Vios Medical, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 19, 20212020006760 (P.T.A.B. May. 19, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/961,693 12/07/2015 Carlos A. Ricci 173947.10 4380 173947 7590 05/19/2021 Murata Vios, Inc. C/O KEATING & BENNETT, LLP 1800 Alexander Bell Drive SUITE 200 Reston, VA 20191 EXAMINER LERNER, MARTIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2657 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/19/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): JKEATING@KBIPLAW.COM pMedley@kbiplaw.com uspto@kbiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _______________ Ex parte CARLOS A. RICCI and VLADIMIR V. KOVTUN _______________ Appeal 2020-006760 Application 14/961,693 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9–19, and 23–26. The Examiner has objected to claims 3, 5, 7, 8, and 20–22 as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but has indicated these claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. Final Act. 11. Oral arguments were heard on May 10, 2021. A transcript of the hearing will be placed in the record in due course. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies Vios Medical, Inc. (now Murata Vios, Inc.) as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-006760 Application 14/961,693 2 We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to decomposing a quasi-periodic signal (e.g., a cardiac signal) into a plurality of component signals, processing the component signals, generating a series of states defined by phase relationships between the component signals, and generating a representation of the original quasi-periodic signal from the component signals, using the generated series of states. See Spec. ¶¶ 2, 6–7, 53, 57, 61, 120–128, 142–145, Figs. 7A, 7B, 7D, 7E, 10A, 10B, 10D, Abstract. Figure 7D is illustrative and is reproduced below. Appeal 2020-006760 Application 14/961,693 3 Figure 7D shows two component signals (707, 712), each segmented into quarter-phases labeled A, B, C, D, and a, b, c, d, respectively. Spec. ¶¶ 23, 120. According to the Specification, the quarter-phase components may be characterized by various criteria, such as beginning or ending at a zero crossing, maximum, or minimum value, and have its amplitude trending positive or negative. See Spec. ¶ 106. As shown in Figure 7D, the quarter- phase of component signal (707) labeled “A” occurs during quarter-phase “a,” “b,” and part of quarter-phase “c” of component signal (712). This phase relationship may be expressed by the series of states Aa, Ab, Ac (identified as 721, 722, and 723). Spec. ¶ 120. Appellant describes that in a disclosed embodiment, the component signals and their associated characteristics may be stored into a data structure, which may be used to reconstruct the original signal. Spec. ¶ 53. According to the Specification, advantages of the disclosed approach allow for filtering of insignificant or undesirable data so as not to consume extra storage space; identifying key features for storage by adjusting decomposition filters; and increasing the ability to manipulate the component signals. See Spec. ¶¶ 53–54. Claims 1, 2, and 4 are independent. Claim 2 is illustrative (see Appeal Br. 3–7; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)) of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics: 2. A computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining a digitized signal having a series of digital values of a quasi-periodic waveform, wherein the quasi-periodic waveform includes a cardiac signal; generating a series of states defined by phase relationships between a plurality of frequency components of the cardiac signal based on the series of digital values; and Appeal 2020-006760 Application 14/961,693 4 automatically generating and outputting representations of segments of the cardiac signal based on the series of states. The Examiner’s Rejections 1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 12–16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Addison et al. (US 7,171,269 B1; Jan. 30, 2007) (“Addison”) and Hasson et al. (US 2004/0093192 A1; May 13, 2004) (“Hasson”). Final Act. 3–7. 2. Claims 9–11, 17–19, and 23–26 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Addison, Hasson, and Wingeier et al. (US 2004/0054297 A1; Mar. 18, 2004) (“Wingeier”). Final Act. 8–10. ANALYSIS2 Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 12–16 Appellant disputes the Examiner’s findings that Addison teaches generating a series of states defined by phase relationships between a plurality of frequency components of the cardiac signal. Appeal Br. 3–7. In particular, Appellant argues that although Addison generally describes the decomposition of a cardiac signal into separate frequency components, Addison does not consider phase relationships between the frequency components and does not generate a series of states as recited in claim 2. Appeal Br. 4. Instead, Appellant asserts that Addison, as relied on by the 2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed June 10, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed September 28, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Subsequent Answer, mailed August 4, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Final Office Action, mailed June 2, 2020 (“Final Act.”), from which this Appeal is taken. Appeal 2020-006760 Application 14/961,693 5 Examiner, shows only one of the frequency components from a cardiac signal (i.e., EKG signal) and its alignment with the atrial pulse, as shown by an aorta pressure signal. Appeal Br. 3–6 (citing Addison, Figs. 13(a)–(f)). As such, Appellant argues that Addison fails to teach generating a series of states defined by phase relationships between a plurality of frequency components. Appeal Br. 4–6. In response, the Examiner explains that Figures 13(a)–(f) of Addison “display . . . a phase to frequency relationship for a heartbeat, and how lines of zero phase correlate with the pulse position of the heartbeat.” Ans. 12. In particular, the Examiner finds that Figure 13(f) “compares ‘a series of states’ relating to an increase of aortic pressure representing the heartbeat of Figure 13(a) to lines of zero phase in a plurality of frequency bands of Figures 13(d) and 13(f).” Ans. 12. Still further, the Examiner finds that each pulse is a state representing an increase in aortic pressure and a series of states is represented by a series of heartbeats. Ans. 13. Addison generally relates to the analysis of medical signals and, more particularly, the decomposition of cardiac signals using wavelet transform analysis. Addison, col.1, ll. 4–6, col. 6, ll. 7–11. Addison describes the wavelet transform is used “to decompose the signal into its separate frequency components.” Addison, col. 7, ll. 51–53. Once decomposed into its frequency components, Addison describes presenting the generated information as an energy scalogram as a plot of log of the wavelet energy coefficients against the log of the bandpass center frequency, fbpc of the wavelets. Addison, col. 7, ll. 63–67; see also Addison, Figs. 5(a)–(c). The nature of underlying atrial activity can also be determined from wavelet decomposition of the EKG signal. The wavelet function gives information regarding the amplitude and, Appeal 2020-006760 Application 14/961,693 6 where appropriate, phase of the transformed signal. It is known that pressure readings taken from the aorta correlate to forms of atrial activity within the heart. Areas of localised high energy contained within the scalogram can be demonstrated to correlate with these pressure readings. This experimental result is extrapolated to mean that areas of localised high energy contained within the scalogram correlate with forms of atrial activity within the heart. Addison, col. 15, ll. 25–36. Figures 13(a), 13(c), 13(d), and 13(f) are illustrative and are reproduced below. Figure 13(a) is an aortic pressure trace. Addison, col. 5, l. 43. Appeal 2020-006760 Application 14/961,693 7 Figure 13(c) is a scalogram associated with the trace of Figure 13(a). Addison, col. 5, ll. 46–47. Figure 13(d) is a “detail of the phase part of [the] scalogram” shown in Figure 13(c). Addison, col. 5, ll. 48–49. Figure 13(f) illustrates “the correlation of aorta pressure pulse position with lines of zero phase.” Addison, col. 5, ll. 52–53. Addison explains that the scalogram of Figure 13(c) illustrates an increase in energy during an atrial pulse, as shown by the “dark blotches” at an fbpc of around 10 Hz. Addison, col. 15, ll. 40–43. Further, Addison describes “[t]here is a frequency component between 1 and 2 Hz.” Addison, col. 15, ll. 43–44 (emphasis added). The phase of the scalogram between 1 Appeal 2020-006760 Application 14/961,693 8 and 2 Hz is highlighted in Figure 13(d). Addison, col. 15, ll. 44–46. Addison further describes that lines of zero phase shown in Figure 13(d) align with the atrial pulse shown in Figure 13(a). Addison, col. 15, ll. 55– 57. This alignment is shown in Figure 13(f). Although we find Addison teaches the decomposition of a cardiac signal into separate frequency component signals (see Addison, col.7, ll. 51– 53), we find Addison does not teach generating a series of states defined by phase relationships between a plurality of frequency components. As relied on by the Examiner, Addison teaches a phase of a frequency component and its relationship to the original signal (i.e., an aortic pressure trace) rather than to another frequency component. Moreover, we disagree with the Examiner (see Ans. 13) that Addison’s atrial pulse teaches the claimed state or that Addison’s series of heartbeats teaches the claimed series of states. Further, we note that the Examiner does not rely on Hasson to teach generating a series of states defined by phase relationships between a plurality of frequency components. See Final Act. 6–7. For the reasons discussed supra, we are persuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 2. For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and, which recite similar limitations. Additionally, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 12–16, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom. Claims 9–11, 17–19, and 23–26 Claims 9–11, 17–19, and 23–26 depend directly or indirectly from one of independent claims 1, 2, and 4. The Examiner does not rely on Wingeier Appeal 2020-006760 Application 14/961,693 9 to remedy the deficiencies of Addison and Hasson, as discussed above. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed supra with respect to independent claim 2, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 9– 11, 17–19, and 23–26. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9–19, and 23–26 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 6, 12–16 103(a) Addison, Hasson 1, 2, 4, 6, 12–16 9–11, 17– 19, 23–26 103(a) Addison, Hasson, Wingeier 9–11, 17– 19, 23–26 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4, 6, 9–19, 23– 26 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation