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 .
Amendment Entered
In response to the amendment filed on April 23rd, 2026, amended claims 1-22 are entered. Claims 14-23 remain withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-13 are currently under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered. Although some of the rejections have been withdrawn in view of the amendment, some of the rejections have not been properly addressed. Therefore, a number of the rejections have been maintained, and further clarified below.
Applicant's remarks and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered. The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Applicant's arguments, filed on April 23rd, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejections are maintained, and further clarified, in view of the amendment.
At Pg. 9 of the Reply, Applicant argues “independent claim 1 integrate, as a whole, how a wearable electronic device measures body while improving accuracy by measuring body impedance under effective contact conditions and providing a user friendly interface”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although the Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to include limitations such as “determine whether all of the obtained plural contact impedances are less than a first impedance value” and “determine not to perform the body impedance measurement, measure an exclusion time being a time during which body impedance is not measured, and determine a measurement failure based on the exclusion time being longer than or equal to a second time being an exclusion time threshold”, the newly added limitations fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. The claim limitations still recite mental steps for organizing information and classifying data obtained through generic sensors. The claims simply obtain data, compare them to thresholds, and output values. Therefore, there is nothing outside of the abstract idea that shows integration into practical application or significantly more.
The claims recite mental processes performed on a computer control system. The “Federal Circuit has explained, ‘[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.’ Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. Thus, the use of the one or more processors and memory in the apparatus claim does not prevent identification of the abstract idea as a mental process. There is no time limit recited for performing the steps. The claimed steps can be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind with no time limit. The computer is merely utilized as a tool to perform the mental steps. The Examiner would further like to clarify the manner in which the impedance values are obtained is part of extra-solution activity, in the form of data-gathering. Furthermore, mere data-gathering is recognized by the court as insignificant, extra-solution activity. “As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978)” MPEP 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, the claimed steps do not improve the functioning of the data acquisition or the signal exchange. “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.” MPEP 2106.05(a). The data acquisition and signal exchange appear to perform the same with or without the abstract idea. Therefore, any improvement resides solely within the abstract idea. “The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification).” MPEP 2106.05(a). “That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.” Id.
“[I]n McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea.” MPEP 2106.05 (a). There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. Unlike McRO, the claimed system invokes a computer as a tool to perform a mathematical concept and/or mental process.
The processor, units, and memory perform the same with or without the claimed abstract idea. Therefore, it is unclear how the abstract idea can improve the standard functions of the additional elements.
Further at Pg. 9 of the Reply, Applicant argues “it is urged that there is no correspondence in the pre-computer world for the claimed features. Again, these are improvements in the area of computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of speech recognition, not mere abstract ideas. In other words, the current claim very clearly pertains to a solution based only in computer technology to solve a problem, which has no counterpart outside of speech recognition by electronic devices”. Applicant’s arguments are not fully understood. It is unclear as to how “speech recognition” is relevant to the instant application. The independent claims do not recite any limitations related to “speech recognition” and at most, dependent claim 13 recites “a voice interface”. There is no recitation of “speech recognition” present within the claims or specification; therefore, this argument will be considered moot, as it fails to be relevant to the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “measure the exclusion time in response to determining not to perform the body impedance measurement” in lines 7-9. It is unclear as to whether this limitation is further defining the limitations of Claim 1 that already recited “determine not to perform the body impedance measurement, measure an exclusion time being a time during which body impedance is not measured”, or if this limitation was intentionally meant to be repetitive. Clarification is requested.
Claim 3 recites “measure the effective measurement time differently based on a result of the determining of whether the electrode area of the at least one electrode is less than the preset size” in lines 6-8. It is unclear as to how the “effective measurement time” can be measured “differently based on a result of the determining of whether the electrode area of the at least one electrode is less than the preset size”. The claims use the term “measure”, which implies that there are no further steps of calculating. Therefore, it is unclear as to how the determination of an electrode area can be factored into the measurement of “time”, without any further calculation steps. Clarification is requested.
Claim 5 recites “measure the effective measurement time in a cumulative manner from a first effective measurement time based on at least one contact impedance of the plural contact impedances obtained after a starting of the body impedance measurement being greater than or equal to the first impedance value” in lines 5-9. It is unclear as to what “cumulative manner” means in the context of the current claim limitations, as the “effective measurement time” is being measured, rather than calculated. Furthermore, it is unclear as to how the “cumulative manner” can be based on “at least one contact impedance of the plural contact impedances obtained after a starting of the body impedance measurement being greater than or equal to the first impedance value”. Clarification is requested.
Claim 6 recites “end the body impedance measurement based on all the obtained plural contact impedances being less than a second impedance value” in lines 4-5. It is unclear as to how the body impedance measurement can be “end[ed]” in this case, as the two options presented in Claim 1 are to either “perform body impedance measurement” or “determine not to perform body impedance measurement”. If the processor initially determined not to perform body impedance measurement in Claim 1, it is unclear as to how the limitations of Claim 7 would be fulfilled. In order to overcome this, Examiner suggests further clarifying that these limitations occur after / if the body impedance measurement was performed. However, even in the case where the processor initially performed the body impedance measurement in Claim 1, it is unclear as to whether the “obtained plural contact impedances” are referring to those measured before the determination of whether all of the obtained plural contact impedances were less than a first impedance value, or after the body impedance measurement was performed. Clarification is requested.
Claim 7 recites “the body impedance” in line 4. It is unclear as to whether this limitation is referring to the previously introduced “body impedance measurement”, or a separate element.
Claim 7 recites “end the body impedance measurement” in line 6. It is unclear as to how the processor can be configured to “end” the body impedance measurement in this case, as the two options presented in Claim 1 are to either “perform body impedance measurement” or “determine not to perform body impedance measurement”. If the processor initially determined not to perform body impedance measurement in Claim 1, it is unclear as to how the limitations of Claim 7 would be fulfilled. In order to overcome this, Examiner suggests further clarifying that these limitations occur after / if the body impedance measurement was performed.
Claim 8 recites “end the body impedance measurement” in line 4. Similarly to Claim 7, it is unclear as to how the processor can be configured to “end” the body impedance measurement in this case, as the two options presented in Claim 1 are to either “perform body impedance measurement” or “determine not to perform body impedance measurement”. If the processor initially determined not to perform body impedance measurement in Claim 1, it is unclear as to how the limitations of Claim 8 would be fulfilled. In order to overcome this, Examiner suggests further clarifying that these limitations occur after / if the body impedance measurement was performed.
Claim 9 recites “end the body impedance measurement based on the exclusion time being longer than or equal to the second time” in lines 4-5. It is unclear as to how this limitation can be possible, as the “exclusion time” is only measured in response to determining not to perform the body impedance measurement. Therefore, it is unclear as to how the body impedance measurement can be “end[ed]” because in order for something to “end”, it must have begun. If the processor initially determined not to perform body impedance measurement in Claim 1, it is unclear as to how the limitations of Claim 9 would be fulfilled. Clarification is requested.
Claim 10 recites “the body impedance” in line 4. It is unclear as to whether this limitation is referring to the previously introduced “body impedance measurement”, or a separate element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Each of Claims 1-13 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 1
Claims 1-13 recite an apparatus for performing or determining not to perform body impedance measurement. Thus, the claims are directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-13 recites at least one step or instruction for performing or determining not to perform body impedance measurement, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG.
Claim 1 recites abstract ideas in the form of mental processes, as consistent with Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012). If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind, see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Determining to perform or not perform body impedance measurement are assessments that may be performed by a human. This applies for all claims dependent on Claim 1.
Accordingly, each of Claims 1-13 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of: “determine whether all of the obtained plural contact impedances are less than a first impedance value, based on all of the obtained plural contact impedances being less than the first impedance value, perform a body impedance measurement, and based on at least one of the obtained plural contact impedances being greater than or equal to the first impedance value, determine not to perform the body impedance measurement, measure an exclusion time being a time during which body impedance is not measured, and determine a measurement failure based on the exclusion time being longer than or equal to a second time being an exclusion time threshold”.
Further, dependent Claims 2-13 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claim 1 (and its dependent Claims 2-13) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: “plurality of electrodes”, “sensor”, “memory, comprising one or more storage media”, “one or more processors” in independent Claim 1; “display”, “visual interface” in dependent Claim 12; and “voice interface” in dependent Claim 13 are generically recited elements in independent Claim 1 (and its dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field or categorized as data-gathering elements. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and its dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., “one or more processors” as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and its dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claim 1 (and its dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-13 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons. These claims require the additional elements of: “plurality of electrodes”, “sensor”, “memory, comprising one or more storage media”, “one or more processors” in independent Claim 1; “display”, “visual interface” in dependent Claim 12; and “voice interface” in dependent Claim 13.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks or categorized as data-gathering elements. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by the Applicant’s specification (e.g. paragraphs [0035]-[0061]) which discloses that the additional elements comprise generic components that are configured to perform data-gathering steps and the “one or more processors” comprise generic computer components that are configured to perform the generic computer functions (e.g. determining) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry; the Applicant’s Background in the specification; the non-patent literature of record in the application; and the cited prior art.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term “one or more processors” is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the “one or more processors”. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-13 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatus of Claims 1-13 is directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 1-13 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claim 1 (and its dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-13 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-13 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-13 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 1, 7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omron Corp (JP H11285480; cited by Applicant; machine translation provided herewith, is referred to below; previously cited) in view of Nakada et al (U.S. Publication No. 2005/054944; cited by Applicant; previously cited).
Regarding Claim 1, Omron Corp discloses an electronic device (Health management guideline advice device; Abstract) comprising:
a plurality of electrodes (electrodes 17, 18, 19, 20; [0012]);
a sensor operably connected to the plurality of electrodes (FIG. 5 shows electrodes 17 and 18 and electrodes 19 and 20. FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating a circuit configuration in a main body unit connected to the main unit. Internal circuit of the embodiment device, the high-frequency signal generating section 21 (10 for generating a constant current high frequency signal of a frequency f 0 A ≦ f 0 ≦ 100KHZ), a differential amplifier 22 which receives a potential signal from electrodes 19 and 20, a band-pass filter 23 for cutting a signal other than the frequency f 0, the demodulation circuit demodulates the high frequency signal components 24 An A / D converter 25 for converting an analog signal into a digital signal; [0014]);
memory, comprising one or more storage media, storing instructions (a ROM 26 and inputs data from the RAM 27 and the A / D converter 25 and data such as height, weight, age, gender, and date and time from the data input unit 15 to calculate impedance measurement processing calculations and health management guideline advice information; [0014]); and
one or more processors (CPU 28) operably connected to the sensor and the memory (FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating a circuit configuration in a main body unit connected to the main unit. Internal circuit of the embodiment device, the high-frequency signal generating section 21 (10 for generating a constant current high frequency signal of a frequency f 0 A ≦ f 0 ≦ 100KHZ), a differential amplifier 22 which receives a potential signal from electrodes 19 and 20, a band-pass filter 23 for cutting a signal other than the frequency f 0, the demodulation circuit demodulates the high frequency signal components 24 An A / D converter 25 for converting an analog signal into a digital signal, and a ROM 26 And inputs data from the RAM 27 and the A / D converter 25 and data such as height, weight, age, gender, and date and time from the data input unit 15 to calculate impedance measurement processing calculations and health management guideline advice information. C to execute the extraction process PU 28, buzzer 29 for giving a warning, measurement result output unit 3 for outputting measurement results to, for example, a printer by communication 0, a power supply battery 8 and the like; [0014]), wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
obtain plural contact impedances through the sensor based on contact between the plurality of electrodes and a user (The contact resistance between the left palm and the electrodes 17 and 19 is measured based on the potential difference between the two electrodes…the electrodes 18 and 20 are connected to the input of the differential amplifier 22. Thus, the contact resistance of the right palm is measured in the same manner as in the case of the left palm; [0029-0030]),
determine whether all of the obtained plural contact impedances are less than a first impedance value (Next, it is determined whether or not the measured resistance value of both palms is equal to or less than a specified value (ST26); [0031]),
based on all of the obtained plural contact impedances being less than the first impedance value, perform a body impedance measurement (If the resistance value of both palms is equal to or less than the specified value in ST26, it is determined that the grip is normally gripped and the start of measurement is displayed on the display unit (ST28). Thereafter, in ST29 to ST31, FIG. The same processing as in ST10 to ST12 is performed; [0031]), and
based on at least one of the obtained plural contact impedances being greater than or equal to the first impedance value, determine not to perform the body impedance measurement (Next, it is determined whether or not the measured resistance value of both palms is equal to or less than a specified value (ST26). It is determined that the grip strength of the grip portions 12 and 13 of the subject is still insufficient, and a message “Please hold the grip portion accurately” is displayed on the display portion 16 (ST27), and the process returns to ST24 to return to ST24 to ST27. Is repeated. If the resistance value of both palms is equal to or less than the specified value in ST26, it is determined that the grip is normally gripped and the start of measurement is displayed on the display unit (ST28). Thereafter, in ST29 to ST31, FIG. The same processing as in ST10 to ST12 is performed; [0031]).
Omron Corp fails to specifically disclose measuring an exclusion time being a time during which body impedance is not measured, and determining a measurement failure based on the exclusion time being longer than or equal to a second time being an exclusion time threshold.
In a similar technical field, Nakada teaches a bioelectrical impedance measuring apparatus (Abstract), configured to measure an exclusion time being a time during which body impedance is not measured, and determine a measurement failure based on the exclusion time being longer than or equal to a second time being an exclusion time threshold (In the contact condition determination routine, the value of the number i of normal contacts is checked to check whether the contact condition is normal (STEP S9). If the contact condition is not normal, the microcomputer 3 checks from the timer installed therein whether 30 seconds have elapsed from the start of the bioelectrical impedance measuring mode (STEP S10). If 30 seconds have not yet elapsed, the microcomputer 3 returns to the bioelectrical impedance measuring routine in STEP S7 and continues the measurement, while if 30 seconds have already elapsed, the microcomputer 3 determines that an accurate measurement could not be made this time and displays an error on the display section 4 (STEP S11); [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the time teachings of Nakada into the invention of Omron Corp in order to prioritize determining contact conditions within a given time, instead of several determination processes that result in long measurement times (Nakada [0023-0025 and 0088-0090]).
Regarding Claim 7, Omron Corp discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: measure a fluctuation range of the body impedance for a preset time, and end the body impedance measurement based on the fluctuation range being less than a preset range (When the impedance is measured, whether the measured impedance between both hands is stable in a normal range, It is checked whether it is stable (ST7, ST8), and if it is not stable, a message "Please hold the grip firmly" is displayed on the display section 16, and the buzzer 29 is operated to notify the fact (ST9). In ST8, if normal and stable, measurement processing and conversion calculation of body fat are executed (ST10), and the end of measurement is notified on the display unit 16 and the buzzer 29 (ST11), and the measurement result is thereafter displayed. It is displayed on the display unit 16 and, if necessary, pointer guidance information is also displayed (ST12); [0017]).
Regarding Claim 10, Omron Corp discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: obtain body composition data based on the body impedance (In ST8, if normal and stable, measurement processing and conversion calculation of body fat are executed (ST10), and the end of measurement is notified on the display unit 16 and the buzzer 29 (ST11), and the measurement result is thereafter displayed. It is displayed on the display unit 16 and, if necessary, pointer guidance information is also displayed (ST12); [0017]).
Regarding Claim 11, Omron Corp discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: determine the first impedance value based on physical characteristics of the user (And inputs data from the RAM 27 and the A / D converter 25 and data such as height, weight, age, gender, and date and time from the data input unit 15 to calculate impedance measurement processing calculations and health management guideline advice information; [0014]).
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omron Corp and Nakada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sumino et al (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0317386).
Regarding Claim 2, Nakada disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: measure the exclusion time in response to determining not to perform the body impedance measurement (In the contact condition determination routine, the value of the number i of normal contacts is checked to check whether the contact condition is normal (STEP S9). If the contact condition is not normal, the microcomputer 3 checks from the timer installed therein whether 30 seconds have elapsed from the start of the bioelectrical impedance measuring mode (STEP S10). If 30 seconds have not yet elapsed, the microcomputer 3 returns to the bioelectrical impedance measuring routine in STEP S7 and continues the measurement, while if 30 seconds have already elapsed, the microcomputer 3 determines that an accurate measurement could not be made this time and displays an error on the display section 4 (STEP S11); [0088]).
Omron Corp and Nakada fail to disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: measure an effective measurement time being a time during which the body impedance is measured in response to determining to perform the body impedance measurement.
In a similar technical field, Sumino teaches a body weight management device includes a measurement unit that measures a body impedance of a measurement subject (Abstract), configured to measure an effective measurement time being a time during which the body impedance is measured in response to determining to perform the body impedance measurement (the recording processing unit 184 associates the body weight and the body impedance with measurement time measured by the timer unit 13 and stores the associated information in the storage unit 12. Also, the recording processing unit 184 reads out from the storage unit 12 the associated body weight, body impedance and measurement time when reading out the data from the storage unit 12; [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the timer unit teachings of Sumino into those of Omron Corp and Nakada in order to measure time and output measured time to the control unit as necessary for recording and analysis purposes (Sumino [0033 and 0075-0077]).
Regarding Claim 9, Nakada disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: end the body impedance measurement based on the exclusion time being longer than or equal to the second time (In the contact condition determination routine, the value of the number i of normal contacts is checked to check whether the contact condition is normal (STEP S9). If the contact condition is not normal, the microcomputer 3 checks from the timer installed therein whether 30 seconds have elapsed from the start of the bioelectrical impedance measuring mode (STEP S10). If 30 seconds have not yet elapsed, the microcomputer 3 returns to the bioelectrical impedance measuring routine in STEP S7 and continues the measurement, while if 30 seconds have already elapsed, the microcomputer 3 determines that an accurate measurement could not be made this time and displays an error on the display section 4 (STEP S11); [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the time teachings of Nakada into the invention of Omron Corp in order to prioritize determining contact conditions within a given time, instead of several determination processes that result in long measurement times (Nakada [0023-0025 and 0088-0090]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omron Corp and Nakada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kasahara et al (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0124909; previously cited).
Regarding Claim 6, Omron Corp and Nakada fail to disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: end the body impedance measurement based on all of the obtained plural contact impedances being less than a second impedance value.
In a similar technical field, Kasahara teaches a body fat measuring device (Abstract), wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: end the body impedance measurement based on all of the obtained plural contact impedances being less than a second impedance value (If the measured impedance value is less than X(Ω)…then the routine proceeds via "NO" branch of step S36 to step S38 where the counter is incremented by one (j=j+1) and the data of impedance value stored in the memory unit 26 for this second impedance measurement process is deleted. Then, at step S39 a check is made to determine whether the counter reaches the upper limit of j=m. If the answer is "NO" the routine return to step S34 where the timer is set to "t=0" again and the measurement of impedance is started again. However, if the answer is "YES" the routine returns to the main flow chart of FIG. 4; [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the impedance value threshold teachings of Kasahara into those of Omron Corp and Nakada in order to ensure proper contact conditions for an accurate measurement (Kasahara [0087]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANEL J YOON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2695. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on 571-272-4233. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/CHANEL J YOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights