DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 20 January 2026 has been entered.
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed with the RCE filed on 20 January 2026. As directed by the amendment: Claim 32 has been amended, Claims 1-31 have been cancelled, and no claims have been added. Claims 42-52 were previously withdrawn due to a Restriction Requirement. Thus, Claims 32-41 are presently under consideration.
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:
“cardiac information acquisition module” in Claims 32, 34, 36, and 37. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as being equivalent to those described in the Specification, e.g. sensors attached to a computational device or processing unit for cardiac analysis (Paragraphs [86, 87, 92, 94, 95, 99, 102])
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.
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 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.
Claims 32-41 are 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.
Regarding Claim 32, the claim recites as amended, “the cardiac information acquisition module is configured to covertly acquire the cardiac information specifically through the cardiac sensor disposed in the steering wheel, while the mobile device is simultaneously engaged in a cellular communication”. However, these features are not described in the Specification/Drawings as originally filed, and therefore is considered to be New Matter. The embodiment including a cardiac sensor disposed in a steering wheel in an automobile is only described in Paragraph [0061] of the instant Specification:
In another non-limiting exemplary scenario, a mobile communication device may be utilized in an automobile environment. For example and without limitation, an automobile may comprise a mobile communication device permanently, pseudo-permanently or temporarily located in the automobile. In such a scenario, one or more cardiac sensors may be positioned in locations within the automobile (e.g., in one or more positions in which a user may readily contact such sensors). For example and without limitation, one or more cardiac sensors (e.g., electrodes) may be disposed on a steering wheel, shifting lever or other commonly contacted automobile component. In one example, a first cardiac sensing electrode may be disposed on a left side of a steering wheel, and a second cardiac sensing electrode may be disposed on a right side of a steering wheel. In such an exemplary configuration, each of the left and right hands may advantageously contact respective cardiac sensors for extended periods of time and also during stressful situations. Also, in such an exemplary configuration, sensor information may, for example, be communicated (as exemplified in Figures 7 and 8) to the mobile communication device by wire or wirelessly.
However, neither this paragraph nor elsewhere in the Specification describes, “the cardiac information acquisition module is configured to covertly acquire the cardiac information specifically through the cardiac sensor disposed in the steering wheel, while the mobile device is simultaneously engaged in a cellular communication”, as required by Claim 32 as amended. Therefore, these limitations are considered to be New Matter.
Claims 33-41 are rejected for depending on Claim 32.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments filed in the RCE filed 20 January 2026 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(f)/pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, interpretation of the claim elements have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant particularly argues that the limitation “cardiac information acquisition module” in Claims 32, 34, 36, and 37 has sufficient structure, in that (see Pages 6-7 of RCE):
Structural context is expressly recited. Claim 32 recites clear structure and structural linkages comprising "cardiac sensor disposed in a steering wheel," "communication interface," "wirelessly coupled to a mobile device," "configured to acquire cardiac information... while the user is utilizing the mobile device," and (as amended)"configured to covertly acquire the cardiac information specifically through the cardiac sensor disposed in the steering wheel."
The claim recites physical components (sensor in steering wheel, communication interface, wireless coupling) and arrangement (covert acquisition through that sensor during cellular communication).
However, the Examiner notes that these are not structural elements of the “cardiac information acquisition module” itself as recited in the claims. The claim fails to recite any actual specific structural elements of the cardiac information acquisition module. Therefore, this element is nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)/pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation 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.
The Applicant further argues that none of the previously cited Batkin et al. (International Patent No. WO 03/094720), Yasuchi (US Publication No. 2004/0046666), Nova et al. (US Publication No. 2003/0212311), nor Lohman et al. (US Publication No. 2004/0215091) references teaches or suggests all of the claimed elements of Claim 32 as amended, particularly, “the cardiac information acquisition module is configured to covertly acquire the cardiac information specifically through the cardiac sensor disposed in the steering wheel, while the mobile device is simultaneously engaged in a cellular communication”. The Examiner agrees with the Applicant’s arguments (see Pages 7-8 of RCE) that none of the previously cited references discloses or teaches the system as explicitly claimed in independent Claim 32. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejections as made in the previous Final Rejection Office Action mailed 08 September 2025 have been withdrawn.
However, as described above, Claims 32-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/pre-AIA 112 first paragraph as containing New Matter. Claim 32 recites as amended “the cardiac information acquisition module is configured to covertly acquire the cardiac information specifically through the cardiac sensor disposed in the steering wheel, while the mobile device is simultaneously engaged in a cellular communication”. However, these features are not described in the Specification/Drawings as originally filed, and therefore is considered to be New Matter. See 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/pre-AIA 112 first paragraph rejections made above.
Therefore, Claims 32-41 are rejected as described as detail above.
It is further noted that Claims 42-52 stand withdrawn due to a previous Restriction Requirement, mailed 13 February 2023.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure:
Alhussiny (US Publication No. 2004/0006265) discloses a system comprising electrodes embedded in a steering wheel of a vehicle (Paragraph 0077-0079; Claim 4) and configured to detect and analyze cardiac data (Abstract; Paragraph 0077-0079) and to transmit the data over a cellular network (Claim 65; Paragraph 0004, 0007).
Yasushi et al. (US Patent No. 6,104,296) discloses a system comprising electrodes embedded in a steering wheel of a vehicle (Abstract; Figs. 2-3) and configured to detect and analyze cardiac data (Col. 4, Lines 20-60) and transmit the data over a network (Col. 2, Lines 5-35).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA M BAYS whose telephone number is (571)270-7852. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAMELA M. BAYS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796