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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 20 Aug 2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 10-11, and 15 have been amended, claims 3-7 have been canceled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-2 and 8-16 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Objection to Claims 1, 10, and 11
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 20 Aug 2025, with respect to objections to claims 1 and 10-11 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments. The objections to claims 1 and 10-11 have been withdrawn.
However, new objections to the claims are made below.
Rejection of Claims 1, 2, and 8-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 20 Aug 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-2 and 8-16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments. The rejections of claims 1-2 and 8-16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Rejection of Claims 1, 2, and 8-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 20 Aug 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Thorsten (US 20070215601 A1), as explained in further detail below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: “each of the sensor” (claim 1, line 13; claim 10, line 16) should read “each of the sensors”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 8-10, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorsten (US 20070215601 A1), in view of Sugiyama et al. (US2015/0133804, previously cited), hereinafter Sugiyama.
Regarding claim 1, Thorsten discloses a bioinformation measurement device for measuring a bioinformation of a seated person who is seated on a seat (Fig. 2, paragraphs [0006], [0010], [0016], [0032], combined sensor and heating element 1), comprising:
sensors, wherein each of the sensors outputs an electric signal according to the bioinformation (Fig. 2, paragraphs [0010], [0015]-[0016], [0033], electrode systems 5), and comprises a leading wire including a transmission path for the electric signal (Fig. 2, paragraphs [0032], printed conductors 4),
a circuit substrate comprising an input terminal connected to the leading wires of the sensors and configured to receive the electric signal from the sensors (Fig. 2, paragraph [0034], electrical terminals 7), and
a base film on which the sensors are placed (Fig. 2, paragraphs [0007], [0032], carrier film 2), wherein:
the sensors are aligned with each other across a gap in a sensor width direction in a front view of the sensors (see annotated Fig. 2 below),
the circuit substrate is disposed within the gap in a state sandwiched between the sensors and aligned with the sensors in the sensor width direction (see annotated Fig. 2 below),
each of the sensors comprises two ends in a direction orthogonal to the sensor width direction and parallel to surfaces of the sensors, and the circuit substrate is arranged between both ends of each of the sensors in the direction orthogonal to the sensor width direction and parallel to surfaces of the sensors (see annotated Fig. 2 below),
the base film includes a linking portion that links the sensors (see annotated Fig. 2 below), and
a guard ring is provided over an entire surface of the linking portion (Fig. 3, paragraphs [0025], [0038], protective layer 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
837
1003
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thorsten does not explicitly disclose an amplification unit configured to amplify the electric signal input to the input terminal. However, Sugiyama teaches a vehicle seat comprising a bioinformation measurement device (Fig. 1, paragraph [0048], heartbeat measuring device 12), comprising an amplification unit (Fig. 1, paragraph [0051], instrumentation amplifier 30) configured to amplify the electric signal input to the input terminal (paragraphs [0055]-[0056]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thorsten with the teachings of Sugiyama to include an amplification unit configured to amplify the electric signal input to the input terminal, because doing so amplifies potential signals detected by the sensor group (Sugiyama, paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claim 8, the bioinformation measurement device according to claim 1 is obvious over Thorsten and Sugiyama, as explained above. Thorsten further discloses that a length of the circuit substrate in a width direction of the seat is shorter than a length of each of the sensors in the width direction of the seat (see annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
845
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the length of the circuit substrate in a width direction of the seat shorter than a length of each of the sensors in the width direction of the seat, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, the bioinformation measurement device according to claim 1 is obvious over Thorsten and Sugiyama, as explained above. Thorsten further discloses a vehicle seat comprising the bioinformation measurement device (paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 10, Thorsten discloses a method for mounting a bioinfomation measurement device on a mounted portion, the bioinformation measurement device configured to measure a bioinformation of a seated person who is seated on a seat (Fig. 2, paragraphs [0006], [0010], [0016], [0032], combined sensor and heating element 1), wherein the bioinformation measurement device comprises:
sensors, each of the sensors being configured to output an electric signal according to the bioinformation (Fig. 2, paragraphs [0010], [0015]-[0016], [0033], electrode systems 5), and comprising a leading wire that includes a transmission path for the electric signal (Fig. 2, paragraphs [0032], printed conductors 4),
a circuit substrate comprising an input terminal connected to the leading wires of the sensors and configured to receive the electric signal from the sensors (Fig. 2, paragraph [0034], electrical terminals 7), and
a base film on which the sensors are placed (Fig. 2, paragraphs [0007], [0032], carrier film 2), wherein:
the method comprising:
attaching the sensors on the base film to be aligned with each other across a gap in a sensor width direction in a front view of the sensors (see annotated Fig. 2 below),
disposing the circuit substrate within the gap in a state sandwiched between the sensors and aligned with the sensors in the sensor width direction, wherein each of the sensors comprises two ends in a direction orthogonal to the sensor width direction and parallel to surfaces of the sensors (see annotated Fig. 2 below),
arranging the circuit substrate between both ends of each of the sensors in the direction orthogonal to the sensor width direction and parallel to surfaces of the sensors (see annotated Fig. 2 below), and
mounting the base film on which the sensors are placed on the mounted portion (paragraph [0008]), wherein:
the base film includes a linking portion that links the sensors (see annotated Fig. 2 below), and
a guard ring is provided over an entire surface of the linking portion (Fig. 3, paragraphs [0025], [0038], protective layer 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
837
1003
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thorsten does not explicitly disclose an amplification unit configured to amplify the electric signal input to the input terminal. However, Sugiyama teaches a vehicle seat comprising a bioinformation measurement device (Fig. 1, paragraph [0048], heartbeat measuring device 12), comprising an amplification unit (Fig. 1, paragraph [0051], instrumentation amplifier 30) configured to amplify the electric signal input to the input terminal (paragraphs [0055]-[0056]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thorsten with the teachings of Sugiyama to include an amplification unit configured to amplify the electric signal input to the input terminal, because doing so amplifies potential signals detected by the sensor group (Sugiyama, paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claim 12, the method according to claim 10 is obvious over Thorsten and Sugiyama, as explained above. Thorsten further discloses that a length of the circuit substrate in a width direction of the seat is shorter than a length of each of the sensors in the width direction of the seat (see annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
845
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the length of the circuit substrate in a width direction of the seat shorter than a length of each of the sensors in the width direction of the seat, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 13, the method according to claim 10 is obvious over Thorsten and Sugiyama, as explained above. Thorsten further discloses that the mounted portion is a vehicle seat (paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 14, the bioinformation measurement device according to claim 1 is obvious over Thorsten and Sugiyama, as explained above. Thorsten further discloses that the linking portion is provided at a central portion of the base film in a width direction of the base film (see annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
786
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, the bioinformation measurement device according to claim 1 is obvious over Thorsten and Sugiyama, as explained above. Thorsten further discloses that the guard ring further includes a surrounding portion that is disposed on the base film in a manner surrounding all of the sensors collectively (Fig. 3, paragraphs [0025], [0038], protective layer 6).
Regarding claim 16, the bioinformation measurement device according to claim 1 is obvious over Thorsten and Sugiyama, as explained above. Thorsten further discloses that the surrounding portion of the guard ring is provided along an outer edge portion of the base film (Fig. 3, paragraphs [0025], [0038], protective layer 6).
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorsten (US 20070215601 A1), in view of Sugiyama et al. (US2015/0133804, previously cited), hereinafter Sugiyama, and further in view of Goto et al. (WO 2015046055 A1), hereinafter Goto.
Regarding claim 2, the bioinformation measurement device according to claim 1 is obvious over Thorsten and Sugiyama, as explained above. Thorsten further discloses the seat (paragraphs [0006]-[0007], [0022]), wherein the circuit substrate is attached to the seat (paragraph [0022]).
Thorsten does not explicitly disclose that the circuit substrate is positioned at a center of the seat in a width direction of the seat. However, Goto teaches a biological-information detection device (Abstract) wherein the circuit substrate is positioned at a center of the seat in a width direction of the seat (Fig. 2, control apparatus 30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the circuit substrate at a center of the seat in a width direction of the seat, for the purpose of optimizing comfort, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 11, the method according to claim 10 is obvious over Thorsten and Sugiyama, as explained above. Thorsten further discloses the seat (paragraphs [0006]-[0007], [0022]), wherein the circuit substrate is attached to the seat (paragraph [0022]).
Thorsten does not explicitly disclose that the circuit substrate is positioned at a center of the seat in a width direction of the seat. However, Goto teaches a biological-information detection device (Abstract) wherein the circuit substrate is positioned at a center of the seat in a width direction of the seat (Fig. 2, control apparatus 30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the circuit substrate at a center of the seat in a width direction of the seat, for the purpose of optimizing comfort, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE SISON whose telephone number is (703)756-4661. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 5 pm PT, Mon - Fri.
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 at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/CHRISTINE SISON/
Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/Jennifer Pitrak McDonald/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796