DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 08/19/2025, 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 on 08/19/2025, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 16 and 32-35 are the current claims hereby under examination.
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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Phan (KR 20060123103). Citations to KR 20060123103 will refer to the English Machine Translation that accompanies this Office Action.
Regarding independent claim 16, Phan teaches a system for monitoring an athlete (Page 8: “The present invention relates to an interactive diagnostic patch or bracelet having a skin interface layer, one or more analysis or processing layers, and a user output interface.”; Page 107: “The uses of sports patches include real-time use during sports activities. These sports can include daily exercise, typically done by individuals in a gym or health club, or more rigorous workouts performed by professional athletes such as marathon runners, swimmers, hockey players, baseball players, football players, and soccer players.”), the system comprising:
a patch configured to be attached to a skin of the athlete and sense a condition of the athlete based on a sample of blood obtained from the athlete (Page 1: “The present invention relates to personal diagnostic devices such as skin patches or diagnostic bracelets, and in particular to interactive adhesive skin patches and medical diagnostic bracelets. More specifically, the present invention relates to an interactive adhesive skin patch and a personal diagnostic bracelet, including a skin/patch interface, one or more analysis or processing layers, and a user output and/or input interface.”; Page 8: “The patch may also further contain means for collecting a skin biological sample, such as blood”), the patch further configured to transmit information representative of the sensed condition (may be visually displayed via a user output interface layer in the form of a bar code, color change, numeric output, or alphanumeric output that may be color or monochrome presented on an LED/LCD display, or may be transmitted to a remote computer.”); and
a monitor external to the patch (may be visually displayed via a user output interface layer in the form of a bar code, color change, numeric output, or alphanumeric output that may be color or monochrome presented on an LED/LCD display, or may be transmitted to a remote computer.”), the monitor configured to receive the information from the patch through a communication link (Page 13: “The receiving device may be present in a personal diagnostic device, may be a personal computer, or may be coupled to a communications network.“) and generate an output (Page 10: “The test patch or bracelet may perform quantitative and/or qualitative testing to generate local results of the test and provide user output and/or user input and/or processing capabilities.”).
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.
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.
Claims 32-33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phan as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Tran (US 20180001183).
Regarding claim 32, Phan teaches the system of claim 16.
However, Phan does not teach the system further comprising a sensor configured to a part of a sporting equipment used by the athlete to measure a performance related parameter associated with the use of the sporting equipment.
Tran discloses a smart sport device. Specifically, Tran teaches the system further comprising a sensor configured to a part of a sporting equipment used by the athlete to measure a performance related parameter associated with the use of the sporting equipment ([0158]: “FIGS. 11A-11B show an exemplary smart handle for sports such as tennis, badminton, table tennis, and golf, among others. The wireless sensor electronics 14 is mounted on a handle in the example of FIG. 11B. The handle can be embedded or can be removed upon completion of the sports event”; [0159]: “The handle includes a swing analyzer measurement portion 54 in the grip end 52 of the handle of a golf club or a tennis/badminton racket, and a remote or handheld unit 56.”). Phan and Tran are analogous arts as they are both related to systems used to monitor the performance of athletes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the additional sensor from Tran into the system from Phan as it allows the system to record measurements of the athlete through the sporting equipment as well as through the patch, which can allow the user to evaluate the athlete’s performance as well as their health information, which can allow for further analysis of their athletic abilities and health conditions.
Regarding claim 33, the Phan/Tran combination teaches the system of claim 32 wherein the sensor is configured to provide information corresponding to the measured performance related parameter to the monitor (Tran, [0159]: “Handheld or remote unit 56 includes a communications unit 70 that communicates with the communications unit 60 on each golf club or tennis racket handle 50, i.e., with the communications units present on all of the golf clubs 50 equipped with swing analyzer measurement portions 54 and which have been designated to communicate therewith. Communications unit 70 may be an integral part of the handheld unit 56 as is the case when the handheld unit 56 is a smartphone. Communications unit 70 may also communicate with another device such as a Smartphone, to perform more data manipulations relating to the golf swing and/or swing results to provide more information to the user”).
Regarding claim 35, the Phan/Tran combination teaches the system of claim 32 wherein the sensor includes an accelerometer (Tran, [0159]: “The swing analyzer measurement portion 54 includes an accelerometer”).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Phan/Tran combination as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Heikenfeld (US Patent 9867539).
Regarding claim 34, the Phan/Tran combination teaches the system of claim 32.
However, the Phan/Tran combination does not disclose the specific type of circuit being used in the device.
Heikenfeld discloses a sensor to sense sweat from a user. Specifically, Heikenfeld teaches wherein the sensor includes an RFID circuit (Column 15, lines 64-65 “A wearable, medical-grade adhesive RFID enabled sensor patch is reported”; Column 20, lines 46-49: “The assembled RFID circuit was tested to ensure that the resonate frequency was near enough to the target frequency of 13.56 MHz that the device would communicate with the reader”). Phan, Tran, and Heikenfeld are analogous arts as they are all sensor patches used for sensing health parameters of a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the RFID circuit from Heikenfeld into the system from the Phan/Tran combination as the Phan/Tran combination does not disclose the specific circuit used, and Heikenfeld discloses a suitable sensor in an analogous device.
Response to Arguments
All of applicant’s argument regarding the rejections and objections previously set forth have been fully considered and are persuasive unless directly addressed subsequently.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16 and 32-35 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference 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 ERIN K MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (703)756-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5.
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 at 5712727540. 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.
/E.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/MATTHEW KREMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791