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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on December 09, 2025 was considered by the examiner. Claims 1-12 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Kamath et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0121989 – cited in prior action), hereinafter Kamath.
Regarding claim 1, Kamath teaches an analyte detection device with intelligent identification function (See Kamath Figure 1 and abstract), comprising:
a transmitter (See Kamath [0397], electronics unit 16); a sensor unit comprising a sensor base and a sensor with at least one first parameter, and one end of the sensor is disposed in/on the sensor base (See Kamath Figure 1 and 3, and [0179],[0181], the sensor unit 10 includes a base 34, and sensor 32 is inserted into the host’s skin while the sensor is placed within the sensor base 34, also see [0404-0405] when the sensor and receiver connect information such as calibration code, resistance or passive value is collected, i.e., the sensor’s ID, calibration code, or the like would be the first parameter;
a bottom base where the sensor unit is assembled and where the transmitter is installed (See Figure 3 bottom base 24, electronics unit 16 is placed within the bottom base 24 [0181]); at least one physical unit with at least one second parameter which corresponds to the first parameter is arranged on the bottom base, on the sensor base or on/in the transmitter (See Kamath [0404-0406], the electronics unit 16 can have a chip which collects sensor information); and a detection circuit for detecting the second parameter which is transmitted to the transmitter, thereby making the transmitter automatically identify the corresponding first parameter (See Kamath [0404-0406], the transmitter has contacts and chip, the chip and contacts would have a circuit, i.e., the specific resistance or passive value is the second parameter, which corresponds to/identifies the sensor’s ID, calibration code, or the like).
Regarding claim 2, Kamath teaches the device of claim 1 as stated above. Kamath teaches that the first parameter comprises one or more of calibration-free code, model number, electrode information, film layer information, sensitivity, correction factor, service life, and usage conditions (See Kamath [0404-0406]). Regarding claim 3, Kamath teaches the device of claim 2 as stated above. Kamath teaches that the detection circuit comprises at least one detection end which is arranged on the transmitter, while the physical unit is arranged on the bottom base or on the sensor base, and the detection end and the physical unit are in electrical contact or interaction with each other, making the detection circuit detect the second parameter (See Kamath [0406], the electronics unit 16 which serves as a transmitter has the chip, once the transmitter is inserted into the bottom base the chip provides communication between sensor and unit). Regarding claim 4, Kamath teaches the device of claim 3 as stated above. Kamath teaches that the detection circuit detects one or more physical parameters of the resistance, capacitance, and inductance of the physical unit, and the second parameter comprises value, value combination, value range, or value range combination of the physical parameter (See Kamath [0404-0406]). Regarding claim 5, Kamath teaches the device of claim 4 as stated above. Kamath teaches that the detection end comprises at least one electrical contact (See Kamath [0406], has electrical contacts). Regarding claim 6, Kamath teaches the device of claim 5 as stated above. Kamath teaches that the physical unit comprises a resistor, and the at least one electrical contact comprises at least two electrical contacts (See Kamath [0406], has electrical contacts) which are respectively in electrical contact with the resistor, making the detection circuit detect the resistance parameter between any two electrical contacts of the at least two electrical contacts (See Kamath [0383], the sensor system 10 which includes the electronics unit 16 includes a resistor also see [0183]).
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamath as applied to claim 6 above, and in view of Shacham-Diamand et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0150493 – cited in prior action), hereinafter Shacham.
Regarding claim 7, Kamath teaches the device of claim 6 as stated above. Kamath teaches that the resistor is a conductive rubber strip (See Kamath [0355], contact subassembly can be formed by a flexible material such as rubber), and electrical contacts comprises electrical contacts which are respectively in electrical contact with the conductive rubber strip (See Kamath [0181], the one or more contacts 28 provide electrical connection and it is contacted with the contact subassembly, Figure 4A). Kamath is silent to three electrical contacts. Shacham teaches a sensing assembly (See abstract) and further teaches three electrical contacts (See Figure 1D 114,115,116 and see [0077]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the Kamath device with three electrical contacts as taught by Shacham to allow the electrodes such as a working electrode, counter electrode and reference electrode present within the device to be in electrical communication with the sensor assembly (See [0075-0077]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamath as applied to claim 5 above, and in view of Min et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0338624 – cited in prior application), hereinafter Min.
Regarding claim 8, Kamath teaches the device of claim 5 as stated above. Kamath teaches that the physical unit includes a lower plate of a capacitor while the detection end includes an upper plate corresponding to the lower plate and an electrical contact electrically contacting the lower plate (See Figure 3 electronics unit 16 is placed on the 26 contact subassembly, also see [0383][0389], the electronics unit allows the current flow is measured by a charge counting device (a capacitor)), the transmitter has a bottom base and 26 has an upper portion, with the sensor 32 in between, also see Figure 4 ) but is silent to making the detection circuit detect the capacitance parameter of the capacitor. Min teaches a device and method for sensing blood glucose (See Min abstract), and further teaches making the detection circuit detect a capacitance parameter of the capacitor (See Min claim 1, and Figure 1E, the capacitive circuit 190 has two curved plates that provide a capacitance parameter). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the Kamath detection circuit to detect a capacitance parameter of the capacitor as taught by Min so as to provide the user with information regarding changes in blood glucose levels (See Min [0061].). Regarding claim 9, Kamath teaches the device of claim 5 as stated above. Kamath teaches that the physical unit comprises the detection end including at least two electrical contacts (See Kamath [0404-0406], the electronics unit 16, the transmitter has contacts and chip, the chip and contacts would have a circuit). Kamath is silent with respect to an inductance coil and making the detection circuit detect the inductance parameter of the inductance coil. Min teaches an inductance coil (See Kamath [0041][0044], inductive circuit has a coil conductor) and making the detection circuit detect the inductance parameter of the inductance coil (See Kamath [0041], circuit have inductance values).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the Kamath detection circuit to detect an inductance coil and making the detection circuit detect the inductance parameter of the inductance coil as taught by Min so as to provide the user with information regarding changes in blood glucose levels surrounding the device (See Min [0041]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamath as applied to claim 3 above, and in view of Legassey et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0238118 – cited in prior action), hereinafter Legassey.
Regarding claim 10, Kamath teaches the device of claim 3 as stated above. Kamath teaches the physical unit (See Kamath [0404-0406], the electronics unit 16) and second parameter (See Kamath [0404-0406]) but is silent with respect to a magnetic unit while the detection end comprises a magnetic sensor that interacts with the magnetic unit to detect magnetic field information of the magnetic unit, and the second parameter comprises magnitude and a direction of the magnetic field. Legassey teaches the aligning of an implanted biosensor (See Legassey [0044]) and further teaches a magnetic unit while the detection end includes a magnetic sensor (See Legassey [0044], magnetic sensors) that interacts with the magnetic unit to detect magnetic field information of the magnetic unit (See Legassey [0044], magnetic field is detected), and the second parameter includes magnitude and a direction of the magnetic field (See Legassey [0035], magnitude of the magnetic field and claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to provide Kamath with a magnetic unit while the detection end includes a magnetic sensor that interacts with the magnetic unit to detect magnetic field information of the magnetic unit, and the second parameter includes the magnitude and direction of the magnetic field as taught by Legassey to modify the Kamath device so as to detect and locate position of the biosensor (See Legassey [0003]).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamath as applied to claim 2 above, and in view of Kuramochi et al. (US Patent 5,045,829 – cited in prior action), hereinafter Kuramochi.
Regarding claim 11, Kamath teaches the device of claim 2 as stated above. Kamath teaches that the physical unit is a conductive rubber strip arranged on the transmitter (See Kamath [0355], contact subassembly can be formed by a flexible material such as rubber), the bottom base or the sensor base is provided with convexes capable of squeezing the conductive rubber strip (See Kamath [0199]), and the detection circuit detects the resistance parameter (See Kamath [0404-0406], the transmitter has contacts and chip, the chip and contacts would have a circuit). Kamath is silent with respect to a varistor conductive rubber strip, includes the resistance change before and after the varistor conductive rubber strip is squeezed by the convexes whose number or the position distribution information, corresponding to the first parameter and the second parameter respectively, corresponds to different resistance changes. Kuramochi teaches a varistor conductive rubber strip (See Kuramochi abstract, col. 3 58-68, col. 4 lines 1-5, an extension type conductive elastomer of rubber layer 3), the inclusion of the resistance change before and after the varistor conductive rubber strip is squeezed by the convexes whose number or the position distribution information, corresponding to the first parameter and the second parameter respectively, corresponds to different resistance changes (See Kuramochi col 4 lines 5-22, determines resistance changes as force is applied). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to provide the Kamath device with a varistor conductive rubber strip which includes the resistance change before and after the varistor conductive rubber strip is squeezed by the convexes whose number or the position distribution information, corresponding to the first parameter and the second parameter respectively, corresponds to different resistance changes as taught by Kuramochi so as to permit the Kamath device the ability to determine resistance changes in the electrodes as force is applied further providing accurate sensing (See Kuramochi Col. 2 lines 28-60).
Regarding claim 12, Kamath teaches the device of claim 11 as stated above. Kamath suggests that the three convexes are arranged on the sensor base, and a conductive rubber strip (See Kamath Figure 3 sensor assembly is placed within the base 14, the base includes multiple convexes to place the sensor, also see [0182], one or more latches 30, [0355], contact subassembly can be formed by a flexible material such as rubber) Kamath is silent to squeeze different positions of the varistor conductive rubber strip. Kuramochi teaches squeeze different positions of the varistor conductive rubber strip (See Kuramochi abstract, col. 3 58-68, col. 4 lines 1-5, an extension type conductive elastomer of rubber layer 3, col 4 lines 5-22, determines resistance changes as force is applied). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to provide the Kamath device with the ability to squeeze different positions of the varistor conductive rubber strip as taught by Kuramochi to fasten the electrodes onto the assembly and determine electrical resistance when pressure is applied (See Kuramochi Col. 4 lines 64-68 and col. 5 lines 1-15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Applicant’s arguments, see pg., 7, filed December 09, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see pg., 8, filed December 09, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, prior art
Applicant’s arguments, see pg., 8-12, filed December 09, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 have been fully considered and are NOT persuasive. Applicant argues that Kamath does not specifically teach “a sensor with at least one first parameter… at least one physical unit with at least one second parameter which corresponds to the first parameter… a detection circuit for detecting the second parameter which is transmitted to the transmitter, thereby making the transmitter automatically identify the corresponding parameter”, as “Kamath fails to disclose the correlation between the parameter of the chip of the electronics unit 16 and the information of the sensor 32… Kamath fails to disclose how the circuit of the chip and the contacts of the electronics unit 16 of Kamath (interpreted as the detection circuit of claim 1) automatically identify the information of the sensor 32 by detecting and identifying the characteristic code of the chip 14 or the parameter of the chip of the electronics unit 16”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The “how” (i.e., the correlation and the automatic identification) is not required from the claimed recitations, merely that such an automatic identification occurs. As Kamath teaches such an automatic identification (see above rejection) and that a sensor unit comprising a sensor base and a sensor with at least one first parameter, and one end of the sensor is disposed in/on the sensor base (See Kamath Figure 1 and 3, and [0179],[0181], the sensor unit 10 includes a base 34, and sensor 32 is inserted into the host’s skin while the sensor is placed within the sensor base 34, also see [0404-0405] when the sensor and receiver connect information such as calibration code, resistance or passive value is collected, i.e., the sensor’s ID, calibration code, or the like would be the first parameter;
at least one physical unit with at least one second parameter which corresponds to the first parameter is arranged on the bottom base, on the sensor base or on/in the transmitter (See Kamath [0404-0406], the electronics unit 16 can have a chip which collects sensor information); and a detection circuit for detecting the second parameter which is transmitted to the transmitter, thereby making the transmitter automatically identify the corresponding first parameter (See Kamath [0404-0406], the transmitter has contacts and chip, the chip and contacts would have a circuit, i.e., the specific resistance or passive value is the second parameter, which corresponds to/identifies the sensor’s ID, calibration code, or the like). Therefore, Kamath teaches the elements of claim 1 as presently recited. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that Kamath identifies the first parameter directly instead of based on the second parameter. The examiner respectfully disagrees. While such a direct modality is taught by Kamath, Kamath also teaches a more indirect modality, through the resistance or passive value correlated to the sensor’s ID or calibration code as stated above. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments directed towards the rest of the references are not persuasive because Kamath teaches the recitations of amended claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JONATHAN D. MORONESO whose telephone number is (571)272-8055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30AM - 6:00 PM, MST.
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 M. ROBERTSON can be reached at (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.
/J.D.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights