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 .
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, 4-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volpe et al. (US Publication 2013/0085538; hereinafter Volpe) in view of Knetsch et al. (US Patent 4,631,478; hereinafter Knetsch).
With regards to claim 1, Volpe teaches a respiratory monitoring system (FIG. 1), comprising:
a cord ([0047-0048]) configured to extend around a torso of a person ([0035]), wherein the cord comprises:
a core member (“magnetic core”; [0048]) comprising an elastic material ([0058] suggests the core would also be elastic), wherein the core member is defined by a length and wherein the elastic material is configured to stretch from a first length (as in FIG. 3A) to a second length (as in FIG. 4A), when a force is applied thereto [[and]];
a first helical conductive coil (150) positioned around the core member ([0048]), wherein the first helical conductive coil is adapted to generate a magnetic field substantially parallel to the length of the core when electric current having a predefined frequency is passed through the at least one helical conductive coil ([0048]);
an electrical current source in electrical communication with the first helical conductive coil and adapted to generate said electric current ([0048]); and
a sensor (510) electrically coupled to the first helical conductive coil (FIG. 5) and configured to measure a change in at least one of an inductance of the first helical conductive coil ([0061]) or the frequency of electrical current in the first helical conductive coil; and
a controller (520; FIG. 5) coupled to the sensor and configured to receive data indicative of said measured change and determine a respiration value based on said data ([0068, 0070]).
However Volpe is silent regarding a second helical conductive coil positioned parallel to the first helical conductive coil, coiled in a direction opposite to a coil direction of the first helical conductive coil, and wrapped around the core member.
Knetsch teaches a second helical conductive coil (18) positioned parallel to the first helical conductive coil (17; FIG. 3), coiled in a direction opposite to a coil direction of the first helical conductive coil, and wrapped around the core member (13; col. 2, line 67 to col. 3, line 12; FIG. 3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of having the second helical conductive coil as taught by Knetsch positioned parallel to the first helical conductive coil of Volpe with reasonable expectation of attaining amplification of the measurement signal (col. 2, line 67 to col. 3, line 12; Knetsch).
With regards to claim 2, Volpe, as combined with Knetsch, teaches (citations to Volpe) the respiratory monitoring system of claim 1. However, Volpe, as combined with Knetsch, does not teach wherein the second length is at least 10% greater than the first length.
It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"). In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") In this particular case, Volpe teaches a generic range of stretchiness for the respiratory monitoring system ([0052]; see also FIG. 6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to stretch the respiratory monitoring system as taught by Volpe, as combined with Knetsch, including the range as claimed with reasonable expectation of fitting over a torso for respiratory measurement ([0068]).
With regards to claim 4, Volpe, as combined with Knetsch, teaches (citations to Volpe) the respiratory monitoring system of claim 1, wherein a first magnetic field generated by a first loop of the first helical conductive coil and a second magnetic field generated by a second loop of the first helical conductive coil are more additive in intensity than destructive in intensity ([0057], depending on the looseness or tightness of the garment, the inductance increases or decreases based on the combined inductance measured by a part of the controller 130).
With regards to claim 5, Volpe, as combined with Knetsch, teaches (citations to Volpe) the respiratory monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the first helical conductive coil is wrapped in a casing configured to prevent a surface of the first helical conductive coil from directly contacting a user's skin ([0044, 0055]).
With regards to claims 6 and 17, Volpe, as combined with Knetsch, teaches the respiratory monitoring system of claim 1 and the method of claim 15, respectively. However, Volpe, as combined with Knetsch, does not teach wherein the first helical conductive coil comprises windings having a density in a range of 10 to 20 turns per inch and wherein the first helical conductive coil comprises a wire in a range of 20 to 40 gauge.
It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"). In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") In this particular case, Volpe teaches a generic coil without specifying the windings density ([0048]) and/or the wire gauge (FIG. 2-4).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the number of windings and/or the size of the conductive wire as taught by Volpe, as combined with Knetsch, via routine experimentation with reasonable expectation of forming a conductive coil for inductance measurement ([0052]).
With regards to claim 7, Volpe, as combined with Knetsch, teaches the respiratory monitoring system of claim 1. However, Volpe, as combined with Knetsch, does not teach wherein the first helical conductive coil comprises windings having a density in a range of 1 turn per inch to 50 turns per inch using a wire having a gauge in a range of 10 to 50 and wherein the core member has a diameter in a range of 0.01 inch to 4 inches.
It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"). In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.") In this particular case, Volpe teaches a generic coil without specifying the windings density ([0048]), the wire gauge (FIG. 2-4), and/or the core diameter ([0048]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the number of windings, the gauge of the conductive wire, and the core diameter as taught by Volpe, as combined with Knetsch, via routine experimentation with reasonable expectation of forming a conductive coil for inductance measurement ([0052]).
With regards to claim 8, Volpe, as combined with Knetsch, teaches (citations to Volpe) the respiratory monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the cord ([0048]) is disposed on a flat carrier (110) to form a web ([0055-0056]).
With regards to claim 10, Volpe, as combined with Knetsch, teaches (citations to Volpe) the respiratory monitoring system of claim 8, wherein the web is shaped as a flat, curved, or tubular surface (FIG. 2 and 3A; similar to FIG. 10A of the instant invention).
With regards to claim 11, Volpe, as combined with Knetsch, teaches (citations to Volpe) the respiratory monitoring system of claim 8, wherein the cord ([0048]) is centered in a cross section of the web (FIG. 2-3A), positioned on an exterior surface of the web or positioned in a perimeter of the web.
With regards to claim 13, Volpe, as combined with Knetsch, teaches (citations to Volpe) the respiratory monitoring system of claim 1 wherein a first portion of the cord ([0048]) extends along one direction on the core member and a second portion of the cord extends along a second opposing direction on the core member creating a return loop (FIG. 2), and wherein a free end of the first and the second portions are aligned at a same end of the core member (FIG. 2).
With regards to claim 14, Volpe, as combined with Knetsch, teaches (citations to Volpe) the respiratory monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the electrical current source comprises an oscillator configured to generate the electric current having the predefined frequency ([0048], “alternating current” suggests the current has a predefined frequency).
With regards to claim 15, Volpe teaches a method of monitoring a respiration rate of a person, comprising:
positioning a respiratory inductance plethysmography belt around a torso of a person ([0035]) wherein the respiratory inductance plethysmography belt comprises a carrier (110) having a cord (magnetic core; [0048]) positioned thereon, wherein the cord comprises a core member made of an elastic material ([0058] suggests the core would also be elastic), wherein the core member is defined by a length and wherein the elastic material is configured to stretch from a first length (as in FIG. 3A) to a second length (as in FIG. 4A) in a direction parallel to a ground level when the person is standing and when a force is applied thereto (FIG. 2), and a first helical conductive coil (150) positioned around the core member ([0048]), wherein the first helical conductive coil is adapted to generate a magnetic field substantially parallel to the length of the core when electric current having a predefined frequency is passed through the at least one helical conductive coil ([0048]);
activating an electrical current source in electrical communication with the first helical conductive coil to generate said electric current ([0048]);
activating a sensor (510) electrically coupled to the first helical conductive coil (150; FIG. 5);
using the sensor, measuring a change in at least one of an inductance of the first helical conductive coil ([0061]) or the frequency of electrical current in the first helical conductive coil; and
determining a respiration value based on the measured change in the inductance or the frequency ([0068, 0070]).
However Volpe is silent regarding a second helical conductive coil positioned parallel to the first helical conductive coil, coiled in a direction opposite to a coil direction of the first helical conductive coil, and wrapped around the core member.
Knetsch teaches a second helical conductive coil (18) positioned parallel to the first helical conductive coil (17; FIG. 3), coiled in a direction opposite to a coil direction of the first helical conductive coil, and wrapped around the core member (13; col. 2, line 67 to col. 3, line 12; FIG. 3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of having the second helical conductive coil as taught by Knetsch positioned parallel to the first helical conductive coil of Volpe with reasonable expectation of attaining amplification of the measurement signal (col. 2, line 67 to col. 3, line 12; Knetsch).
With regards to claim 20, Volpe, as combined with Knetsch, teaches (citations to Volpe) the method of claim 15, wherein the electrical current source comprises an oscillator configured to generate the electric current having the predefined frequency ([0048], “alternating current” suggests the current has a predefined frequency).
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volpe et al. (US Publication 2013/0085538; hereinafter Volpe) in view of Knetsch et al. (US Patent 4,631,478; hereinafter Knetsch), and further in view of Jeong et al. (US Publication 2015/0097806; hereinafter Jeong).
With regards to claims 3 and 16, Volpe, as combined with Knetsch, teaches the respiratory monitoring system of claim 1 and the method of claim 15, respectively wherein the second helical conductive coil is electrically insulated from the first helical conductive coil (col. 2, lines 23-41 and line 67 to col. 3, line 12; Knetsch).
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volpe et al. (US Publication 2013/0085538; hereinafter Volpe) in view of Knetsch et al. (US Patent 4,631,478; hereinafter Knetsch), and further in view of Ojarand et al. (US Publication 2023/0172473; hereinafter Ojarand).
With regards to claims 12 and 19, Volpe, as combined with Knetsch, teaches the respiratory monitoring system of claim 8 and the method of claim 15, respectively. However, Volpe, as combined with Knetsch, teaches is silent regarding wherein the web comprises a connector that mechanically connects a first end of the web to a second end of the web when the web is encircled around the torso.
Ojarand teaches a respiratory monitoring system (abstract) comprises a connector (3) that mechanically connects a first end of the web (4) to a second end of the web (4) when the web is encircled around the torso ([0051]; FIG. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to attach the end of the web via a connector as taught by Ojarand to the web as taught by Volpe, as combined with Knetsch, teaches to connect the web to control parts for sending signals and performing measurement ([0051]; Ojarand) as originally intended.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volpe et al. (US Publication 2013/0085538; hereinafter Volpe) in view of Knetsch et al. (US Patent 4,631,478; hereinafter Knetsch), and further in view of Hoskuldsson et al. (US Publication 2021/0085242; hereinafter Hoskuldsson).
With regards to claims 9 and 18, Volpe, as combined with Knetsch, teaches the respiratory monitoring system of claim 8 and the method of claim 15, respectively. However, Volpe, as combined with Knetsch, is silent regarding wherein the web comprises a second cord and wherein the second cord comprises a third helical conductive coil wound around a second core member, and wherein the third helical conductive coil is adapted to generate a magnetic field extending along a length of the second core member when electric current having a predefined frequency is passed through the third helical conductive coil.
Hoskuldsson teaches a system and method for monitoring respiratory signals (abstract) comprising a first cord (31) and second cord (32) having a first and second conductors (34, 35) respectively for measuring inductance across a torso ([0039]; FIG. 2a-b).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to monitor respiratory signals as taught by Hoskuldsson using two conductors with the web as taught by Volpe, as combined with Knetsch, to additionally monitor respiratory movements ([0039]). Thus, the combination of Volpe, Knetsch, and Hoskuldsson would teach wherein the web comprises a second cord (second 110 of Volpe to attach to a second portion of the torso as in FIG. 2a-b of Hoskuldsson) and wherein the second cord comprises a third helical conductive coil (second 150 of Volpe) wound around a second core member ([0048]; Volpe), and wherein the third helical conductive coil (second 150 of Volpe) is adapted to generate a magnetic field extending along a length of the second core member when electric current having a predefined frequency is passed through the third helical conductive coil ([0048]; Volpe).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 QUANG X.L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, STEPHEN D. MEIER can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/QXN/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853