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 .
Status of Claims
The remarks filed on 16JAN2026 have been entered and considered.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-10, 12-17, & 22-25 are currently pending.
Claims 1 & 10 have been amended.
Claims 24-25 have been added.
No claims have been canceled.
No new matter has been added by the applicant.
Therefore, claims 1, 3-6, 9-10, 12-17, & 22-25 are under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16JAN2026 regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and have been found to be persuasive. Therefore, the 101 rejections has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 1, 3-6, 9-10, 12-17, & 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 3-6, 9-10, 12-17, & 22-25 further fail to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention
Regarding Claims 1, 10, 15-17, & 22-25:
The term “emotional stress event” is not enabled by the specification since it isn’t established how the emotional stress event is detected. In the specifications, Applicant’s own data seem to suggest difficulty associated with correlating emotional stress to lactate measurements in [0090] and Fig. 5 since the specification states that a lactate spike may be correlated to an emotional event. The specification does not provide details on how the emotional events can be detected. Therefore the disclosure is not enabling of how would you correlate an emotional event to a lactate spike.
Claims 3-6, 9, & 25 are further rejected for depending upon the rejected claim 1.
Claims 12-17 & 22-24 are further rejected for depending upon the rejected claim 10.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-10, 12-17, & 22-25 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.
Regarding Claims 1 & 10:
The claims recite “if the processor determines that the user is sleeping, eating, or exercising, the processor determines that the lactate concentration spike is not correlated to an emotional stress event, and if the processor determines that the user is not sleeping, eating, or exercising, the processor determines that the lactate concentration spike is correlated to an emotional stress event;” in Lines 28-33 or Claim 1 and Lines 19-24 of claim 10. The term “emotional stress event” is a subjective term and therefore lacks a quantifiable or measurable boundary. Paragraph [0018] of the USPGPub. version of the specification discloses the following:
Emotional stress events that may be identified by the sensing systems and methods of the present disclosure include, but are not limited to, arguments, fights, relationship issues, emotional or physical trauma, terror, fear, paranoia, anxiety, and the like.
Arguments, fights, relationship issues, emotional trauma, terror, fear, paranoia, anxiety are subjective emotional events or conditions. Further, the claim oversimplifies the lactate cycle by assuming the device is capable of automatically determining a correlation to emotional stress events solely based on ruling out certain criteria such as eating and exercise. The claims do not account for other medical, emotional, or physiological events (i.e. taking medication or weather). Therefore, it is unclear what differentiates the boundaries from an emotional stress event or standard daily fluctuation, physiological stressors not captured by the sensors, etc. Because the scope of the claim relies on subjective interpretation a person skilled in the art cannot determine the boundaries of the claimed invention.
Claims 3-6, 9, 12-17, & 22-25 are further rejected for depending upon the rejected claims 1 & 10.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megan Fedorky whose telephone number is 571-272-2117. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 3PM-11PM ET.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached on Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM ET. 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.
/MEGAN T FEDORKY/
Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/UNSU JUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights