a program that causes a computer ([0019]-[0020], [0045], [0047]; recites program/software to run on a computing element) to execute:
measuring, as a biological signal, at least one of a pulse wave signal of a living body ([0017] including “It is noted that a signal for indicating a heartbeat variation includes a signal which changes according to the heartbeat variation such as a signal of electrocardiography, a signal of pulse wave, . . . the sensor which detects a signal for indicating the heartbeat variation includes a pulse wave sensor (plethysmograph), an electrocardiography sensor (electrocardiograph), a heart rate meter, a pulsometer, a blood flow meter,”, [0074] including “pulse wave signals measured by the pulse wave sensor 1”);
measuring a respiratory rate of the living body per unit time ([0175]-[0176] including “a signal from the respiration sensor.”, [0177]-[0178] including “the respiration has a frequency” see also [0141]-[0143]; respiration frequency is respiration per unit time);
calculating a differential value of a periodic feature of the biological signal ([0014] including “variation component of heart rate (heart rate variability: HRV, or heartbeat fluctuation or variation)”, [0049] including "an index indicating an autonomic nerve activity", [0075]-[0077] including " the low frequency components of 0.04 to 0.15 Hz, and the high frequency components of 0.15 to 0.4 Hz are extracted from the result of the frequency analysis. At this time, as an index . . . , low frequency components/high frequency components (i.e., LF/HF) is obtained.", [0177]-[0178]);
analyzing an activity level of an autonomic nerve of the living body based on the differential value of the periodic feature of the biological signal ([0049] including "an index indicating an autonomic nerve activity", [0075]-[0077] including " the low frequency components of 0.04 to 0.15 Hz, and the high frequency components of 0.15 to 0.4 Hz are extracted from the result of the frequency analysis. At this time, as an index . . . , low frequency components/high frequency components (i.e., LF/HF) is obtained." see also [0156], [0177]-[0178]; recites determining LF/HF which represents the autonomic nerve activity); and
correcting the activity level of the autonomic nerve of the living body by eliminating a component that is caused by respiration of the living body and that is included in the activity level of the autonomic nerve of the living body based on the respiratory rate of the living body per unit time ([0049] including "an index indicating an autonomic nerve activity", [0075]-[0077] including " the low frequency components of 0.04 to 0.15 Hz, and the high frequency components of 0.15 to 0.4 Hz are extracted from the result of the frequency analysis. At this time, as an index . . . , low frequency components/high frequency components (i.e., LF/HF) is obtained.", [0177] including “the respiration has a frequency of about 0.25 Hz, thus having no influence on the detection of RLS. In cases where the respiration becomes slowly . . . the respiration is overlapped on the low frequency components effective in detecting RLS, thus potentially affecting the detection of RLS”, [0178] including “Thus, for instance, the following is desirable: excluding the frequency components resulting from the respiration using a frequency-dependent filter; then, RLS is determined.” See also [0175]-[0176]; Nan recites using frequency dependent filter when the respiration rate slows down).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nan in further view of US 20050240087 to Keenan et al. (hereinafter Keen).
Regarding Claim 4, an interpretation of Nan discloses the above including a respiration sensor (see the rejection of claim 1).
An interpretation of Nan may not explicitly disclose wherein the respiration sensor is mounted on one of an glabella portion, a nose, a mouth, a throat, and a chest of the living body.
However, in the same field of endeavor (medical diagnostic systems), Keen teaches wherein respiration sensor is mounted on one of a nose, a mouth and a chest of the living body ([0049] including “Respiratory sensors gather signals sensitive to respiratory rate . . . Such sensors may directly measure air flows or volumes at the mouth and nose using one of the many known technologies for such measurements. Preferably, the respiratory sensors are less intrusive. A preferred class of such sensors, relying on the known two-compartment model of breathing, measure indicia of thorax and abdominal sizes, such as volumes, cross sectional areas, circumferences, diameters, and the like”, Figs. 1a-1c see also [0050] cardiac sensing, [0061] processor, [0064]-[0066] additional discussion incorporating by reference other references on a particular respiration sensor, [0116]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the respiration sensor recited by Nan to more specifically include a respiration sensor mounted at a particular location on the body as recited by Keen because it is merely combining prior art elements (respiration sensor of Nan with more specific location of respiration sensor as recited by Keen) according to known methods to yield the predictable results of sensing the respiration of the user.
Subject Matter Allowable Over the Prior Art
While claims 2-3 remain rejected under other grounds as discussed above. However, claims 2-3 recite specific additional elements, such as “by using the respiratory rate of the living body per unit time and a respiratory rate in a steady state” from claim 2, for the correction of the autonomic activity level. While the prior discloses “correcting” the activity level based on the respiration rate the prior art doesn’t disclose the specifics claimed in claims 2-3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fred Shaffer et al. An Overview of Heart Rate Variability Metrics and Norms. Front Public Health. 2017 Sep 28;5:258. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00258. PMID: 29034226; PMCID: PMC5624990. viewed on 5/3/25 – see Tables 1-3 showing various HRV metrics in time domain, frequency domain, and Non-Linear Measures
Alberto Hernando et al., "Inclusion of Respiratory Frequency Information in Heart Rate Variability Analysis for Stress Assessment," in IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 1016-1025, July 2016, doi: 10.1109/JBHI.2016.2553578 viewed on 5/7/25 – see conclusion “When respiratory rate information is used to guide HRV analysis, it allows us to avoid the overestimation of sympathetic activity and the underestimation of parasympathetic activity that occurs when the respiration rate lies in the LF band, as well as the underestimation of parasympathetic activity when the respiratory frequency is above 0.35 Hz.”
Raquel Bailon et al., "Analysis of Heart Rate Variability Using Time-Varying Frequency Bands Based on Respiratory Frequency," 2007 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Lyon, France, 2007, pp. 6674-6677, doi: 10.1109/IEMBS.2007.4353891. viewed on 5/7/25 see abstract
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R MOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-3506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9:30 am - 5:30 pm).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Kish can be reached at (571) 272-5554. 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.
/James Moss/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
(Ad) Transform your business with AI in minutes, not months
✓
Custom AI strategy tailored to your specific industry needs
✓
Step-by-step implementation with measurable ROI
✓
5-minute setup that requires zero technical skills
Trusted by 1,000+ companies worldwide
