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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-13) in the reply filed on November 21st, 2025 is acknowledged. Applicant argues that Invention I and II “share the same essential technical features, and unity of invention should be recognized among them”. Examiner would like to clarify that the Restriction Requirement mailed on October 1st, 2025 recited that the inventions are independent or distinct because they are related as process and apparatus, not because they do or do not share a technical feature, under unity of invention.
Regardless, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive because although Groups I and II have similar limitations, Groups II and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another materially different process such as a method for monitoring health through evaluating and calibrating impedance measurements.
Applicant may amend the withdrawn claims concurrently during prosecution and would likely be able to rejoin them if any found allowable subject matter is inputted into those claims. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on November 21st, 2025.
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 1-13 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.
Claims 1 and 4-9 recite the term “in case” multiple times. However, there are multiple ways to use and interpret the term “in case”. To clarify, “in case” can mean two different things: #1) “as a provision against something happening or being true”, or #2) “if it is true that”.
If “in case” were to be used meaning the first definition, the clause that followed “in case” would not be required. For example, “Sam brought a jacket, in case it was cold”. In this example, regardless of whether it was cold or not, Sam brought a jacket. This usage of “in case” is used to mean “as a provision against something happening or being true”, and does not require the conditional statement to be fulfilled.
If “in case” were to be used meaning the second definition, the clause that followed “in case” would be required for the rest of the statement to be true. For example, “In case of the temperature dropping below 32 degrees, the water will freeze”. In this example, the water will freeze only if the temperature drops below 32 degrees. If this conditional statement is not met, the water will not freeze. This usage of “in case” is used to mean “if it is true that” and requires the conditional statement to be fulfilled.
In view of these two different interpretations, the Examiner requests that the Applicant clarify exactly which meaning was meant by each recitation of “in case” throughout Claims 1 and 4-9 because it is currently unclear as to whether the conditional statements need to be fulfilled or not. In general, the claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document, with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the body impedance" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that although “body impedance measurement” was previously recited in Claim 1, “body impedance” was not formally introduced.
Claim 3 recites “measure the effective measurement time based on an area of the electrodes” in line 2. It is unclear as to how the “effective measurement time” can be measured based on an area of the electrodes. The claims use the term “measure”, which implies that “time” is being recorded, and it is unclear as to how “area” can be factored into the measurement of “time”, without any further calculation steps. Furthermore, it is unclear as to whether “an area of the electrodes” is referring to a singular area of any of the plurality of electrodes, or if it is referring to the total sum of each of the areas of the plurality of electrodes. Clarification is requested.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the electrode area" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear as to whether this limitation is referring to the previously introduced “an area of the electrodes” in Claim 3, or a separate element.
Claim 4 recites “configured to initialize the effective measurement time in case that at least one of contact impedances obtained after a starting of the body impedance measurement” in lines 2-4. It is unclear as to what “initialize” means in the context of the current claim limitations. Furthermore, Claim 1 recited wherein the plural contact impedances were obtained before the performance of body impedance measurement, since the performance of body impedance measurement could only take place if all the obtained plural contact impedances were less than a first impedance value. Therefore, it is unclear as to whether the “at least one of contact impedances” from Claim 4 is referring to the previously introduced “plural contact impedances” from Claim 1, or a separate element.
Similarly, Claim 5 recites “configured to measure the effective measurement time in a cumulative manner in case that at least one of contact impedances obtained after a starting of the body impedance measurement” in lines 2-4. 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, and Claim 2 previously already defined how the “effective measurement time” was measured. Furthermore, Claim 1 recited wherein the plural contact impedances were obtained before the performance of body impedance measurement, since the performance of body impedance measurement could only take place if all the obtained plural contact impedances were less than a first impedance value. Therefore, it is unclear as to whether the “at least one of contact impedances” from Claim 5 is referring to the previously introduced “plural contact impedances” from Claim 1, or a separate element.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the processor is further configured to end the body impedance measurement in case that all the obtained plural contact impedances are less than a second impedance value” in lines 1-3. 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”. These two options depend on whether the obtained plural contact impedances are #1) lesser than or #2) greater than or equal to the first impedance value. Therefore, it is unclear as to how the processor can be further configured to “end” the body impedance measurement 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 6 would be fulfilled. Even if the processor initially performed body impedance measurement in Claim 1, it is unclear as to how and when the body impedance measurement would end after it has already begun.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the obtained body impedance" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear as to whether this limitation is referring to the previously introduced “obtain[ed] plural contact impedances” in Claim 1, the “body impedance measurement” in Claim 1, or a separate element. Examiner notes that although “body impedance measurement” was previously recited in Claim 1, “body impedance” itself was not formally introduced, nor were there any limitations that recited wherein the body impedance was “obtained”.
Claim 7 recites “the measurement” in line 5. It is unclear as to whether this limitation is referring to the measurement of the “fluctuation range” or the previously introduced “body impedance measurement” from Claim 1. If this limitation is referring to “body impedance measurement”, similar issues as Claim 6 arise. 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”. These two options depend on whether the obtained plural contact impedances are #1) lesser than or #2) greater than or equal to the first impedance value. Therefore, it is unclear as to how the processor can be further configured to “end” the body impedance measurement 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 7 would be fulfilled. Even if the processor initially performed body impedance measurement in Claim 1, it is unclear as to how and when the body impedance measurement would end after it has already begun.
Claims 8 and 9 recite “the measurement” in line 2. It is unclear as to whether this limitation is referring to the measurement of the “effective measurement time” from Claim 2, the measurement of the “exclusion time” from Claim 2, or the measurement of the “body impedance” from Claim 1. If this limitation is referring to “body impedance measurement”, similar issues as Claims 6-7 arise. 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”. These two options depend on whether the obtained plural contact impedances are #1) lesser than or #2) greater than or equal to the first impedance value. Therefore, it is unclear as to how the processor can be further configured to “end” the body impedance measurement 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 Claims 8-9 would be fulfilled. Even if the processor initially performed body impedance measurement in Claim 1, it is unclear as to how and when the body impedance measurement would end after it has already begun.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the obtained body impedance" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear as to whether this limitation is referring to the previously introduced “obtain[ed] plural contact impedances” in Claim 1, the “body impedance measurement” in Claim 1, or a separate element. Examiner notes that although “body impedance measurement” was previously recited in Claim 1, “body impedance” itself was not formally introduced, nor were there any limitations where the body impedance was “obtained”.
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 or a certain method of organizing human activity 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:
a plurality of electrodes;
a sensor operably connected to the plurality of electrodes;
a memory; and
a processor operably connected to the sensor and the memory,
wherein the processor is configured to:
obtain plural contact impedances through the sensor based on contact between the plurality of electrodes and a user,
perform body impedance measurement in case that all the obtained plural contact impedances are less than a first impedance value, and
determine not to perform body impedance measurement in case that at least one of the obtained plural contact impedances is greater than or equal to the first impedance value.
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 (identified above in independent Claim 1), 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”, “processor” 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. 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 method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., “processor” 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”, “processor” 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. 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 processor(s) 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; Applicant’s Background in the specification; and the non-patent literature of record in the application.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term “processor” 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 “processor”. 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 are 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 instruct the practitioner to 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 § 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, 7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Omron Corp (JP H11285480; cited by Applicant; machine translation provided herewith, is referred to below).
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]);
a memory (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
a processor (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 processor is configured 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]),
perform body impedance measurement in case that all 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).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]), and
determine not to perform body impedance measurement in case that at least one of the obtained plural contact impedances is greater than or equal to the 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). 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]).
Regarding Claim 7, Omron Corp discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: measure a fluctuation range of the obtained body impedance for a preset time, and end the measurement in case that the fluctuation range is 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 processor is further configured to obtain body composition data based on the obtained 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 processor is further configured 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]).
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 2, 8-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omron Corp in view of Nakada et al (U.S. Publication No. 2005/054944; cited by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 2, Omron Corp fails to teach wherein the processor is further configured to: measure an effective measurement time being a time during which the body impedance is measured in response to determining to perform body impedance measurement, and measure an exclusion time being a time during which the body impedance is not measured in response to determining not to perform body impedance measurement.
In a similar technical field, Nakada teaches a bioelectrical impedance measuring apparatus (Abstract), configured to measure an effective measurement time being a time during which the body impedance is measured in response to determining to perform body impedance measurement, and measure an exclusion time being a time during which the body impedance is not measured in response to determining not to perform 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]).
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 8, Omron Corp fails to teach wherein the processor is further configured to end the measurement in case that the effective measurement time is longer than or equal to a preset first time.
In a similar technical field, Nakada teaches a bioelectrical impedance measuring apparatus (Abstract), wherein the processor is further configured to end the measurement in case that the effective measurement time is longer than or equal to a preset first 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 limit the device to a certain time frame, in which the microcomputer will determine whether an accurate measurement can or cannot be made at this time (Nakada [0088]).
Regarding Claim 9, Omron Corp fails to teach wherein the processor is further configured to end the measurement in case that the exclusion time is longer than or equal to a preset second time.
In a similar technical field, Nakada teaches a bioelectrical impedance measuring apparatus (Abstract), wherein the processor is further configured to end the measurement in case that the exclusion time is longer than or equal to a preset 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 limit the device to a certain time frame, in which the microcomputer will determine whether an accurate measurement can or cannot be made at this time (Nakada [0088]).
Regarding Claim 12, Omron Corp discloses wherein the device further comprises: a display (a display unit 16 for displaying measurement results and advice information are provided; [0011]), wherein the processor is further configured to output, on the display, a visual interface including graphical objects and text indicating the effective measurement time and the exclusion time (Here, an instruction display of "Please turn on the start SW" may be displayed on the display unit 16 when the determination of "READY" in ST3 is YES, and the key operation of the subject may be prompted. When the start switch is turned on, a time delay of several seconds is set (ST5), and a notification that the measurement has started is notified by the buzzer 29 or displayed on the display unit 16 (ST6); [0016]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omron Corp in view of Kasahara et al (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0124909).
Regarding Claim 6, Omron Corp fails to disclose wherein the processor is further configured to end the body impedance measurement in case that all the obtained plural contact impedances are less than a second impedance value.
In a similar technical field, Kasahara teaches a body fat measuring device (Abstract), wherein the processor is further configured to end the body impedance measurement in case that all the obtained plural contact impedances are 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 the invention of Omron Corp in order to ensure proper contact conditions for an accurate measurement (Kasahara [0087]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omron Corp and Nakada, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kim et al (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0324440; cited by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 13, Omron Corp fails to disclose wherein the processor is further configured to guide the user of the effective measurement time and the exclusion time through a voice interface.
Nakada teaches wherein the processor is further configured to guide the user of the effective measurement time and the exclusion 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]).
Omron Corp and Nakada fail to teach a voice interface.
In a similar technical field, Kim teaches a method and apparatus for measuring body fat using mobile device (Abstract), wherein the processor is further configured to guide the user through a voice interface (the mobile device may output a message instructing the user to accurately position his or her right hand on each electrode. The mobile device may notify the object that a contact state between the object and electrodes included in the mobile device is not good, via a sound, vibration, or an image; [0207]; According to an embodiment of the present invention, the output unit 907 may include a display 917, a motor 927, and an audio output unit 937…the display 917 displays a screen image including a moving picture, a text, an image, and the like, and may output various notification messages including posture correction information, action information, contact correction information, and information about the posture of the object….the audio output unit 937 may include a speaker and may output a notification message via sound; [0315-0318]).
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 voice interface teachings of Kim into those of Omron Corp and Nakada in order to notify the user about various messages including posture correction information, action information, contact correction information, and information about the posture of the object, without having to require the user to be looking at the display (Kim [0315-0318]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANEL J JHIN 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 JHIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3791