DETAILED ACTION
This application is being examined under AIA first-to-file provisions.
No Power of Attorney on record
The 5/23/2022 Application Data Sheet is signed by J. Matthew Buchanan (USPTO Registration 47,459), and the correspondence address is provided as that of USPTO Customer Number 04859, however no Power of Attorney is of record.
Status of claims
Canceled:
none
Pending:
1-3
Withdrawn:
none
Examined:
1-3
Independent:
1
Allowable:
none
Rejections applied
Abbreviations
x
112/b Indefiniteness
PHOSITA
"a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention"
112/b "Means for"
BRI
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
112/a Enablement,
Written description
CRM
"Computer-Readable Media" and equivalent language
112 Other
IDS
Information Disclosure Statement
x
102, 103
JE
Judicial Exception
101 JE(s)
112/a
35 USC 112(a) and similarly for 112/b, etc.
101 Other
N:N
page:line
Double Patenting
XXDATE
date format
Priority
As detailed on the 9/29/2022 filing receipt, this application claims priority to at least 5/19/2021. At this point in examination, all claims have been interpreted as being accorded this priority date.
Objection to color drawings
The drawings filed 5/23/2022 are objected to. The file wrapper contains color drawings under Supplemental Content, and the color appears to be integral to the disclosure. Color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. 37 CFR 1.4(c) and the USPTO "Requirements of a Petition" webpage (https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/petitions/01-requirements-petition) provide further information on filing a petition. It is particularly important that such a petition must clearly explain why color drawings are necessary (37 CFR 1.84(a)(2)). Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h) and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Objection to the drawings
The 5/23/2022 supplemental drawings are objected to for lack of quality and/or readability in some figures.
In some instances the element labels are not clearly legible, e.g. depicting distinguishable and consistent numerals. Labels and pertinent features of figures must be legible.
Also, one element of FIG. 7 has a line for a label but is missing the label.
The drawings are of insufficient quality to permit examination. MPEP 608.02(b).I and generally 608 pertain. Accordingly, replacement drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to this Office action. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled "Replacement Sheet" in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If filing electronically, then possibly higher resolution drawings should be filed as "Supplemental Content." If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
Objections to the specification
The specification is objected to because the text at [17] regarding FIG. 7 refers to "...taken along line 7-7 in FIG. 3," which "line" is not clearly depicted in FIG. 3.
Claim objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required. In each objection the claims are definite with respect to the issues cited here because interpretation would have been sufficiently clear to PHOSITA, but nonetheless the claims are objected to for consistency among the claims or as otherwise indicated. With regard to any suggested amendment below to overcome an objection, in the subsequent examination it is assumed that each amendment is made. However, equivalent amendments also would be acceptable. Any amendments in response to the following objections should be applied throughout the claims, as appropriate.
The following issues are objected to:
Claim
Recitation
Comment
1
comprising
Colon needed after
3
to a first member of said team
For better readability, this clause should be moved closer to the verb which it modifies, e.g. immediately after "providing." The same applies to the subsequently recited "to a second member..."
The same issue recurs in the claim 3 "displaying" steps regarding "on the... wellness capture device."
Claim rejections - 112/b
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 112/b, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Claims depending from rejected claims are rejected similarly, unless otherwise noted, and any amendments in response to the following rejections should be applied throughout the claims, as appropriate. With regard to any suggested amendment below, for claim interpretation during the present examination it is assumed that each amendment suggested here is made. However equivalent amendments also would be acceptable.
The following issues cause the respective claims to be rejected under 112/b as indefinite:
Claim
Recitation
Comment (suggestions in bold)
1
a wireless antennae
Unclear at to whether singular or plural at least because the grammatical article is singular but the noun is plural.
1
said wellness capture device
Requires but lacks clear antecedent, noting that previously recited was "wellness tracking device"
2-3
a plurality of wellness capture devices according to Claim 1
Claim 2 recites "wellness capture device," but claim 1 recited a "wellness tracking device." The issue recurs in claim 2 at "each wellness capture device of the plurality of wellness capture devices."
Similar issues also render claim 3 indefinite.
Claim rejections - 35 USC 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 USC 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 USC 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Burns (as cited on the attached "Notice of References Cited" form 892) in view of Massot (as cited on the attached "Notice of References Cited" form 892).
Regarding claim 1, the recited housing, cover and chamber read on "Activmon Prototype" (Burns: p.78, Figure 4.6 and associated text; also App. C; and entire document).
The recited circuit board with a system on chip module and hardware connector read on "wearable prototype circuit board," "PIC microcontroller" and "Molex PanelMate connectors" (Burns: pp. 77 and 252; also App. C; and entire document).
The recited wireless antenna reads on "wireless radio to upload activity data" (Burns: p. 77; also p. 250, penultimate para.; also App. C; and entire document).
The recited tactile input button reads on "tactile switches" (Burns: p. 252; also App. C; and entire document).
The recited LED arrays read on "discrete LEDs" and "RGB LEDs" (Burns: pp. 69 and 252; also App. C; and entire document).
The recited battery reads on "rechargeable battery" (Burns: p. 77; also App. C; and entire document).
The recited vibration motor reads on "different patterns of vibrations have been used to convey data" (Burns: p. 67, last para.; and entire document).
The recited light diffuser read on "light disperser" (Burns: p. 254; also App. C; and entire document).
The recited attachment members read on "Velcro" and the various embodiments taught by Table 5.2 (Burns: p. 120; also Table 5.2 and associated text; also App. C; and entire document).
Burns does not teach System-on-ChipTM (SoC) technology, but Massot does as "A wearable, low-power, health-monitoring instrumentation based on a Programmable System-on-ChipTM" (Massot: title; and entire document).
Burns teaches each of the limitations as described above, however Burns does not teach the limitations in a single embodiment in the same, consecutive sequence as recited. It would have been prima facie obvious to try the recited sequence as an example of combining prior art elements taught within the same reference according to known methods to yield predictable results.
The system of claim 2 requires multiple instances of the device of claim 1 and analysis of group activity, which read on Burns "indication of group activity" (Burns: §4.2.3; and entire document) and "wireless radio to upload activity data to a central server" (Burns: p. 77; also App. C; and entire document).
The art is applied to method claim 3 as described above for claims 1-2 and as follows.
The recited average overall wellness of the team reads on "averaged across all... users" (Burns: p. 97; also App. C; and entire document) and "In terms of the group display, ...users' average activity levels..." (Burns: p. 128; also App. C; and entire document).
Combining Burns and Massot
In the absence of a secondary consideration to the contrary, it would have been prima facie obvious for PHOSITA to modify the wearable monitoring device teaching of Burns using the related teaching of Massot. As motivation to combine, an advantage taught by Massot of modifying methods such as those of Burns would have been the teaching of Massot that "Programmable System-on-ChipTM (PSoC)... is a preferential tool for reducing the number of components" (Massot: §I). Thus, PHOSITA would have been motivated to modify Burns using the above techniques of Massot in order to achieve the above advantage. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Burns and Massot are generally drawn to related teaching, and PHOSITA would have understood how to and would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Massot to the related teaching of Burns.
Claims satisfying 101 with respect to JEs and therefore NOT rejected under 101
Referring to the 101 analysis as organized in MPEP 2106, claims 1-3 satisfy 101 and are patent eligible at least in view of the analysis Step 2A, 1st prong regarding claim interpretation leading to identification of judicial exceptions (JEs) (MPEP 2106.04), the claims being interpreted as not directed to any JEs.
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, rejections refer to the portions of each document cited as example portions as well as to the entirety of each document, unless otherwise noted in the situation of lengthy, multi-subject documents. Other passages not specifically cited within a document may apply as well.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
A shortened statutory period for reply is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
Inquiries
Information regarding the filing, management and status of patent applications which are published (available to all users) or unpublished (available to registered users) may be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Further information is available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center, and information about filing in DOCX format is available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx.
The Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) is available for additional questions, and assistance from a Customer Service Representative is available at 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
The examiner for this Office action, G. Steven Vanni, may be contacted at:
(571) 272-3855 Tu-F 8-7 (ET).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Larry D. Riggs, II, may be reached at (571) 270-3062.
/G. STEVEN VANNI/Primary patents examiner, Art Unit 1686