DETAILED ACTION
Applicant' s arguments, filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed 09/12/2025, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 10-12 are hereby the present claims under consideration.
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 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:
One or more evaporation promoting mechanisms in claim 1.
A moisture-proof mechanism in claim 1
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.
One or more evaporation promoting mechanisms in claim 1 is interpreted as encompassing the corresponding structure within the specification and its equivalents. Paragraphs 0038-0039 describe the evaporation promoting mechanism as a ventilation device, a compressor, dehumidifier, and/or a heater. The claim language will be interpreted as encompassing these mechanisms and their equivalents.
A moisture proof mechanism is mentioned in paragraphs 0047-0050 of the specification but these paragraphs do not explicitly describe the structure of this limitation. The mechanism is described functionally as “provided to enable the perspiration amount of sweat as a liquid to be measured” but the structure that facilitates such a function is not described.
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(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 11-12 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 limitation “a moisture-proof mechanism” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As described in the above presented claim interpretation section, the specification does not appear to describe the particular structure of the “moisture-proof mechanism” only its intended function. Thus it is unclear what structure carries out this function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 recites “calculates, for each predetermined window of predetermined windows of measurement that are subsets of the measurement cycle, a mean value (Xi) of local perspiration amounts in the predetermined window, and controls the display device to display the notice at a time point when an increase rate (dXi=Xi-Xi-1) from a mean value (Xi-1) of local perspiration amounts in a predetermined window immediately prior to the predetermined window changes to decrease” but it is unclear how these steps relate to the previously recited step of “calculates an increase rate of the local perspiration amount (mg/cm2/min), and controls the display device to display a notice of an increase in a cumulated moisture loss amount (mg) when the increase rate decreases”. It is unclear if the “increase rate” of each of these steps is referring to the same or different values. For the purposes of this examination, the limitations are being interpreted as referring to the same step.
Claim 1 recites “calculates, for each predetermined window of predetermined windows of measurement that are subsets of the measurement cycle, a mean value (Xi) of local perspiration amounts in the predetermined window” but it is unclear if the calculated mean “amount” is meant to be the amount of sweat produced in each window or if the mean sweat amount in “the predetermined window” is the mean sweat amount over each of the predetermined windows. It is unclear if the sweat amount is refereeing to an average sweat amount or the mean rate of sweating over the window. The later recitation drawn towards evaluating sweat rates seems to imply that it is the average sweat rate rather than amount that is being calculated. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as determining the average sweat rate in each of the windows.
Claim 1 recites “controls the display device to display the notice at a time point when an increase rate (dXi=Xi-Xi-1) from a mean value (Xi-1) of local perspiration amounts in a predetermined window immediately prior to the predetermined window changes to decrease” but it is unclear what this limitation is meant to convey. It is unclear if the notice is displayed at a time point of an inflection or at a time point of a maximum. It is unclear in the “mean value of local perspiration amounts” are referring to a total volume of perspiration or a rate of perspiration. It is unclear if the recitation of “changes to decrease” is meant to convey that the increase rate is reduced or that the sweat rate is now decreasing. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as controlling the display to display the notice at a time point when an increase rate of the local sweat rate changes from an increasing increase rate to a decreasing increase rate.
Claim 1 recites “the perspiration meter, which includes at least a sensor” but it is unclear if “a sensor” recited in this limitation is the same as, related to, or different from each of the “sensors that measure a water content” from perspiration meters (A)-(D). For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the same sensors recited in each of options A-D.
Claims 4-7, and 11-12 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim limitation “a moisture-proof mechanism” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As described in the above presented claim interpretation section, the specification does not appear to describe the particular structure of the “moisture-proof mechanism” only its intended function. Thus the specification does not sufficiently describe the claimed structure. Therefore, the claim is not fully supported and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1, 4-7, and 11-12 are directed to a method of processing using sweat amount signals using a computational algorithm, which is an abstract idea. Claims 1, 4-7, and 11-12 do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons provided below which are in line with the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, p 74618, December 16, 2014), the July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 146, p. 45429, July 30, 2015), the May 2016 Subject Matter Eligibility Update (Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 88, p. 27381, May 6, 2016), and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, page 50, January 7, 2019) and the 2024 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol 89, No. 137, page 58128, July 17, 2024).
The analysis of claim 1 is as follows:
Step 1: Claim 1 is drawn to a machine.
Step 2A – Prong One: Claim 1 recites an abstract idea. In particular, claim 1 recites the following limitations:
[A1] calculates a total body moisture loss amount per unit time from a local perspiration amount (mg/cm2/min) using the following formula (1): total body moisture loss amount per unit time (mg/min) = local perspiration amount (mg/cm2/min) x correction coefficient for each measurement site x body surface area (cm2) (1)
[B1] calculates an increase rate of the local perspiration amount (mg/cm2/min)
[C1] controls the display device to display a notice of an increase in a cumulated moisture loss amount (mg) when the increase rate decreases
[D1] calculates a cumulated moisture loss amount (mg) subsequent to the measurement start instruction using the total body moisture loss amount per unit time (mg/min) and the measurement cycle (min)
[E1] calculates, for each predetermined window of predetermined windows of measurement that are subsets of the measurement cycle, a mean value (Xi) of local perspiration amounts in the predetermined window,
[F1] display the notice at a time point when an increase rate (dXi=Xi-Xi-1) from a mean value (Xi-1) of local perspiration amounts in a predetermined window immediately prior to the predetermined window changes to decrease
These elements [A1]-[F1] of claim 1 are drawn to an abstract idea since they involve a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and using pen and paper.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Claim 1 recites the following limitations that are beyond the judicial exception:
[A2] a display device
[B2] an input device that receives as an input a measurement start instruction and a measurement cycle (min)
[C2] a perspiration meter
[D2] a calculation device
[E2] the perspiration meter includes at least a sensor: (B) the perspiration meter comprising two or more types of sensors that measure the water content to be generated from the skin surface
It is noted that only one of the perspiration meters provided in A-D is required by the system. Perspiration meters A, and C-D are not considered routine and conventional but perspiration meter B requires only two types of generic sensors and thus may be shown as routine and conventional by illustrating that there are at least two well-known sweat sensing modalities. Using both modalities is considered in the same manner as using multiple conventional sensors and is not considered to amount to more than the abstract idea itself including mere data gathering.
These elements [A2]-[E2] of claim 1 do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the elements [C2] and [E2] are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the elements [A2], [B2], and [D2] are merely an instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. In particular, the recitation “the perspiration meter comprising two or more types of sensors that measure the water content to be generated from the skin surface” is merely insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements or simply displaying the results of the algorithm that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements. In particular, the data acquirer is nothing more than typical perspiration sensors. Such perspiration sensors are conventional as evidenced by:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0037900 A1 (Itao) discloses that perspiration sensors that detect an amount of perspiration are well-known (paragraph 0113 of Itao);
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0088739 A1 (Rogers) discloses that microfluidic systems are conventional for sweat sensors (paragraph 0080 of Rogers);
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2002/0123704 A1 (Hori) discloses that GSR electrodes are conventional for measuring a quantity of perspiration (paragraph 0016 of Hori);
Further, the elements [A2], [B2], and [D2] do not qualify as significantly more because this limitation is simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Claims 4-7 and 11-12 depend from claim 1, and recite the same abstract idea as claim 1. Furthermore, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the algorithm), with the following exceptions:
Claim 5: a storage device;
Each of these claim limitations does not integrate the exception into a practical application. In particular, the element of claim 5 is simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions (that is, one of display) that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations of each claim as an ordered combination in conjunction with the claims from which they depend (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Examiner’s Note: It would seem that if the “notice” being displayed at a particular time in claim 1 were described as a particular notice (i.e. as a specific graph or other visual that is more than a generic output of data) that achieves a particular effect (i.e. notifies the user to hydrate at the particular time which prevents performance loss due to dehydration by predicting that the user is going to lose a large amount of water in the near future as described in paragraphs 0082-0083 and 0102-0103 of the specification) then the recited invention would produce a particular display that may be eligible subject matter. Alternatively and/or additionally, the claim may be amended to recite particular structure for the perspiration sensor to potentially overcome the above rejection under 35 USC 101.
Prior Art
The closest prior art of record is considered to be:
US Patent Application Publication Number US 2019/0290186 A1 Adachi teaches the perspiration state of a site of a living body including at least a part other than a local part of which the perspiration state is measured is accurately estimated. A perspiration data estimation device includes: a comparing section comparing local perspiration data acquired by a perspiration sensor with a first perspiration pattern indicating progression of the amount of perspiration on the local part over time; and a perspiration state estimating section estimating the amount of perspiration on the whole body on the basis of a result of the comparison at the comparing section and a second perspiration pattern indicating progression of the perspiration state of the whole body over time (Abstract). Adachi teaches a perspiration estimation device which acquires local perspiration data over time. The local perspiration data is matched to a perspiration pattern which correlates the local perspiration data to user attribute data and/or environmental data to extrapolate an estimate total body perspiration (Paragraphs 0050-0053). The perspiration pattern uses the measured perspiration amount in combination with attribute and environmental data to extrapolate the amount of perspiration over the user’s whole body and/or parts thereof (Paragraphs 0040-0043). The attribute data may include the number of sweat glands in the measured area and the size of the measured area whole the environmental data may include temperature and user age (Paragraphs 0093-0094). The perspiration patterns may be selected using mathematical expressions utilizing the attribute data and environmental data. New perspiration patterns may be generated if no perspiration pattern fits the input data (Paragraphs 0130-0134). The device displays the amount of estimated perspiration over the whole body (Paragraphs 0035 and 0055).
US Patent Number US 5131390 A Sakaguchi teaches a device for continuously measuring the skin local sweating rate includes a capsule used for applying on a human skin at a measuring point and an air supply element for supplying dehumidified air to the capsule. A first chamber is formed between the capsule and the skin for receiving water vapor perspired from the skin and the dehumidified air supplied from the air supply element to produce the mixture of perspiration oriented water vapor through the skin and the dehumidified air. A second chamber is also formed within the capsule and connected with the first chamber through a communicating hole. The device further includes a humidity detecting element disposed in the second chamber. The humidity detecting element varies its electrical circuit constant according to the relative humidity of the mixture. A temperature detecting element is disposed in the second chamber for detecting the temperature in the second chamber and for outputting signals corresponding to the temperature. A humidity detecting signal output element is mounted on the capsule and is electrically connected with the humidity detecting element for outputting a humidity detecting signal corresponding to the circuit constant of the humidity detecting element. A calculation circuit calculates the sweating rate which is independent of the temperature of the mixture, based on the signals from the humidity detecting signal output element and the temperature detecting element. An element is provided for continuously recording the data of the sweating rate obtained by the calculation circuit (Abstract). Sakaguchi teaches a perspiration sensor which includes a capsule having a first and second chamber. The first chamber includes an input port through which dehumidified air is supplied. The dehumidified air mixes with the perspiration to create humid air in the first chamber which flows into the second chamber through an air channel. The second chamber includes a capacitive humidity sensor and a temperature sensor. The humid air from perspiration flows past the sensors and out of an outlet port (Col 6 lines 15-51). The detected signals from the sensor are then processed to generate a sweating rate (Col 7 line 23 — Col 8 line 2). Thus, Sakaguchi teaches a perspiration sensor with a sensor to measure water content generated from the skin (the humidity sensor) and an evaporation promoting mechanism (the supplied dehumidified air).
US Patent Number US 10993657 B1 Millar teaches apparatuses and methods for measuring a hydration condition with a wearable device. The wearable device may include a housing, a flume integrated into the housing, and a sensor array (Abstract). Miller teaches a combination of sensors are used to estimate a hydration condition of a user including air flow sensors, humidity sensors, and temperature sensors. The user’s sweat rate is determined based on a vapor pressure measured by the sensors (Col 9 line 57 – Col 10 line 25) Miller teaches that the user’s attribute data may be used for determining an initial hydration condition and may include recent liquid intakes (Col 19 lines 39-47). The system may calculate an adjusted hydration condition using the total water loss amount and user input of water intake and discharge. The water intake is compared to the water discharge to determine if the user is trending towards dehydration, normal hydration, or over hydration. The system may then display the condition to the user as well as instructions on actions to take such as how much water to consume (Col 20 lines 11-57).
US Patent Application Publication Number US 2016/0374588 A1 Shariff teaches systems and methods for monitoring body hydration levels based on galvanic skin response measurements acquired by a wearable electronic device. One example provides a wearable electronic device including a sensor configured to measure a galvanic skin response, a logic device, and a storage device including instructions executable by the logic device to operate a hydration monitoring mode, acquire a plurality of measures of galvanic skin response over time, present data regarding the plurality of measures of galvanic skin response. (Abstract). Shariff teaches a hydration monitoring device which utilized galvanic skin response to estimate a user’s hydration level and provides feedback to the user based on the hydration level. The feedback may be in the form of reminders or alerts provided to the user to prompt them to hydrate based upon hydration data. The system may continuously monitor and display hydration data during exercise (Paragraphs 0010-0011). The system may monitor exercise performance based on hydration levels and provide recommendations to improve performance based on hydration (Paragraph 0036).
None of Adachi, Sakaguchi, Millar, and/or Shariff either alone or in combination teach or reasonably suggest the system including “controls the display device to display a notice of an increase in a cumulated moisture loss amount (mg) when the increase rate decreases, the calculation device calculates a cumulated moisture loss amount (mg) subsequent to the measurement start instruction using the total body moisture loss amount per unit time (mg/min) and the measurement cycle (min), the calculation device calculates, for each predetermined window of predetermined windows of measurement that are subsets of the measurement cycle, a mean value (Xi) of local perspiration amounts in the predetermined window, and controls the display device to display the notice at a time point when an increase rate (dXi=Xi-Xi-1) from a mean value (Xi-1) of local perspiration amounts in a predetermined window immediately prior to the predetermined window changes to decrease” in combination with the other claimed elements of the system.
Claims 4-7 and 11-12 depend from claim 1 and are thus not rejected over the prior art on the same basis as claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the evaporation promoting mechanism and the moisture-proof mechanism should not be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because they are part of the perspiration meter which includes a sensor and thereby recites sufficient structure.
This argument is not found to be persuasive because the “sensor” is a separate element of the perspiration meter and connotates no structure to the evaporation promoting mechanism or the moisture-proof mechanism. These mechanisms being part of a larger element is not a consideration under 35 USC 112(f) interpretation. No particular structure is present in the claims for these mechanisms and thus they are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Applicant’s amendments have addressed some of the previously presented rejections under 35 USC 112(b) but have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments directed towards the rejections presented under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are found persuasive in part.
In particular, the claim is no longer considered to recite mathematical concepts. The claim is now addressed as being directed towards an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the recited calculations cannot practically be performed in the human mind. This argument is not found to be persuasive because the mathematical calculation claimed are basic addition, subtraction, multiplication, and/or division. All of the claimed calculations are readily performed in the human mind.
Applicant’s arguments directed towards the claim being directed towards a particular system including a display, a calculation device, an input device, and a perspiration meter are not found to be persuasive because these limitations are directed towards mere data gathering (i.e. the perspiration meter performs data gathering outside of the abstract idea) and are merely recitations to implement the abstract idea onto a generic computer (i.e. each of a display, a calculation device, and an input device are elements of a generic computer and amount to nothing more than stating that the abstract idea of performing the calculations is being executed on a generic computer). The present recitations of displaying a notice and/or the level or warning display of claim 5 do not amount to significantly more because the notices are not particularly described and thus are not considered to amount to more than a generic display of data or the output of the abstract idea (i.e. telling the user to drink more water or that they are dehydrated).
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 MATTHEW ERIC OGLES whose telephone number is (571)272-7313. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Jason Sims can be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00AM – 4:00PM at (571) 272 – 7540. 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.
/MATTHEW ERIC OGLES/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /JASON M SIMS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791