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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 11, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed July 15, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-18 and 20-21 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 15 and 21 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a specified position”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites, “a specified position”. It is unclear if they are the same, for examination it will be interpreted that they are the same and claim 15 would read, “the specificized position”. Claim 21 has the same rejection.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-18 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliveira Santos et al. (US 2022/0183592 A1) (“Oliveira Santos”) in view of Rabinovich et al. (US 2018/0184920 A1) (“Rabinovich”).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Oliveira Santos discloses A method performed by a system/a system for tracking human motion, the system comprising (Abstract and entire document)
at least one sensor (FIG. 1-6 and [0142], “a plurality of sensors 21-23”), and
at least one computing device (FIG. 1-6 and [0142], “a computing device 40”),
wherein the method comprises: providing, by the at least one computing device, instructions for performing a specified movement or maintaining a specified position (FIG. 1-6 and [0147], “In this example, the first predetermined movement is a squat, which involves the lower legs or shanks 52, and the upper legs or thighs 51, and the chest 53. In this movement, the end 57 of the lower legs 52 that connects to the ankle has a known position that remains still or almost still during the entire movement.”);
analyzing, by the at least one computing device, whether there is at least one unmet condition indicating an incorrect sensor placement, wherein the at least one unmet condition is based on at least one angle between at least one first axis of reference of the at least one sensor and a vector for the specified movement or the specified position (FIG. 1-6 see FIG. 5 and [0164], “FIG. 5 illustrates the estimation of the position of a sensor 23 of the person 50 in order to determine if two sensors 22, 23 have been placed on the person swapped.” And [0166], “If the computing device 40 is expecting a different sensor arrangement, e.g. the second sensor 22 on the right lower leg 52 and the third sensor 23 on the chest 53, because a different sensor and body member correspondence is stored in the memory of the computing device 40, the interchange of sensors 22, 23 will affect the determination of the movement performed by the person 50.” And [0167], “For clarity purposes only, the first estimated position at the particular time instant represented in FIG. 5 is at the end of the vector 64 (the direction of the vector 64 corresponding to the measurements provided by the second sensor 22, the length of the vector 64 corresponding to a second predetermined length intended to represent the distance at which the second sensor 22 is expected to be from the knee 55 should it have been arranged on the right lower leg 52, and the origin of the vector 64 at the estimated position 61 of the knee 55 is because the knee 55 is the joint connecting the right upper and lower legs 51, 52 that are involved in the movement), and the second estimated position at the particular time instant represented in FIG. 5 is at the end of the vector 63.” The sensor placement is estimated based on the angle and vector of the sensors while performing a predetermined movement);
While Oliveira Santos discloses starting a motion tracking procedure and sending the data to the computing device to analyze the sensor positioning and correctness, Oliveira Santos fails to disclose in response to detecting, by the at least one computing device, presence of the at least one unmet condition, obtaining, by the at least one computing device, a list of potential reasons for the incorrect sensor placement, the list of potential reasons being hierarchically ranked, and the list of potential reasons being hierarchically ranked prior to the analyzing whether there is at least one unmet condition and prior to the detecting of the presence of the at least one unmet condition;
removing, by the at least one computing device, one or more potential reasons, from the list of potential reasons already presented to a user;
selecting, by the at least one computing device, a potential reason from one or more remaining potential reasons in the list of potential reasons;
causing, by the at least one computing device, presentation of a message comprising the selected potential reason to the user;
after the presentation to the user, repeating, by the at least one computing device, the analyzing to determine whether to cause an additional presentation to the user, wherein the analyzing comprises processing, performed by the at least one computing device, to assess at least one orientation reported by the at least one sensor;
starting, by the at least one computing device, a motion tracking procedure whereby motion data provided by the at least one sensor is wirelessly sent to and processed by the at least one computing device;
tracking, by the at least one computing device, the human motion using the motion data;
performing, by the at least one computing device, the analyzing at least once after having started the motion tracking procedure; and
stopping, by the at least one computing device, the motion tracking procedure in response to detecting, based on the analyzing, that one or more unmet conditions are present.
However, in the same field of endeavor and important for the correctness of sensor positioning, Rabinovich teaches in response to detecting, by the at least one computing device, presence of the at least one unmet condition, obtaining, by the at least one computing device, a list of potential reasons for the incorrect sensor placement, the list of potential reasons being hierarchically ranked, and the list of potential reasons being hierarchically ranked prior to the analyzing whether there is at least one unmet condition and prior to the detecting of the presence of the at least one unmet condition (Para. [0116], “When the device is presented with poor signal, the system reads the temperature sensor and if it provides low temperature values, it means the wristband is not tight enough and there is poor contact with the skin. If the sensor measures close to standard human skin temperature, then the cause for poor signal reception is incorrect placement (i.e. anatomical) of the wristband indicating that the pressure sensors are not located optimally above the artery. Note that using a temperature based skin sensor enables the device to provide different feedback to the user, e.g., “FASTEN WRISTBAND TIGHTER” when low temperature values measured, or “REORIENT SENSOR” when normal body temperature values measured.” A list of reasons is obtained and hierarchically ranked based on predetermined hierarchy. For example, if incorrect placement, the list is “fasten tighter” and “reorient sensor”, the two options are ranked based on the sensor placement and the temperature or other measurements. The list is ranked before the measuring occurs, for example, the tightness and orientation is based on temperature measurements and preset rules are made, such as high temperature means too tight, this is a set ranking before measurement. Additionally see [0013], “ where in addition to the placement and contact quality score, directional indications are displayed to the user to either: (1) move the wearable device (e.g., wristband) left or right (clockwise or counterclockwise) along the organ (e.g., wrist) to position the center of the sensor array directly over the artery to be measured; (2) move the device (e.g., wristband) up or down along the organ (e.g., hand or other limb) to position the sensor array directly over the artery to be measured; and (3) tighten the device (e.g., wristband) to bring the sensor array closer and/or in contact with the artery to be measured.” See also [0119]. Based on the temperature and other sensed data, the unmet conditions detected can be, too far right, too far left, too high, too low, too tight, too lose. A list of these is stored in the device and ranked based on the data.);
removing, by the at least one computing device, one or more potential reasons, from the list of potential reasons already presented to a user (Para. [0116], “When the device is presented with poor signal, the system reads the temperature sensor and if it provides low temperature values, it means the wristband is not tight enough and there is poor contact with the skin. If the sensor measures close to standard human skin temperature, then the cause for poor signal reception is incorrect placement (i.e. anatomical) of the wristband indicating that the pressure sensors are not located optimally above the artery. Note that using a temperature based skin sensor enables the device to provide different feedback to the user, e.g., “FASTEN WRISTBAND TIGHTER” when low temperature values measured, or “REORIENT SENSOR” when normal body temperature values measured.” Two reasons are provided 1) loose wristband and 2) incorrect placement. If temperature reading is normal, then “loose wristband” is removed from the list of reasons.);
selecting, by the at least one computing device, a potential reason from one or more remaining potential reasons in the list of potential reasons (Para. [0116], “When the device is presented with poor signal, the system reads the temperature sensor and if it provides low temperature values, it means the wristband is not tight enough and there is poor contact with the skin. If the sensor measures close to standard human skin temperature, then the cause for poor signal reception is incorrect placement (i.e. anatomical) of the wristband indicating that the pressure sensors are not located optimally above the artery. Note that using a temperature based skin sensor enables the device to provide different feedback to the user, e.g., “FASTEN WRISTBAND TIGHTER” when low temperature values measured, or “REORIENT SENSOR” when normal body temperature values measured.” Two reasons are provided 1) loose wristband and 2) incorrect placement. If loose wristband is removed from the list as discussed above, “incorrect placement” is selected.);
causing, by the at least one computing device, presentation of a message comprising the selected potential reason to the user (Para. [0116], “When the device is presented with poor signal, the system reads the temperature sensor and if it provides low temperature values, it means the wristband is not tight enough and there is poor contact with the skin. If the sensor measures close to standard human skin temperature, then the cause for poor signal reception is incorrect placement (i.e. anatomical) of the wristband indicating that the pressure sensors are not located optimally above the artery. Note that using a temperature based skin sensor enables the device to provide different feedback to the user, e.g., “FASTEN WRISTBAND TIGHTER” when low temperature values measured, or “REORIENT SENSOR” when normal body temperature values measured.” Two reasons are provided 1) loose wristband and 2) incorrect placement. Based on the reason, either “FASTEN WRISTBAND TIGHTER” OR “REORIENT SENSOR” is displayed);
after the presentation to the user, repeating, by the at least one computing device, the analyzing to determine whether to cause an additional presentation to the user, wherein the analyzing comprises processing, performed by the at least one computing device, to assess at least one orientation reported by the at least one sensor (Para. [0116] as discussed above continues to present reasons and remove reasons based on the continued analysis. See also Para. [0126], “Optionally, the device provides continuous feedback to the user as the user adjusts the position of the device including the sensor array on their person (step 300). Thus, depending on where the largest valued metrics lie on the sensor array spatial map, the device provides feedback instructions to the user to reposition the device, e.g., upwards, downwards, left, right, clockwise, counterclockwise, etc.” feedback is continuous. After presenting for example “move up” that option is unpresented and a new option may be presented. The options are ranked as discussed above. The analysis is continuous);
starting, by the at least one computing device, a motion tracking procedure whereby motion data provided by the at least one sensor is wirelessly sent to and processed by the at least one computing device ([0073], “In some embodiments, non-biological 78 sensors may include one or more motion sensors for detecting movement and acceleration of the device. The one or more motion sensors may include one or more of the following: a tile sensor 76, accelerometer 80, gyroscope 84, magnetometer 86 or other type of inertial measurement device.” See also FIG. 4-5, sensor data is wirelessly sent to a host device for processing, see at least [0070]);
tracking, by the at least one computing device, the human motion using the motion data ([0074], “Additionally, in some embodiments, sensor input from the one or more motion sensors may be used to identify motion gestures. For example, the motion sensors can be used to detect an arm raise or the position of a user's body (within a predetermined confidence level of certainty).” See also [0080] wherein imaging is interpreted as a form of motion tracking);
performing, by the at least one computing device, the analyzing at least once after having started the motion tracking procedure ([0084] discussing motion sensors as part of the blood pressure measurement device. See further [0093 – 0098] discussing the analyzing steps in addition to [0126] cited with the above limitations. Rabinovich does not explicitly state that the analyzing is performed after motion tracking begins, but discusses the analyzing after other measurements begin. Since the motion tracking is a part of the same functionality, it would be reasonable to conclude that the analyzing can occur after motion tracking begins as well.); and
stopping, by the at least one computing device, a blood measurement procedure in response to detecting, based on the analyzing, that one or more unmet conditions are present ([0093], “The first function is to compute from signals 162 a qualitative measure with respect to the quality of the placement and contact of the pressure sensor 152 with body surface 140 (FIG. 7), which is related to the ability to sense the pressure waveform from artery 132. Once the system 166 determines there is proper placement and sufficient contact between the pressure sensor and the body surface, the pulse analysis system 166 calculates a compounded pressure waveform 174 to be displayed on display 172 and/or the systolic and diastolic blood pressure measurement 175.” Blood pressure measurements stop until good placement is present. See also [0102], “If the quality metric is below a threshold (step 198), negative feedback is provided to the user as described supra (step 206) and the method ends. If the quality metric is above a threshold, then positive feedback is provided to the user (e.g., the score 178 is displayed) (step 199) and the method proceeds with processing the sensor data (step 200).” And [0117], “The accelerometer can also be used to detect and identify unwanted movement of the wristband on the arm (e.g., movement and/or rotation out of optimum placement), after the wristband was placed correctly on the wrist. Undesirable movement can be detected and appropriate feedback provided to the user.” Discussing using motion tracking data to determine if movement is detected and provide feedback to the user.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method/system as taught by Oliveira Santos to include in response to detecting, by the at least one computing device, presence of the at least one unmet condition, obtaining, by the at least one computing device, a list of potential reasons for the incorrect sensor placement, the list of potential reasons being hierarchically ranked, and the list of potential reasons being hierarchically ranked prior to the analyzing whether there is at least one unmet condition and prior to the detecting of the presence of the at least one unmet condition; removing, by the at least one computing device, one or more potential reasons, from the list of potential reasons already presented to a user; selecting, by the at least one computing device, a potential reason from one or more remaining potential reasons in the list of potential reasons; causing, by the at least one computing device, presentation of a message comprising the selected potential reason to the user; after the presentation to the user, repeating, by the at least one computing device, the analyzing to determine whether to cause an additional presentation to the user, wherein the analyzing comprises processing, performed by the at least one computing device, to assess at least one orientation reported by the at least one sensor; starting, by the at least one computing device, a motion tracking procedure whereby motion data provided by the at least one sensor is wirelessly sent to and processed by the at least one computing device; tracking, by the at least one computing device, the human motion using the motion data; performing, by the at least one computing device, the analyzing at least once after having started the motion tracking procedure; and stopping, by the at least one computing device, the motion tracking procedure in response to detecting, based on the analyzing, that one or more unmet conditions are present as taught by Rabinovich to increase accuracy by only measuring when quality contact and sensor location is determined ([0018], “if the quality metric exceeds a threshold, generate a blood pressure measurement for indicating on the display, and a feedback unit coupled to the processor, the feedback unit operative to convey the user feedback to the user.”).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Oliveira Santos as modified discloses The method according to claim 1, Oliveira Santos as modified further discloses wherein the selection of the potential reason from the one or more remaining potential reasons in the list of potential reasons is automatically performed according to a predetermined hierarchy (Rabinovich, Para. [0126], “Optionally, the device provides continuous feedback to the user as the user adjusts the position of the device including the sensor array on their person (step 300). Thus, depending on where the largest valued metrics lie on the sensor array spatial map, the device provides feedback instructions to the user to reposition the device, e.g., upwards, downwards, left, right, clockwise, counterclockwise, etc.” feedback is continuous. After presenting for example “move up” that option is unpresented and a new option may be presented. The options are ranked as discussed above. The analysis is continuous).
Regarding claim 3, Oliveira Santos as modified discloses The method according to claim 1, Oliveira Santos as modified further discloses wherein the at least one unmet condition is based on the at least one angle being greater than a first threshold angle and at least one second angle between at least one second axis of reference of at least one second sensor and the vector being greater than a second threshold angle (Oliveira Santos FIG. 1-6 see FIG. 5 and [0164], “FIG. 5 illustrates the estimation of the position of a sensor 23 of the person 50 in order to determine if two sensors 22, 23 have been placed on the person swapped.” And [0166], “If the computing device 40 is expecting a different sensor arrangement, e.g. the second sensor 22 on the right lower leg 52 and the third sensor 23 on the chest 53, because a different sensor and body member correspondence is stored in the memory of the computing device 40, the interchange of sensors 22, 23 will affect the determination of the movement performed by the person 50.” And [0167], “For clarity purposes only, the first estimated position at the particular time instant represented in FIG. 5 is at the end of the vector 64 (the direction of the vector 64 corresponding to the measurements provided by the second sensor 22, the length of the vector 64 corresponding to a second predetermined length intended to represent the distance at which the second sensor 22 is expected to be from the knee 55 should it have been arranged on the right lower leg 52, and the origin of the vector 64 at the estimated position 61 of the knee 55 is because the knee 55 is the joint connecting the right upper and lower legs 51, 52 that are involved in the movement), and the second estimated position at the particular time instant represented in FIG. 5 is at the end of the vector 63.” The sensor placement is estimated based on the angle and vector of the sensors while performing a predetermined movement).
Regarding claim 10, Oliveira Santos as modified discloses The system according to claim 8, Oliveira Santos as modified further discloses wherein the at least one axis of reference comprises a horizontal vector of the at least one sensor and the vector is a vertical vector, and the at least one unmet condition is based on the horizontal vector and the vertical vector being greater than a threshold angle (Oliveira Santos FIG. 1-6 see FIG. 5 and [0164], “FIG. 5 illustrates the estimation of the position of a sensor 23 of the person 50 in order to determine if two sensors 22, 23 have been placed on the person swapped.” And [0166], “If the computing device 40 is expecting a different sensor arrangement, e.g. the second sensor 22 on the right lower leg 52 and the third sensor 23 on the chest 53, because a different sensor and body member correspondence is stored in the memory of the computing device 40, the interchange of sensors 22, 23 will affect the determination of the movement performed by the person 50.” And [0167], “For clarity purposes only, the first estimated position at the particular time instant represented in FIG. 5 is at the end of the vector 64 (the direction of the vector 64 corresponding to the measurements provided by the second sensor 22, the length of the vector 64 corresponding to a second predetermined length intended to represent the distance at which the second sensor 22 is expected to be from the knee 55 should it have been arranged on the right lower leg 52, and the origin of the vector 64 at the estimated position 61 of the knee 55 is because the knee 55 is the joint connecting the right upper and lower legs 51, 52 that are involved in the movement), and the second estimated position at the particular time instant represented in FIG. 5 is at the end of the vector 63.” The sensor placement is estimated based on the angle and vector of the sensors while performing a predetermined movement).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Oliveira Santos as modified discloses The method according to claim 1, Oliveira Santos as modified further discloses further comprising checking, by the at least one computing device, which potential reasons in the list of potential reasons have already been presented or whether any potential reasons in the list of potential reasons have not yet been presented (Rabinovich, Para. [0126], “Optionally, the device provides continuous feedback to the user as the user adjusts the position of the device including the sensor array on their person (step 300). Thus, depending on where the largest valued metrics lie on the sensor array spatial map, the device provides feedback instructions to the user to reposition the device, e.g., upwards, downwards, left, right, clockwise, counterclockwise, etc.” feedback is continuous. After presenting for example “move up” that option is unpresented and a new option may be presented. The options are ranked as discussed above. The analysis is continuous).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Oliveira Santos as modified discloses The method according to claim 4, Oliveira Santos as modified further discloses further comprising ending, by the at least one computing device, sensor placement error detection, including the analyzing, in response to determining that all potential reasons in the list of potential reasons have already been presented (Rabinovich, Para. [0126], “Optionally, the device provides continuous feedback to the user as the user adjusts the position of the device including the sensor array on their person (step 300). Thus, depending on where the largest valued metrics lie on the sensor array spatial map, the device provides feedback instructions to the user to reposition the device, e.g., upwards, downwards, left, right, clockwise, counterclockwise, etc.” feedback is continuous. After presenting for example “move up” that option is unpresented and a new option may be presented. The options are ranked as discussed above. The analysis is continuous. If there are no reasons to present, none are presented.).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Oliveira Santos as modified discloses The method according to claim 4, Oliveira Santos as modified further discloses wherein the selected potential reason is a hierarchically top ranked potential reason according to a predetermined hierarchy, the hierarchically top ranked potential reason being selected from among the one or more remaining potential reasons and presented in response to determining that the one or more remaining potential reasons have not already been presented (Rabinovich, Para. [0126], “Optionally, the device provides continuous feedback to the user as the user adjusts the position of the device including the sensor array on their person (step 300). Thus, depending on where the largest valued metrics lie on the sensor array spatial map, the device provides feedback instructions to the user to reposition the device, e.g., upwards, downwards, left, right, clockwise, counterclockwise, etc.” feedback is continuous. After presenting for example “move up” that option is unpresented and a new option may be presented. The options are ranked as discussed above. The analysis is continuous).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Oliveira Santos as modified discloses The method according to claim 1, Oliveira Santos as modified further discloses further comprising: receiving, by the at least one computing device, feedback from the user regarding fulfillment of the at least one unmet condition (Rabinovich, Para. [0067], “In some cases, the input components produce user provided feedback for application specific input that corresponds to a prompt or user interface object presented on display 64.”); and
in response to receiving the feedback, triggering the repeating, by the at least one computing device, of the analyzing (Rabinovich, Para. [0126], “Optionally, the device provides continuous feedback to the user as the user adjusts the position of the device including the sensor array on their person (step 300). Thus, depending on where the largest valued metrics lie on the sensor array spatial map, the device provides feedback instructions to the user to reposition the device, e.g., upwards, downwards, left, right, clockwise, counterclockwise, etc.” feedback is continuous. After presenting for example “move up” that option is unpresented and a new option may be presented. The options are ranked as discussed above. The analysis is continuous)b.
Regarding claims 15 and 21, Oliveira Santos as modified discloses The method according to claim 1, Oliveira Santos as modified further discloses wherein the at least one orientation reported by the at least one sensor is obtained, by the at least one computing device, in an period during which the user was instructed to assume a specified position (Oliveira Santos FIG. 1-6 and [0147], “In this example, the first predetermined movement is a squat, which involves the lower legs or shanks 52, and the upper legs or thighs 51, and the chest 53. In this movement, the end 57 of the lower legs 52 that connects to the ankle has a known position that remains still or almost still during the entire movement.”).
Regarding claim 16, Oliveira Santos as modified discloses The method according to claim 1, Oliveira Santos as modified further discloses wherein the system further comprises at least one sensor holder (Oliveira Santos FIG. 1-6, sensors 21-23 are worn by a type of “holder” that attaches the sensors to be worn).
Regarding claim 17, Oliveira Santos as modified discloses The method according to claim 16, Oliveira Santos as modified further discloses wherein the at least one sensor comprises a plurality of sensors, and wherein the at least one sensor holder comprises a plurality of sensor holders (Oliveira Santos FIG. 1-6, sensors 21-23 are worn by a type of “holder” that attaches the sensors to be worn).
Regarding claim 18, Oliveira Santos as modified discloses The method according to claim 17, Oliveira Santos as modified further discloses wherein the method is conducted at least once for each of the plurality of sensors in order to analyze whether all of the plurality of sensors have a correct sensor placement (Oliveira Santos FIG. 1-6, sensor placement is checked for each sensor in the same way as discussed with claim 1).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliveira Santos et al. (US 2022/0183592 A1) (“Oliveira Santos”) in view of Rabinovich et al. (US 2018/0184920 A1) (“Rabinovich”) in further view of Tang et al. (US 2020/0029874 A1) (“Tang”).
Regarding claim 20, Oliveira Santos as modified discloses The method according to claim 1, Oliveira Santos further discloses wherein the at least one sensor comprises a plurality of sensors, and the method further comprises (Oliveira Santos FIG. 1-6, sensors 21-23):
Oliveira Santos as modified fails to disclose prior or subsequent to the analyzing checking, by the at least one computing device, whether one, several, or all of the plurality of sensors are attached to a sensor station for charging the plurality of sensors; and
in response to detecting, by the at least one computing device, that one, several, or all of the plurality of sensors are not attached to the sensor station, adverting, by the at least one computing device, the user to place each non-attached sensor unit of the plurality of sensors on the sensor station.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tang teaches prior or subsequent to the analyzing checking, by the at least one computing device, whether one, several, or all of the plurality of sensors are attached to a sensor station for charging the plurality of sensors (Para. [0067], “For example, in this case, the gateway 22 can include an internal Bluetooth® transceiver that sequentially and automatically pairs with each sensor attached to a charging station. Once all the data collected during use are uploaded, the gateway then pairs with another sensor attached to the charging station and repeats the process. This continues until data from each sensor is downloaded.” The system checks if one or more sensors is attached to a charging station.); and
in response to detecting, by the at least one computing device, that one, several, or all of the plurality of sensors are not attached to the sensor station, adverting, by the at least one computing device, the user to place each non-attached sensor of the plurality of sensors on the sensor station (Para. [0067], “For example, in this case, the gateway 22 can include an internal Bluetooth® transceiver that sequentially and automatically pairs with each sensor attached to a charging station. Once all the data collected during use are uploaded, the gateway then pairs with another sensor attached to the charging station and repeats the process. This continues until data from each sensor is downloaded.” After one is done the system looks to connect more to the charging station. Which continues until each sensor data is downloaded, if one sensor data is not downloaded it is reasonable to conclude that a user is able to see that and ensure that the sensor is properly plugged in to the charging station.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as taught by Oliveira Santos as modified to include prior or subsequent to the analyzing checking, by the at least one computing device, whether one, several, or all of the plurality of sensors are attached to a sensor station for charging the plurality of sensors; and in response to detecting, by the at least one computing device, that one, several, or all of the plurality of sensors are not attached to the sensor station, adverting, by the at least one computing device, the user to place each non-attached sensor of the plurality of sensors on the sensor station as taught by Tang in order to have a base for communication and storage and charging (Para. [0067], “In another embodiment, the sensor collects data and then stores it in internal memory. The data can then be sent wirelessly (e.g. to the cloud-based system, EMR, or central station) at a later time. For example, in this case, the gateway 22 can include an internal Bluetooth® transceiver that sequentially and automatically pairs with each sensor attached to a charging station.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 and 20-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not solely rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A TOMBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7:00-16:00, F 7:00-11:00(Eastern).
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, Robert Chen can be reached on 571-272-3672. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH A TOMBERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3791