DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/8/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as amended/presented in the response received 8/27/2025, is as follows:
- Claims 1-5, 7-8 are pending.
- Claims 1, 3 and 4 have been amended.
- Claim 6 has been canceled.
- Newly added claims 7-8 are presented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see response filed 1/8/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 as applicable to the claim as amended in the response have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 on the grounds presented in the Final Office Action mailed 10/09/2025 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US Patent No. 11,511,121 by Sit et al. as presented below. It is noted that the new grounds of rejection rely on an interpretation of the recited “connector” as the electrical connecting line that couples Sit’s receiving antenna to the substrate within the shield case. This interpretation differs from the previous interpretation of the recited “connector” as the receiving antenna, as presented in the Final Office Action.
This Office Action is made Non-Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 11,511,121 by SIT et al. (SIT hereafter).
In terms of claim(s) 1, SIT teaches in Figure(s) 6, a vital sensor comprising:
a casing (210):
a probe (positioned at the end of elongated portion 265, such as for example unit 260) configured to attach to a body of a subject (in the manner illustrated for example, in Figure 1), configured to connect to the casing via a cable (lead 265 + conductive line within it), and configured to output a signal corresponding to a vital sign of the subject (see col. 9, lines 31-34);
a power supply circuit (digital control and power management unit within 270, see col. 30, lines 9-11) housed within the casing and configured to supply power to at least the probe (see col. 30, lines 2-4);
a capacitor (see col. 30, lines 12-20) housed within the casing and electrically connected to the power supply circuit (**It’s noted Sit teaches in col. 77, lines 41-45 that the power supply, and thus the capacitors within it, may be positioned on top of substrate 211; and
a shield (1042) housed within the casing that covers at least the power supply
circuit and the capacitor to shield an electromagnetic wave (unit 270 which comprises the power circuit and capacitor, is positioned on a top surface of substrate 211 as explained in col. 77, lines 41-45. Since substrate 211 is surrounded by the shield, it follows that any element positioned on its surface is also surrounded by the shield);
a connector (although not shown, there inherently exists a conductive line that connects the antenna 1041a to the substrate 211, so that power received by antenna 1041 from the external charger can be transmitted to the energy storage assembly 270, as the manner illustrated for example, in Figure 3 which shows a connector 517 connecting an antenna 1041 to the substrate 511. See col. 73, lines 50-58), the connector configured to supply power for charging the capacitor from an outside of the casing (the connector transmits power received by the antenna 1040 from external antenna of source 500, as illustrated in Figure 1), the connector being accommodated in the casing (210); and
a substrate (211) supporting at least the connector (col. 73, lines 50-53) and the capacitor (see col. 77, lines 41-45 that teach the power supply and its capacitors are positioned on top of substrate 211), inside the casing.
As to claim 8, Sit teaches the connector (line connecting substrate 211 to antenna 1041a) is configured to be connected to a connector (antenna 1041a) that is connected to an external power source (unit 500 shown for example, in Figure 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 8 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US Patent No. 11,511,121 by SIT et al. (SIT hereafter).
In terms of claim(s) 1, SIT teaches in Figure(s) 6, a vital sensor comprising:
a casing (210):
a probe (positioned at the end of elongated portion 265, such as for example unit 260) configured to attach to a body of a subject (in the manner illustrated for example, in Figure 1), configured to connect to the casing via a cable (lead 265 + conductive line within it), and configured to output a signal corresponding to a vital sign of the subject (see col. 9, lines 31-34);
a power supply circuit (digital control and power management unit within 270, see col. 30, lines 9-11) housed within the casing and configured to supply power to at least the probe (see col. 30, lines 2-4);
a capacitor (see col. 30, lines 12-20) housed within the casing and electrically connected to the power supply circuit (**It’s noted Sit teaches in col. 77, lines 41-45 that the power supply, and thus the capacitors within it, may be positioned on top of substrate 211; and
a shield (1042) housed within the casing that covers at least the power supply
circuit and the capacitor to shield an electromagnetic wave (unit 270 which comprises the power circuit and capacitor, is positioned on a top surface of substrate 211 as explained in col. 77, lines 41-45. Since substrate 211 is surrounded by the shield, it follows that any element positioned on its surface is also surrounded by the shield);
a substrate (211) supporting at least the capacitor (see col. 77, lines 41-45 that teach the power supply and its capacitors are positioned on top of substrate 211), inside the casing.
Sit substantially teaches all of the recited elements as mentioned above, except that Sit doesn’t explicitly show the apparatus in Figure 6 includes a connector configured to supply power for charging the capacitor, and supported by the substrate.
However, Sit teaches in an alternate embodiment (shown in Figure 3), a connector (517) that connects components on a substrate (571, 5160) to a power transmitting antenna (1041). The connector is accommodated on said substrate and located inside a casing (510).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of connectors interconnecting power antennas to components on a substrate as taught by Sit in the embodiment of Figure 3, and add a connector connecting the power receiving antenna (1041a) to elements on the substrate, in order to provide electrically conductive channel by which to transmit power received by antenna 1041a to the components on substrate 211, including the power supply circuit (270) and the capacitors within it.
As to claim 8, Sit teaches the connector (line connecting substrate 211 to antenna 1041a) is configured to be connected to a connector (antenna 1041a) that is connected to an external power source (unit 500 shown for example, in Figure 3).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SIT in view of the US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2007/0118187 by Denker et al. (Denker hereafter).
In terms of claim(s) 2, SIT substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed above, except for explicitly mentioning the capacitor being configured to perform charging and discharging with an electric-double layer phenomenom.
Denker teaches the use of double layer capacitors as power storage devices within implantable devices (see paragraph 0037). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of doble layer capacitors as taught by Denker, in the device/system/method of SIT, in order to extend the life span and power capability of the power storage compared to standard rechargeable batteries, as suggested by Denker in paragraph 0037.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SIT in view of Denker and further in view of the US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2020/0067102 by Shen et al. (Shen hereafter).
As to claim 3, SIT teaches the device recited, wherein the substrate (211 in Fig. 6) further supports the power supply circuit inside the casing (270 is positioned on top of the substrate inside the casing 210, see col. 77, lines 41-45), a substrate portion (top surface of 211) supporting the power storage portion; and wherein the substrate portion is disposed such that the power storage portion extends along a major face of the substrate (top surface).
SIT in view of Denker substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed above, except for explicitly mentioning the capacitor being a lithium ion capacitor having a cylindrical shape.
Shen teaches in Figure 4, cylindrically shaped multi-layered lithium-ion capacitors (see paragraph 0035).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of cylindrically shaped lithium-ion multi-layered capacitors as taught by Shen, in the device/system/method of SIT in view of Denker, in order to improve on charging capabilities due to the increase on the moving ability of ions, which can raise charging and discharging efficiency, as suggested by Shen in paragraph 0045.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SIT in view of the US Patent No. 7,030,816 by Dai et al. (Dai hereafter).
As to claim(s) 4, SIT doesn’t explicitly mention a charging line formed in an inner layer of the substrate to connect the connector and the capacitor (capacitor within unit 270, see col. 30, lines 12-20). However, positioning traces on inner layers of a substrate is well known in the art. For example, Dai teaches in Figure 1, placing traces on inner layers of multiple layer substrates in order to connected electrically conductive components.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of traces positioned in inner layers of substrates as taught by Dai, in the device/system/method of SIT, in order to make as much of the .
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SIT in view of the US Patent No. 7,719,092 by Takubo (Takubo hereafter).
As to claim 5, although SIT teaches the shield case (1042) may be formed from an electromagnetic absorptive material (see for example, col. 3, lines 28-30), SIT doesn’t explicitly the electromagnetic absorptive material is non-magnetic.
However, Takubo (7,719,092) discusses in col. 3, lines 20-25, electromagnetic shield absorbers made of electromagnetic wave absorptive resin, which is non-magnetic.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of electromagnetic wave absorptive resins as taught by Takubo, in the device/system/method of SIT, in order to reduce the likelihood of magnetic interference on the antenna 1041 while shielding the units within the shield case from emf interference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination, the vital sensor wherein the connector is disposed so as to be exposed on an outer face of the casing, in combination with all other elements recited.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Isla whose telephone number is (571)272-5056. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a - 5:30p.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571 272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICHARD ISLA/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 January 29, 2026