Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 30, 2021

2020004966 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2021)

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. 15/013,912 02/02/2016 Zongyi Liu 358604.02 6598 69316 7590 04/30/2021 MICROSOFT CORPORATION ONE MICROSOFT WAY REDMOND, WA 98052 EXAMINER MALAMUD, DEBORAH LESLIE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3792 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/30/2021 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): chriochs@microsoft.com jkarr@microsoft.com usdocket@microsoft.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ZONGYI LIU, HAITHEM ALBADAWI, and SHUNAN LI Appeal 2020-004966 Application 15/013,912 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final decision rejecting claims 1–5 and 8–13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC as the sole real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-004966 Application 15/013,912 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Specification Appellant’s disclosure relates to wearable electronic devices that measure heart rate and an improvement to such a device to mitigate errors in the detection of the heart rate. Spec. ¶¶12, 15. The Claims Claims 1–5 and 8–13 are rejected. Final Act. 1; Ans. 5 (withdrawing the rejection against claims 6 and 7). According to the Examiner, claims 14–20 are cancelled, and claims 21–34 are withdrawn from consideration. Id. at 1–2. According to Appellant, claims 14–27 are cancelled, and claims 28–34 are withdrawn from consideration. Appeal Br. 23–25. Regardless of whether claims 21–27 are cancelled or withdrawn, they are not before us. Only claims 1–5 and 8–13 are before us.2 Independent claim 1 is the sole independent claim and reproduced below. 1. A computing device, comprising: a hardware sensor interface configured to receive a machine-readable heart rate signal from a heart rate sensor and configured to receive a machine-readable activity strain signal from an activity-strain sensor, the machine-readable activity- strain signal indicating relative strenuousness of an activity performed by a wearer of the computing device; and a heart rate reporting machine including a computer processor configured to: estimate a first candidate heart rate of the wearer based on the machine-readable heart rate signal by applying a first heart rate estimation approach to a time 2 Appellant argues that independent “claim 28 as well as dependent claims 29–34 should not have been restricted.” Appeal Br. 18. As the Examiner correctly notes, however, that issue is not before the Board. Ans. 9; 37 CFR § 1.144 (review of restriction requirement is a petitionable matter). Appeal 2020-004966 Application 15/013,912 3 domain representation of the machine-readable heart rate signal; determine that the first candidate heart rate of the wearer, as previously estimated via the first heart rate estimation approach, is inconsistent with the relative strenuousness of the activity performed by the wearer of the computing device based on the machine-readable activity-strain signal; and output a second candidate heart rate of the wearer, the second candidate heart rate being different from the first candidate heart rate, by applying a second heart rate estimation approach different than the first heart rate estimation approach to a frequency domain representation of the same machine-readable heart rate signal used to previously estimate the first candidate heart rate via the first heart rate estimation approach. Appeal Br. 20. The Examiner’s Rejection The Examiner rejected claims 1–5 and 8–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US 2014/0278139 A1, published Sept. 18, 2014 (“Hong”). Final Act. 3; Ans. 5 (withdrawing the rejection against claims 6 and 7). DISCUSSION Hong discloses “a method of tracking a user’s physiological activity using a worn biometric monitoring device (BMD).” Spec. ¶8. “The BMD has one or more sensors providing output data indicative of the user’s physiological activity.” Id. The Examiner found that Hong discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 3–4 (citing Hong ¶¶8, 18, 54, 59–62, 116, Figs. 2, 7). Appeal 2020-004966 Application 15/013,912 4 Appellant challenges the Examiner’s findings that Hong discloses the following limitations of claim 1: “determin[ing] that the first candidate heart rate of the wearer, as previously estimated via the first heart rate estimation approach, is inconsistent with the relative strenuousness of the activity performed by the wearer of the computing device based on the machine-readable activity-strain signal”; and “applying a second heart rate estimation approach different than the first heart rate estimation approach to a frequency domain representation of the same machine-readable heart rate signal used to previously estimate the first candidate heart rate via the first heart rate estimation approach.” Appeal Br. 9–14. For these limitations, the Examiner relies on paragraphs 18, 61, 62, and/or 116 of Hong. See Final Act. 4 (citing Hong ¶¶18, 116); Ans. 6 (citing Hong ¶¶61–62). Appellant concedes that “the cited portions of Hong describe using both time-domain and frequency-domain signal analysis,” but Appellant argues that Hong “uses only one [such] analysis to estimate the wearer’s heart rate based on the current activity,” as determined by the Hong system. Appeal Br. 11 (citing Hong ¶¶54, 62). Appellant’s arguments are persuasive. Hong discloses: Some data processing algorithms require more processing power and hence consume more energy, and such algorithms should be used only when needed for accuracy. As an example, activity subtype modes producing periodic signals with large amplitudes or signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) may be processed inexpensively in the time domain, while other sub-type modes producing low amplitudes or signal-to-noise ratios may need to be processed with a computationally demanding algorithm in the frequency domain. Appeal 2020-004966 Application 15/013,912 5 Hong ¶54. Hence, Hong’s “[m]ethod 300 starts by analyzing sensor output data to determine that the user is engaged in a first activity that produces output data that has a relatively high SNR.” Id. ¶61. “Method 300 proceeds to quantify a physiological metric, e.g., step count or heart rate, by analyzing a first set of sensor output data in the time domain.” Id. (emphasis added). “Method 300 also involves analyzing subsequent sensor output data to determine that the user is engaged in a second activity that produces a relatively low SNR in the subsequent sensor output data (in comparison to the prior sensor output data).” Id. For this second activity having a relatively low SNR, Hong quantifies the physiological metric (e.g., heart rate) “by processing the second set of sensor output data using a frequency domain analysis.” Id. (emphasis added). The Examiner responds that, in Hong, “if a signal is noisy (low SNR), that is the system determining that the first candidate heart rate is ‘inconsistent with the relative strenuousness of the activity performed by the wearer’ as in the claim.” Ans. 6. However, the evidence does not support the Examiner’s characterization of Hong. As just noted, with reference to paragraph 61, Hong describes both time domain and frequency domain analyses but applies them to separate data. Hong ¶61. Hong does not describe (as the Examiner’s position seems to suggest) applying time domain analysis to data collected during an activity for which frequency domain analysis should be applied, then recognizing the error in such an approach, and ultimately applying frequency domain analysis to the same data. Rather, in Hong, first the activity is determined, and then, based on that activity, either time domain analysis or frequency domain signal analysis (but not both) is applied to the data collected during that activity. Appeal 2020-004966 Application 15/013,912 6 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as that of claims 2–5 and 8–13, which ultimately depend from claim 1. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 8–13 102(a)(1) Hong 1–5, 8–13 REVERSED