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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 9-10, 12, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luna (US 2014/0085050) in view of Aloe et al. (US 2016/0341600).
Regarding to claims 1, 9-10:
Luna discloses an information processing apparatus comprising:
a processor configured to:
periodically acquire output values corresponding to a plurality of pulse wave signals detected by a proximity sensor in a state worn on a body of a user via a wearable device (FIG. 1A: The wearable device 110 having proximity contact members (107 and 109a) containing sensors 120a-c (paragraph [0029]) and being worn by the user 102. Paragraph [0024]: Sensor data from the sensors includes data representing physiological information such as heart rate, pulse waves, respiration rate. FIG. 2A shows the plurality of pulse wave signals 204a-c),
derive, for each of the plurality of pulse wave signals detected by the proximity sensor during a predetermined determination period, an amplitude parameter representing an amplitude of a respective pulse wave signal (FIG. 2B: The amplitude parameters (272, 274, 295) of the output signal 270 are acquired at the time period).
Luna however does not teach count a number of the amplitude parameters exceeding a criterial value, the number being defined as an amplitude count for determination, determine that the wearable device is correctly worn on the body of the user based on the amplitude count for determination being less than or equal to a criterial number, and determine that the wearable device is not properly worn on the body of the user in a case where the amplitude count for determination is greater than the criterial number.
Aloe et al. discloses algorithms for detecting whether a device is properly/not properly secured to a user’s skin (Abstract) based on the variance in amplitude of sensed pulse signals to count by incrementing/decrementing a value of the counter unit 1112 (paragraph [0056]), wherein the value of the counter unit 1112 is compared to a counter threshold to determine whether the device is on-wrist or off-writ (paragraph [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Luna’s method to determine the wearing state/condition based on the count value of the amplitude variance as disclosed by Aloe et al. to improve the accuracy of wrist detection algorithm (Abstract).
Lunar also teaches the following claims:
Regarding to claims 3, 7, 12, and 16: wherein the processor acquire, as the amplitude parameter, a respective one of a plurality of amplitudes of the plurality of pulse wave signals generated at different timings (FIG. 2B shows the plurality of wave signals at different time periods); and acquires body movement information of the user (, and sets the criterial value based on the acquired body movement information, wherein upon determining that the wearable device is not properly worn on the body of the user, the processor outputs information for prompting the user to check a wearing state of the wearable device (paragraph [0041]: In case the wearable device is in the mis-positioned wearing state, the motion data 201 can be used to check or confirm the wearing state of the wearable device).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2151.
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, DOUGLAS RODRIGUEZ, can be reached on 571-431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAM S NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights