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 .
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 6491647 B1 (“Bridger”)(Previously Cited).
Regarding claim 1, Bridger teaches a sensor for detecting cardiac function or breathing of an animal (Figure 4, physiological sensing device 1), the sensor comprising: a support formed of a base (Annotated Figure 4 Below, Element B) and an outer wall surrounding said base (Annotated Figure 4 Below, Element A); an accelerometer (Column 17, line 65-Column 18, line 6, “sensing elements 32 made of conventional resistive strain gages or semiconductor strain gages, or piezoelectric crystal or piezoelectric polymer, such as PVDF or Kynar sheet, to detect deflection of the member 31.”); and a spring (displacement member 31) attached to said outer wall(Column 17, line 63-64, “the Sensing portion comprises the displacement member 31 made of a material such as Spring Steel”; It is attached to outer wall via element 35. Another interpretation would include 35 as part of the outer walls of the base); wherein said spring allows for said accelerometer to be moved relative to said base (Column 17, lines 3-6, “The displacement or force is effectively transmitted via the outer contact member 51, stiffening member 52, load transfer element 4 and displacement member 31 onto the sensing elements 32. “), and wherein there is a void between said spring and said base which said accelerometer can move into (Annotated Figure 4 Below, Element C); and
wherein, said accelerometer detects acceleration of said accelerometer within said void generally perpendicular to said base ([Figure 1,4][Column 18 lines1-6] the sensor moves into the base and back).
Bridger does not explicitly teach said spring at equilibrium suspending said accelerometer above said base.
Bridger suggests said spring at equilibrium suspending said accelerometer above said base because the spring (displacement member 31) in Column 17, lines 3-6 is described as the displacement member between the sensing elements and load transfer element so that even a low displacement or force from a physiological source can be captured. This is interpreted as the displacement member is in equilibrium until additional outside forces occur to compress it against the springs restorative force.
PNG
media_image1.png
357
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4
Regarding claim 2, Bridger teaches the sensor of claim 1 wherein said animal is a human (abstract, “a non-invasive device for measuring physiological processes. More particularly, it concerns a device that can be applied externally to the body of an animal or human”).
Regarding claim 4, Bridger teaches the sensor of claim 1 wherein said spring comprises an elastic flat surface material (Column 17, line 63-64, “the Sensing portion comprises the displacement member 31 made of a material such as Spring Steel”).
Claims 11-12, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bridger in view of US 20100145167 A1 (Hereinafter “IM”)(Previously Cited).
Regarding claim 11, Bridger teaches a system for detecting cardiac function or breathing of an animal, the system comprising: a sensor (Figure 4, physiological sensing device 1)comprising: a support formed of a base (Annotated Figure 4 Above, Element B) and an outer wall surrounding said base (Annotated Figure 4 Below, Element A); an accelerometer (Column 17, line 65-Column 18, line 6, “sensing elements 32 made of conventional resistive strain gages or semiconductor strain gages, or piezoelectric crystal or piezoelectric polymer, such as PVDF or Kynar sheet, to detect deflection of the member 31.”); and a spring (displacement member 31) attached to said outer wall (Column 17, line 63-64, “the Sensing portion comprises the displacement member 31 made of a material such as Spring Steel”; It is attached to outer wall via element 35. Another interpretation would include 35 as part of the outer walls of the base); wherein when said spring allows for said accelerometer to be moved relative to said base (Column 17, lines 3-6, “The displacement or force is effectively transmitted via the outer contact member 51, stiffening member 52, load transfer element 4 and displacement member 31 onto the sensing elements 32. “); and wherein there is a void between said spring and said base which said accelerometer can move into (Annotated Figure 4 Below, Element C).
Bridger does not explicitly teach but suggests said spring at equilibrium suspending said accelerometer above said base.
Bridger suggests said spring at equilibrium suspending said accelerometer above said base because the spring (displacement member 31) in Column 17, lines 3-6 is described as the displacement member between the sensing elements and load transfer element so that even a low displacement or force from a physiological source can be captured. This is interpreted as the displacement member is in equilibrium until those forces occur. It is interpreted that the displacement member is motionless prior to physiological force. Springs that are motionless are assumed to have zero total force acting on it. This would mean the spring is in equilibrium.
Bridger does not explicitly teach a support structure configured to mount said sensor so that movement of a human torso through respiration or cardiac function causes said accelerometer to move relative to said base (abstract, “a device that can be applied externally to the body of an animal or human to detect and quantify displacement, force, motion, vibration and acoustic effects resulting from internal biological functions “; Column 35, lines 48-54, “The device employed in accordance with the present invention comprised only a wrist sensor and two contact sensors on the neck, one tailored to detect broad low frequency energy packets associated with breathing, the other to pick up displacement and gross motion associated with both respiratory effort (as transmitted from the chest) and restlessness or agitation.”).
IM teaches a support structure configured to mount a sensor so that movement of a human torso through respiration or cardiac function causes an accelerometer to move relative to said base (IM, [0026], “When the head of the user is located on the pillow, the vibration/pressure detecting sensor 301 detects information on the movement of the head, which is incurred when the user's body moves, by detecting minute movement of a rear portion of the heat by the heartbeat and breathing and minute vibration of a skull, which is incurred when the user snores or gnashes his/her teeth.”; It would be obvious that movement of the torso through respiration or cardiac function would cause the head to move which would cause the accelerometer in the sensor unit to move. Figure 1A shows the support structure being a pillow on a bed).
IM is directed toward sensing biologic information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to incorporate the sensing device of Bridger into a pillow and bed support structure as taught by IM. Doing so would allow for the sensing device to be used during sleep to determine variations of vibrations and pressure incurred by a pulse, breathing, body movement, snoring, or bruxism of a user as taught by paragraph [0021] of IM.
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches the system of claim 11.
While the combination suggests that the support structure comprises a bed (IM, Figure 1a shows a user lying down on a flat surface), the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the support structure comprises a bed. Official notice is being taken that it is well known in the art that beds are well known support structures for individuals who are sleeping (see, for example, section [0081] of US 20170215771 A1 (previously cited), which teaches that a sleeping person lies on a bed with their head lying on a pillow; the bed having a body, a mattress, a pillow, and a blanket). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the support structure shown in Figure 1a of IM is a bed as it is well known in the art that sleeping individuals sleep on a bed.
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches the system of claim 11 wherein the accelerometer has conventional analog electronics (Bridger, Column 22, lines 24-40, “Conventional analog electronics as depicted in FIG. 19 are used to amplify and normalize the raw signals generated at the piezoelectric sensor element. Two critical features enable these front-end electronics to accommodate the electrical characteristics of the electroceramic and the unique signal characteristics and variability of the physiological process.”), the system further comprising a central computer for receiving signals from said accelerometer via a network (Bridger, “The output signal from the signal conditioning circuitry described above is fed into a Microchip”).
Regarding claim 19, the combination teaches the system of claim 15.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein said central can compare said received signals against other signals.
IM teaches said central computer (IM, 450, interface unit) can compare said received signals against other signals (IM, [0047], “the snore and bruxism signals (D11) measured by the apparatus go through radio rectifying and enveloping detecting processes (D13). Patterns of the values above the threshold voltage are compared and analyzed (D16) and the intensity, continuous time, and frequency for the sleeping time are calculated (D17). These are used as parameters for determining the sleeping comfort.”).
IM is directed toward sensing biological information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to modify the microprocessor of the combination to compare measured signals. Doing so can determine patterns of the measured values in order to determine if there is any issues or discomfort as taught by paragraph [0047] of IM.
Regarding claim 20, the combination teaches the system of claim 19 wherein the said other signals comprise prior received signals (IM, [0047], “Patterns of the values above the threshold voltage are compared and analyzed (D16)”).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bridger in view of IM as applied to claim 15 further in view of US 20070293781 A1 (Hereinafter “Sims”)(previously cited).
Regarding claim 16, the combination teaches the system of claim 15.
The combination does not explicitly teach the system further comprising a thermal sensor.
Sims teaches a system further comprising a thermal sensor (IM, abstract, “the platform includes sensors for temperature”).
Sims is directed toward a platform for sensing biologic information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate the thermal sensor of IM into the system of the combination. Doing so would provide a way to determine if there is a change in body temperature over time as described in [0053] of Sims.
Regarding claim 17, the combination teaches the system of claim 15.
The combination does not explicitly teach the system further comprising a motion sensor (Sims, abstract, “the platform includes sensors for body motion”).
Sims teaches a system further comprising a motion sensor (Sims, abstract, “the platform includes sensors for body motion”).
Sims is directed toward a system for sensing biologic information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate the motion sensors of Sims into the system of the combination. Doing so would provide a way to determine if body motion is the cause of different pressure and acceleration signals.
Claim 18 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bridger in view of IM as applied to claim 15 further in view of US 20160217672 A1 (Hereinafter “Yoon”)(Previously Cited).
Regarding claim 18, the combination teaches the system as described in claim 15 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach the system comprising a depth sensor.
Yoon teaches a depth sensor ([0177], “the display device 230 may include a depth sensor”).
Yoon is directed to monitoring sleep. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have further modified the combination of Bridger in view of IM to incorporate a depth sensor taught by Yoon. In paragraph [0184], Yoon teaches that “the device may measure a respiration movement (respiration rate, respiration volume, and/or respiration cycle) by using depth information.” The addition of the depth sensor taught by Yoon would allow for this respiratory information to be collected. This information would aid in the goal of Bridger and IM’s apparatus for determining bio-information. The addition of the depth sensor would in general provide respiratory information related to the health state of the user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the sensor of Bridger is not an accelerometer, Examiner respectfully disagrees. An accelerometer under its broadest reasonable interpretation is a device that measures acceleration or detects vibration. Bridger discloses a device that measures displacement, force, motion and vibration. The sensing element does not have to be a strain sensor. Piezo sensors, magnetic sensors and any sensor that can measure displacement or motion can be used ([Column 16 lines 39-56]). Bridger also discloses that the accelerometer detects acceleration of said accelerometer within the void as well as the displacement of element 31 into the void 26 and along that vertical axis. Applicant’s arguments rely on an overly narrow definition of accelerometer that is not defined in the claims. Movement and vibration measures are also measures of acceleration and changes in force and velocity. Bridger does determine displacement and motion change over time as well ([Figure 24][Column 29 lines 53-60]). Regarding Applicant’s hypothetical scenario on pg. 7 if the spring of the current device were moved to a new position and left there the accelerometer would read zero but it would measure the change just like the device of Bridger.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Bridger does not disclose the springs are at equilibrium, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The springs in Bridger have equilibrium as Applicant defines it in the arguments. The springs are not compressed or extended and the restoring force and active forces against the springs are balanced.
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 MICHAEL ANTHONY CATINA whose telephone number is (571)270-5951. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6pm.
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 at 5712723672. 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.
/MICHAEL A CATINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /TSE CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights