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 . 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 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/09/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 06/09/2025 (“Amendment”). Claims 1-5, 7, and 8 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claim 1. Claims 9-20 remain withdrawn.
The objection(s) to the drawings, specification, and/or claims, the interpretation(s) under 35 USC 112(f), and/or the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 and/or 35 USC 112 not reproduced below has/have been withdrawn in view of the corresponding amendments.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of the terms Adafruit, etc., which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized (in ALL CAPS) wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The disclosure is objected to because it contains embedded hyperlinks and/or other forms of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlinks and/or other forms of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “touch sensor module” in claims 2 and 7, “temperature module” in claims 2 and 7, “clock module” in claims 2 and 7, “data storage device” in claim 1, and “inertial measurement unit” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (e.g. for the modules, chips 310, 312, and 402 as shown in the figures, together with their programmed functions, for “data storage device,” an SD card as in ¶ 0034 of the specification as file, and for “inertial measurement unit,” an LSM9DS1 as described in ¶ 0037).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2, 3, and 7 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 2 and 7, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitations of “the touch sensor module,” “the temperature module,” and “the clock module.”
Claim 3 is rejected because it depends on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over International Application Publication WO 2018/047046 (“Bharadwaj”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0035680 (“Li”) and US Patent Application Publication 2006/0155589 (“Lane”).
Regarding claim 1, Bharadwaj teaches [a]n apparatus for measurement of skin-to-skin contact between a neonate and a parent of the neonate (¶ 00052), comprising: a capacitive touch sensor that receives signals from a first electrode and a second electrode, and produces detected contact information associated with at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 1, first touch sensor 106a and second touch sensor 106b, ¶ 00064 – also see touch transducers 110a and 110b); a temperature sensor that measures a temperature of an object … and generates a corresponding temperature code (Fig. 1, first temperature sensor 108a and second temperature sensor 108b, ¶¶s 00062, 00066 – also see thermal transducers 112a and 112b); a clock that (i) implements a real-time chronometer (¶ 00054, a timer is real-time), (ii) generates a [time] code based on the chronometer (Fig. 4, x-axis), (iii) time-stamps each collected data sample with the [time] code, each collected data sample comprising the detected contact information and the temperature code (¶¶s 00077, 00078, 00098, Fig. 4), and (iv) stores the time-stamped data sample on an associated data storage device (Fig. 3, storage module 308, ¶¶s 00077, 00078); a processor (Fig. 3, microcontroller 302); and a memory with computer code instructions stored thereon, the memory operatively coupled to the processor (Fig. 3, ¶¶s 00057, 00069, 00071, etc.) such that, when executed by the processor, the computer code instructions cause the apparatus to coordinate operation of the capacitive touch sensor, the temperature sensor, and the clock (as shown in Fig. 4).
Bharadwaj does not appear to explicitly teach the temperature sensor measuring a temperature of an object within a field of view of the temperature sensor without requiring physical contact.
Li teaches a conformal sensor device that includes an infrared temperature sensor for measuring skin temperature (¶¶s 0068, 0069, 0248, etc., sensor device 102 includes a sensor component 104 which may be an infrared temperature sensor).
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 replace the temperature sensor of Bharadwaj with the infrared temperature sensor of Li, as a simple substitution of parts with predictable results (measuring skin temperature – also note that ¶¶s 0069 and 0248 of Li describe different temperature sensors, such as infrared and contact sensors, as suitable alternatives).
Bharadwaj-Li does not appear to explicitly teach the clock using time-of-day codes.
Lane teaches time stamping patient data with time of day using a real time clock (¶ 0074).
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 time stamp the data of the combination as in Lane, for the purpose of being able to track time of day instead of just durations (Lane: ¶ 0074), thereby providing more information to a caretaker, and as the simple substitution of one timing arrangement for another with predictable results (time of day data still allowing for calculation of durations).
Regarding claim 2, Bharadwaj-Li-Lane teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Bharadwaj-Li-Lane further teaches wherein the touch sensor module, the temperature module, the clock module, the processor and the memory are disposed within a housing that comprises a device body and device lid, and wherein the device body and the device lid are configured to engage one another to isolate the touch sensor module, the temperature module, the clock module, the processor and the memory from an external environment (Bharadwaj: Figs. 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 4, Bharadwaj-Li-Lane teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Bharadwaj-Li-Lane further teaches wherein the first electrode is configured to be in physical contact with skin of the neonate, the second electrode is configured to be in physical contact with skin of the parent of the neonate, and the apparatus is operative to characterize aspects of skin-to-skin contact between the neonate and the parent of the neonate (Bharadwaj: Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Bharadwaj-Li-Lane teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Bharadwaj-Li-Lane further teaches a wireless transceiver operatively coupled to the processor, the wireless transceiver configured to wirelessly communicate information from the apparatus to an external peripheral component (Bharadwaj: Fig. 3, communication module 306 transmits data to a gateway using wireless communication means as described in ¶ 00071; Lane: Fig. 3, wireless interface 352, ¶ 0072, both sending and receiving data. 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 use a transceiver in the combination for enabling both sending and receiving, as already contemplated (Bharadwaj: ¶ 00077, setting sampling intervals), for the purpose of allowing the device to be programmed and reprogrammed as needed (Lane: ¶ 0072)).
Regarding claim 7, Bharadwaj-Li-Lane teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Bharadwaj-Li-Lane further teaches an energy source configured to provide electrical energy to the touch sensor module, the temperature module, the clock module, the processor and the memory (Bharadwaj: ¶ 00059).
Regarding claim 8, Bharadwaj-Li-Lane teaches all the features with respect to claim 1, as outlined above. Bharadwaj-Li-Lane further teaches an inertial measurement unit configured to determine a position of the neonate with respect to one or both of (i) the parent and (ii) a predetermined reference frame (Bharadwaj: Fig. 3, position sensor 310, ¶ 00079).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bharadwaj-Li-Lane in view of US Patent Application Publication 2009/0281394 (“Russell”).
Regarding claim 3, Bharadwaj-Li-Lane teaches all the features with respect to claim 2, as outlined above. Bharadwaj-Li-Lane further teaches wherein the housing is attached to a flexible belt (Bharadwaj: ¶ 00068 describes using a belt to attach the device), but does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the first electrode is disposed on a first side of the flexible belt, and the second electrode is disposed on a second side of the belt (although in Bharadwaj: Fig. 1, the electrodes are on opposite sides of the device).
Russell teaches arranging sensors on a belt as opposed to a housing of a processor device (Figs. 1, 2, etc., sensors 12, 13, etc. are on the belt and separate from monitoring device 8, ¶ 0098, claim 87, etc.).
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 move the electrodes of the combination to the belt, as in Russell, for the purpose of making the device more modular, e.g. by enabling use of a different monitoring device when the first needs to be recharged, or by enabling connection to different kinds of monitoring devices while maintaining the sensor arrangement (Russell: ¶ 0109).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/09/2025 have been fully considered. In response to the amendments to the specification, the Office notes that not all issues have been addressed - some marks are still not in all caps or accompanied by the appropriate symbol, and at least one website reference still includes “www.”
Regarding interpretations under 35 USC 112(f), although these may have been obviated in claim 1, other claims continue to include 112(f) phrases. And, the Office disagrees that the phrases are inappropriately interpreted under 112(f), at least because there is no evidence that these are the names of a particular structure. For example, a temperature module is not necessarily a temperature sensor.
In response to the arguments and amendments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, they are persuasive to the extent that Bharadwaj does not appear to explicitly teach measuring a temperature of an object within a field of view without requiring physical contact. A new grounds of rejection is made in view of Li. But, the Office disagrees that the concept of a “field of view” is not found in e.g. Bharadwaj. The phrase “field of view” does not necessarily require e.g. measuring temperature via imaging, or without contact. Applicant does not claim an optical sensor. And, it can even be said that Bharadwaj teaches measuring temperature without requiring contact, since the temperature sensors can measure e.g. the temperature of the air.
All claims remain rejected in light of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREY SHOSTAK whose telephone number is (408) 918-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 am - 3 pm.
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 Robertson can be reached on (571) 272-5001. 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.
/ANDREY SHOSTAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791