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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant' s arguments, filed 09/02/2025, have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed 09/02/2025, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Applicant has newly added claims 28-30 in the response filed on 09/02/2025, which have been acknowledged and entered.
Applicant canceled claims 10, 26, and 27 in the response filed on 09/02/2025.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 11, 15-23, and 28-30 are the current claims hereby under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS), filed 08/12/2025 and 10/17/2025, are in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS are being considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: "external capacitance" should read "external capacitor". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: communication module and detector in claims 1 and 27, and indicator module in claim 2.
Three Prong Analysis for Claim 1:
“module” and “detector” have been interpreted as generic placeholders for “means” or “step”
“configured for communications with an in-vivo device” and “configured to detect contact between the contact area and the skin of the person” have been interpreted as functional language
There is not enough structure recited in the claim to perform the aforementioned functions. Therefore, “communication module” and “detector” in claim 1 have been interpreted to invoke 35 U.S.C 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Three Prong Analysis for Claim 2:
“module” has been interpreted as a generic placeholder for “means” or “step”
“configured, based on input therefrom, to indicate states of contact of the contact area with the skin of the person” has been interpreted as functional language
There is not enough structure recited in the claim to perform the aforementioned function. Therefore, “indicator module” in claim 2 has been interpreted to invoke 35 U.S.C 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Communication module is herein interpreted to be an antenna arrangement or any equivalents thereof (pg. 2, line 21). Detector is herein interpreted to be a capacitance detector or any equivalents thereof (pg. 3, line 11).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 4, and 5 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.
Regarding claim 2, claim limitation “indicator module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no corresponding structure beyond "indicator module" that is configured "to indicate the states of contact of the contact area with the skin of the person" disclosed in the specification Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 2.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobra et al. (WO 2019/241676 A1 – cited by Applicant and previously cited) hereinafter Bobra in view of Libbus et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20130331665) hereinafter Libbus.
Regarding Claim 1, Bobra discloses a patch configured for being applied to skin of a person (receiver 102 [0030]; fig 1), the patch comprising:
a contact layer having a contact area configured for being in direct contact with the skin of the person when applied thereto (strip 106 can be attachable to a body via an adhesive surface 107 [0044]; fig 5);
a communication module configured for communications with an in-vivo device (control module 108 (or “pod”) containing circuitry and/or electronics for processing received IEM signals, receiving data from the strip 106, and/or transmitting data to external systems [0044]; fig 5);
and a detector configured to detect contact between the contact area and the skin of the person (receiver 102 can further include an impedance sensor 126 configured to measure the impedance [0046]; impedance at the electrodes 1 12 can indicate the quality of the contact between the electrodes 1 12 and the skin of the user [0052]), wherein the contact layer separates all electrical components of the patch from the skin of the person such that none of the communication module and the detector are in direct contact with the skin of the person (control module 108 is secured to the adhesive strip 106...control module 108 includes the firmware and various electronics [0045]; fig 5; fig 6A).
Bobra fails to disclose no electrical components of the patch are in direct contact with the skin of the person.
However, Libbus teaches a gel layer disposed on electrodes such that no electrical components of a patch are in direct contact with a skin of a person (Gel 114A, or gel layer, is positioned on electrode 112A to provide electrical conductivity between the electrode and the skin. [0095]; fig 1J).
Libbus is considered analogous art to the present invention because it is directed towards the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the patch of Bobra such that no electrical components of the patch are in direct contact with the skin of the person, as taught by Libbus, because adding a layer of gel on the electrodes would increase the electrical conductivity between the electrodes and the skin of the person.
Regarding Claim 8, Bobra in view of Libbus teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Bobra further discloses the communication module is further configured to communicate with one or more ex-vivo devices (the receiver 102 can be configured to communicate data to external electronic devices or computer systems, as shown in FIG. 7 [0031]).
Regarding Claim 11, Bobra in view of Libbus teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Bobra further discloses the contact layer comprises a rear face constituting the contact area and a front face facing away from the person (fig 1; fig 5).
Claim(s) 2, 4-6, 9, 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobra (WO 2019/241676 A1 – cited by Applicant and previously cited) in view of Libbus (US Patent Pub. No. 20130331665) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ganton et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20150292856 – previously cited) hereinafter Ganton.
Regarding Claim 2, Bobra in view of Libbus teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Bobra in view of Libbus fails to teach an indicator module associated with the detector and configured, based on input therefrom, to indicate states of contact of the contact area with the skin of the person.
However, Ganton teaches an indicator module associated with a detector and configured, based on input therefrom, to indicate states of contact of a contact area with a skin of a person (the electronic patch 110 may be configured to issue an alarm if the electronic patch 110 has been attached to the subject 140 and removed after a period of time that is prior to a specified removal time [0038]).
Ganton is considered analogous art because it is directed towards the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the patch of Bobra in view of Libbus to include an indicator module as taught by Ganton because it would notify the person using the patch if there is proper contact between the patch and skin. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 4, Bobra in view of Libbus, and further in view of Ganton teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 2. Bobra in view of Libbus, and further in view of Ganton further teaches the indicator module comprises more than one indication signals, each relating to a different state of contact between the contact area and the skin of the person (Such a premature removal of the electronic patch 110 could indicate non-compliance or non-adherence to a treatment or monitoring protocol or may indicate other anomalies, error conditions, or failures. Thus, one or more additional modes may be provided. [0038 of Ganton]; Examiner notes modes are signals).
Regarding Claim 5, Bobra in view of Libbus, and further in view of Ganton teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 2. Bobra in view of Libbus, and further in view of Ganton further teaches the contact area comprises two or more different regions (fig 5 of Bobra; Examiner notes the left, middle, and right areas of the contact layer are different regions) and the indicator is configured for providing, for at least a portion of these regions, a positive/negative indication signal (the electronic patch 110 may enter an alarm mode if prematurely removed after being applied. Other modes are possible depending on the use case of the electronic patch 110 [0038 of Ganton]; fig 2B-2C; Examiner notes that an alarm can be a positive/negative signal and the use case of the electronic patch can correspond to different regions of the contact layer).
Regarding Claim 6, Bobra in view of Libbus teaches the invention as discussed above in Claim 1. Bobra in view of Libbus fails to teach detection is based on any one of the following mechanisms: electric induction, heat capacitance, or chemical reaction.
However, Ganton teaches detection is based on any one of the following mechanisms: electric induction, heat capacitance, or chemical reaction (a capacitive sensor configured to detect when the electronic sensor patch is applied to a patient (abstract); attachment detection device 340 [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have further modified the patch of Bobra in view of Libbus such that the impedance sensor is replaced with a capacitive sensor/the attachment detection device so that detection is based on heat capacitance, as taught by Ganton, because it would not change the function of the patch. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 9, Bobra in view of Libbus, and further in view of Ganton teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 8. Bobra in view of Libbus, and further in view of Ganton teaches detection of the contact between a contact area and a skin of a person is performed based on load resistance to a resonance capacitor electrically coupled to the antenna (attachment detection device 340 may include sensing pads 348, which have an effective capacitance (represented as capacitance 342) and a resistance 346 [0046 of Ganton]; Examiner notes fig 3C shows attachment detection device coupled to the antenna). Bobra in view of Ganton fails to teach the communication module comprises a power source and an antenna.
However, Ganton teaches a communication module comprises a power source and an antenna (the sensor array unit 210 may be equipped with a large number of electronic patches 110, some or all of which may be used in-place forming a measurement array that may communicate with the hub unit 230 or other receiver device [0040]; electronic patch 310 may include an antenna 311... and a power supply 350 [0041]; fig 3A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the communication module of Bobra in view of Ganton to include a power source so that power can be provided to the communication module, and an antenna so that the data can be transmitted. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 15, Bobra in view of Libbus teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Bobra in view of Libbus fails to teach the detector is a capacitance detector.
However, Ganton teaches capacitive sensors to detect contact between a patch and skin (electronic patch that included non-electronic components may include capacitive sensors around the non-electronic components to ensure that the patch is well attached to the patient [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the patch of Bobra in view of Libbus such that detector is a capacitance detector, as taught by Ganton, because doing so would not change the function of the detector. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 16, Bobra in view of Libbus, and further in view of Ganton teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 15. Bobra in view of Libbus, and further in view of Ganton further teaches the capacitance detector is configured for measuring electrical capacitance (attachment detection may be accomplished by measuring a capacitance associated with the capacitance sensor to detect the presence of a body [0070 of Ganton]) and providing a reading to the indicator module or to a processor which is associated with an indicator module (the change in capacitance from the contact causes the processor to detect a change in a parameter such as, for example, an RC time constant of the attachment detection device [0030 of Ganton]; Examiner notes that processor is associated with the alarm because the processor determines the attachment and the alarm is issued based on attachment).
Regarding Claim 17, Bobra in view of Libbus, and further in view of Ganton teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 16. Bobra in view of Libbus, and further in view of Ganton further teaches the capacitance detector is calibrated to have a baseline reading corresponding to a state in which the contact area is fully detached from the skin of the person (When the attachment detection circuit 340b comes into close proximity or touches the skin 130 of the subject 140, the electric fields associated with the detection sensor electrodes 348a and 348b may be modified, which directly changes the effective capacitance from C to C′. [0050 of Ganton]; Examiner notes C is the baseline).
Regarding Claim 18, Bobra in view of Libbus, and further in view of Ganton teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 17. Bobra in view of Libbus, and further in view of Ganton further teaches when the contact area is properly adhered to the skin of the person, the capacitance detector will detect a spike in capacitance compared to the baseline reading (During attachment, the dielectric constant may be significantly increased due to the presence of the body and, as a result, the effective capacitance may increase. [0058 of Ganton]; determining that the electronic patch is in close proximity to a body in response to the measured capacitance of the capacitance sensor being more than the threshold [0083 of Ganton]), and when a portion of the contact area becomes detached from the skin of the person, the capacitance detector will detect a drop in capacitance (When the plates making up the electrodes 348a and 348b are not in proximity to a body (i.e., free space) the effective capacitance will be low due to the dielectric constant of the media... During attachment, the dielectric constant may be significantly increased due to the presence of the body and, as a result, the effective capacitance may increase. [0058]; Examiner notes that the effective capacitance would decrease when the patch is not attached if it increases when the patch is attached).
Regarding Claim 19, Bobra in view of Libbus, and further in view of Ganton teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 16. It is noted that Applicant has failed to provide details of critically or unexpected results in the Specification with regard to the sensor size and signal-to-noise ratio being calibrated such that any increase of distance by more than at least 30% will yield a change in capacitance. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to determine that any increase of distance by more than at least 30% will yield a change in capacitance, which allows its detection. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 20, Bobra in view of Libbus, and further in view of Ganton teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 16. Bobra in view of Libbus, and further in view of Ganton further teaches an initial distance of the capacitance detector from the skin ranges between 1.5-5mm (An adhesive layer 111 may be used to affix the electronic patch 110 to the skin surface 130. [0037 of Ganton]; Examiner notes, based on the figure, detector could be within that range). Furthermore, it is noted that Applicant has failed to provide details of critically or unexpected results in the Specification with regard to the initial distance of the capacitance detector from the skin. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to determine an optimum initial distance of the capacitance detector from the skin. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 21, Bobra in view of Libbus, and further in view of Ganton teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 16. Bobra in view of Libbus, and further in view of Ganton further teaches the capacitance detector comprises a plurality of capacitive sensors (Including more than one capacitance sensor may be useful for some applications by providing redundancy and ensuring activation even when the entire patch is not in contact with the person's body. For example, an embodiment electronic patch that included non-electronic components may include capacitive sensors around the non-electronic components to ensure that the patch is well attached to the patient. [0059 of Ganton]).
Claim(s) 22 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobra (WO 2019/241676 A1 – cited by Applicant and previously cited) in view of Libbus (US Patent Pub. No. 20130331665) and further in view of Ganton (US Patent Pub. No. 20150292856 – previously cited) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Matsumoto et al. (US Patent No. 6373264 – previously cited) hereinafter Matsumoto.
Regarding Claim 22, Bobra in view of Libbus, and further in view of Ganton teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 21. Bobra in view of Libbus, and further in view of Ganton fails to teach the capacitance detector further comprises: a plurality of oscillators corresponding to the plurality of capacitive sensors, each oscillator of the plurality of oscillators connected to a respective capacitive sensor of the plurality of capacitive sensors and configured to output a respective oscillating signal; a selector configured to select one of the respective oscillating signals to provide an oscillator output signal; and a counter configured to reset prior to a measurement time window and to provide a counter readout based on the oscillator output signal for the measurement time window.
However, Matsumoto teaches a capacitance detector (apparatus for detecting an impedance variable in response to a sensed physical amount of a sensor (abstract)) further comprises:
a plurality of oscillators corresponding to a plurality of capacitive sensors (oscillation frequency of the oscillation unit 42 changes in response to a change in the capacitance of the sensor 41 (col. 2, lines 28-29); fig 2; FIGS. 12 and 13 illustrate circuit diagrams of oscillators usable as the oscillation signal generation unit of the apparatus shown in FIG. 3 (col. 5, lines 55-57)), each oscillator of the plurality of oscillators connected to a respective capacitive sensor of the plurality of capacitive sensors and configured to output a respective oscillating signal (the oscillation unit 42 converts a change in the capacitance of the sensor 41 into a change in frequency (col. 2, lines 49-51); fig 2);
a selector configured to select one of the respective oscillating signals to provide an oscillator output signal (unit 3 is implemented as an Wien bridge oscillator, which applies a positive feedback to an amplifier by a feedback circuit network having frequency selectivity (col. 6, lines 31-34); fig 4);
and a counter configured to reset prior to a measurement time window and to provide a counter readout based on the oscillator output signal for the measurement time window (the counter 4 receives the pulsed waveform signal as an input clock signal and a clear signal having a predetermined cycle to reset the counter 4, and counts the clocks for the predetermined cycle (col. 8, lines 51-54); the counter 47 counts the number of the waves in the amplified signal during a predetermined time period, and outputs a count value to a processing unit 48 in the microcomputer 45 (col. 2, lines 37-40)). Matsumoto also teaches the invention allows for “detecting an amount of a physical variable to provide a signal corresponding to an amount which can be digitally processed” (col. 1, lines 12-14).
Matsumoto is considered analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to a problem faced by the inventors.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the patch of Bobra in view of Libbus, and further in view of Ganton such that the capacitance detector would further comprise a plurality of oscillators, a selector, and a counter, as taught by Matsumoto, because it would allow for the detection of contact between the contact area and the skin of the person which can be digitally processed. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 28, Bobra in view of Libbus, in view of Ganton, and further in view of Matsumoto teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 22. Bobra in view of Libbus, in view of Ganton, and further in view of Matsumoto also teaches a value of the counter readout is inversely-proportional to a sensed capacitance sensed by the respective capacitance sensor (In the detection circuit shown in FIG. 2, the oscillation unit 42 converts a change in the capacitance of the sensor 41 into a change in frequency. Then, the counter 47 counts the number of the waves in the frequency signal from the oscillation unit 42 so that the capacitance change of the sensor 41 can be revealed as a digital signal. (col. 2, lines 49-54 of Matsumoto); Further, in the detection circuit shown in FIG. 2, a change in the counted number of the waves must be converted into a change in a capacitance through digital processing in the processing unit 48. However, the oscillation frequency of the oscillation unit 42 as mentioned above hardly exhibits a simple proportional relationship with the capacitance value of the sensor 41. In other words, complicated operations such as square and inversion operations must be performed at high speed in the processing unit 48 in order to reveal a change in the capacitance of the sensor 41 in real time. (col. 3, lines 14-23 of Matsumoto)).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobra (WO 2019/241676 A1 – cited by Applicant and previously cited) in view of Libbus (US Patent Pub. No. 20130331665) and further in view of Ganton (US Patent Pub. No. 20150292856 – previously cited) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Ajioka et al. (CN 1741385 A – previously cited) hereinafter Ajioka.
Regarding Claim 23, Bobra in view of Libbus, and further in view of Ganton teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 22. Bobra in view of Libbus, and further in view of Ganton fails to teach capacitance detection is performed by self capacitance, which is relative to earth ground. However, Ajioka teaches capacitance detection is performed by self capacitance, which is relative to earth ground (it is judged whether or not the human body is in contact based on the change in the capacitance between the metal plate and the earth (pg. 1, lines 30-31)).
Ajioka is considered analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to a problem faced by the inventors.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the patch of Bobra in view of Libbus, and further in view of Ganton such that the capacitance detection is performed by self capacitance, which is relative to earth ground, as taught by Ajioka, because it would not change the function of the capacitance detection. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Furthermore, it is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the art to ground capacitors relative to earth.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobra (WO 2019/241676 A1 – cited by Applicant and previously cited) in view of Libbus (US Patent Pub. No. 20130331665) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ajioka et al. (CN 1741385 A – previously cited).
Regarding Claim 29, Bobra in view of Libbus teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Bobra in view of Libbus fails to teach the detector is a self-capacitance detector which measures self-capacitance relative to earth ground.
However, Ajioka teaches a self-capacitance detector, that detects contact between a contact area and a skin of a person, measures self-capacitance relative to earth ground (it is judged whether or not the human body is in contact based on the change in the capacitance between the metal plate and the earth (pg. 1, lines 30-31)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the patch of Bobra in view of Libbus such that the detector is a self-capacitance detector which measures self-capacitance relative to earth ground, as taught by Ajioka, because it would not change the function of the detector. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Furthermore, it is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the art to ground capacitors relative to earth.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobra (WO 2019/241676 A1 – cited by Applicant and previously cited) in view of Libbus (US Patent Pub. No. 20130331665) and further in view of Ajioka (CN 1741385 A – previously cited) as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Pan et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20230275583) hereinafter Pan.
Regarding Claim 30, Bobra in view of Libbus, and further in view of Ajioka teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 29. Bobra in view of Libbus, and further in view of Ajioka fails to teach the self-capacitance detector performs operations comprising: in a charge phase: using charge stored in a Vreg capacitor to charge an external capacitance; in a transfer phase: transferring charge from the external capacitance to a sampling capacitor, and refilling the Vreg capacitor with charge; and repeating the charge phase and the transfer phase until voltage on the sampling capacitor changes by a predetermined amount.
However, Pan teaches “a touch or proximity sensing system that determines touch or proximity by detecting a capacitance change between two opposite electrodes of at least one capacitive sensor” [0023]. Pan teaches a self-capacitance detector (The first capacitive sensor 102a includes a first end coupled to the sensing system 100 and a second end opposite to the first end coupled to ground. [0024]) that performs operations comprising: in a charge phase: using charge stored in a Vreg capacitor to charge an external capacitor (The sensing system 100 is configured to charge a number of charges to the first capacitive sensor 102a through the first end thereof in charging phases of successive cycles [0024]; fig 1; Examiner notes capacitive sensor 102a is located outside the sensing system 100); in a transfer phase: transferring charge from the external capacitor to a sampling capacitor, and refilling the Vreg capacitor with charge (and transfer the charges to a sample capacitor in transferring phases of the successive cycles by discharging the first capacitive sensor 102a, to sense a capacitance change of the first capacitive sensor 102a. [0024]; transfer charges charged to the first capacitive sensor 102a to the first sample capacitor 110a [0026]; fig 1); and repeating the charge phase and the transfer phase until voltage on the sampling capacitor changes by a predetermined amount (The touch or proximity to the first capacitive sensor 102a is determined based on cycles for charging a voltage difference across the first sample capacitor 110a to a predetermined voltage. [0026]; fig 1).
Pan is considered analogous art to the present invention because it is reasonably pertinent to a problem faced by the inventors.
The invention of Bobra in view of Libbus, and further in view of Ajioka teaches using a self-capacitance sensor in a patch to determine contact between a skin of a person and the patch, but fails to disclose how the self-capacitance sensor determines contact. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the patch of Bobra in view of Libbus, and further in view of Ajioka such that the self-capacitance detector performs operations comprising: in a charge phase: using charge stored in a Vreg capacitor to charge an external capacitance; in a transfer phase: transferring charge from the external capacitance to a sampling capacitor, and refilling the Vreg capacitor with charge; and repeating the charge phase and the transfer phase until voltage on the sampling capacitor changes by a predetermined amount, as taught by Pan, to determine contact between the skin of the person and the patch.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11 of Remarks, filed 09/02/2025, with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12 of Remarks, filed 09/02/2025, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the claims has been withdrawn. However, upon further examination, a new claim objection has been made as necessitated by amendments.
Applicant's arguments, see page 12 of Remarks, filed 09/02/2025, with respect to the claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “the types of structures for ‘communication module,’ ‘detector,’ and ‘indicator module’ are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations recited are very generic and do not impart structure as they are not preceded by a structural modifier.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-13 of Remarks, filed 09/02/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 4, 5, 19, and 20 has been withdrawn. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 2 is maintained as it is dependent on the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-15 of Remarks, filed 09/02/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections have been considered but are not persuasive and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANKI M BAVA whose telephone number is (571)272-0416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-6:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/JANKI M BAVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ETSUB D BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791