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 of Species A2 in the reply filed on 10/14/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Therefore, Claims 1-3, 5-10, 13, 15, 18, and 20 are examined.
Claims 4, 11-12, 14, 16-17, and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the digital analog converter from Claim 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: converter – element 64 (as cited in Page 7, line 22). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “system for comparing the physiological parameters of a patient” should read “a system for comparing the physiological parameters of a patient.”
In claim 1, “one primary detection device,” should read “a primary detection device.”
In claim 1, “at least a pair of distinct portions” should read “at least one pair of distinct portions.” To maintain proper antecedent basis, all later recitations within Claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims should refer to “the at least one pair of distinct portions.”
In claim 1, “at least a matrix of temperature sensors” should read “at least one matrix of temperature sensors.” To maintain proper antecedent basis, all later recitations within Claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims should refer to “the at least one matrix of temperature sensors.”
In claim 1, “at least a secondary detection device” should read “at least one secondary detection device.” To maintain proper antecedent basis, all later recitations within Claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims should refer to “the at least one secondary detection device.”
In claim 1, “at least a microcontroller” should read “at least one microcontroller (MCU).” To maintain proper antecedent basis, all later recitations within Claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims should refer to “the at least one microcontroller (MCU).”
In claim 1, “at least a screen” should read “at least one screen.” To maintain proper antecedent basis, all later recitations within Claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims should refer to “the at least one screen.”
In claim 1, “at least an acidity sensor or matrix of acidity sensors” should read “at least one acidity sensor or matrix of acidity sensors.” To maintain proper antecedent basis, all later recitations within Claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims should refer to “the at least one acidity sensor or matrix of acidity sensors.”
In claim 1, “at least an oxygenation sensor or matrix of oxygenation sensors” should read “at least one oxygenation sensor or matrix of oxygenation sensors.” To maintain proper antecedent basis, all later recitations within Claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims should refer to “the at least one oxygenation sensor or matrix of oxygenation sensors.”
In claims 5, 6, and 15, “the aforesaid central portion,” should read “the central portion.”
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.
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 1-3, 5-10, 13, 15, 18, and 20 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.
In Claim 1, the claim limitation “the physiological parameters” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, the indefinite limitation interpreted as “physiological parameters.”
In Claim 1, the claim limitation “the parameters” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, the indefinite limitation interpreted as “the physiological parameters.”
In Claim 1, the claim limitation “a patient” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is unclear. It is unclear whether the recited ‘a patient’ throughout claim 1 refers to the same patient or different patients. For purposes of examination, the claim limitation is interpreted as the same patient. The examiner recommends that after the first reference to 'a patient,' all subsequent references should be 'the patient.’
In Claim 1, the claim limitation “a first printed circuit” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is unclear. It is unclear whether the first printed circuit is the same element in both of the detection devices. For purposes of examination, the claim limitation is interpreted as the same element in both detection devices.
In Claim 1, the claim limitation “a second printed circuit” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is unclear. It is unclear whether the second printed circuit is the same element in both of the detection devices. For purposes of examination, the claim limitation is interpreted as the same element in both detection devices.
In Claim 1, the claim limitation “a secondary detection device” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is unclear. “A secondary detection device” is recited twice within the claim and it is unclear whether each recitation refers to the same element or different elements. For purposes of examination, the claim limitation is interpreted as the same element.
In Claim 1, the claim limitation “a flexible support” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is unclear. It is unclear whether the flexible support is the same element in both of the detection devices. For purposes of examination, the claim limitation is interpreted as the same element in both detection devices.
In Claim 1, the claim limitation “the same data” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, the indefinite limitation interpreted as “a same data.”
In Claim 1, the claim limitation “a microcontroller” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is unclear. It is unclear whether the microcontroller is the same element in both of the detection devices. For purposes of examination, the claim limitation is interpreted as the same element in both detection devices. The examiner recommends that after the first reference to 'a microcontroller,' all subsequent references should be 'the microcontroller.’
In Claim 1, the claim limitation “the detected temperature data” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, the indefinite limitation interpreted as “a detected temperature data.”
In Claim 1, the claim limitation “said microcontrollers” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, the indefinite limitation interpreted as referring to both microcontrollers in the first detection device and second detection device.
In Claim 1, the claim limitation “the display” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, the indefinite limitation interpreted as “a display.”
In Claim 1, the claim limitation “the detected data” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, the indefinite limitation interpreted as “a detected data.”
In Claims 5, 6, 15, the term “each side” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “each side” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, the claim limitation of “each side” is interpreted as the primary detection device is connected to at least one additional detection portion via at least one connection cable.
In Claims 5, 6, 15, the claim limitation “additional detection portion” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is unclear. It is unclear whether the additional detection portion is the same as the detection device. For purposes of examination, the claim limitation is interpreted as the same as the detection device because it shares the same structural characteristics.
In Claims 5, 6, 15, the claim limitation “matrix of sensors” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is unclear. It is unclear what is defined as the matrix of sensors. Are the matrix of sensors only the temperature sensors? Are the matrix of sensors only the temperature sensors and acidity sensors? Based upon further clarification from the specification and drawings, claim limitation is interpreted as the acidity sensor and matrix of temperature sensors.
In Claims 5, 6, 15, the claim limitation “the central portion” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, the indefinite limitation interpreted as “a central portion.”
Claim 6 is dependent on itself, making it unclear exactly what claim it was meant to be dependent on. For the purposes of examination it will be treated as being dependent on claim 1.
In Claims 7, 18, the claim limitation “a connector in which a flexible connection cable is inserted” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is unclear. It is unclear what the distinction between the connector and the flexible connection cable is. Additionally what is the different between connection cable and the flexible connection cable. For purposes of examination, the claim limitation is interpreted as the flexible connection cable and connection cable are rendered to mean the same. Additionally, the connection cable is used to connect the plurality of detection devices to one another.
In Claims 7, 18, the claim limitation “plurality of sensors” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is unclear. It is unclear whether the plurality of sensors only incorporates the matrix of temperature sensors or incorporates both the matrix of temperature sensors and acidity sensor. For purposes of examination, the claim limitation is interpreted as the matrix of temperature sensors and acidity sensor.
In Claims 7, 18, the term “possible” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “possible” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In Claims 7, 18, the term “fully exploit” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fully exploit” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In Claims 7, 18, the claim limitation “selection device” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, the indefinite limitation interpreted as “a selection device.”
Claim 10 is a method claim and comprising the system of claim 1 but doesn’t appear to really set forth any clear method steps. This makes the claim unclear as to what statutory category is intended to be claimed. For the purpose of examination it will be treated as basically using the system of claim 1 generically.
In Claim 8, the claim limitation “USB interface means” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation is incorporating “means.” The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; 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.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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 1-3, 8, 9, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brownhill et al. (CN 109069712 A) in view of Zhao et al. (US 20190307400 A1) and Duesterhoft et al. (US 20130274563 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Brownhill discloses system for comparing the physiological parameters of a patient, adapted to acquire, process and compare detected data relative to the parameters of skin vitality in at least a pair of distinct portions of the body of a patient (Paragraph 0015, 0045, 0135); said system comprising at least:
one primary detection device constituted by a first printed circuit and a second printed circuit arranged on a flexible support (Paragraph 0096; [Examiner’s note, one skilled in the art can determine the multi-layer flexible printed circuit is the first and second printed circuit. Whether there are two or more, or a multi-layer of flexible printed circuit, both printed circuits will function the same.]), adapted to be placed at a first skin portion to be diagnosed, healthy or damaged, of a patient (Paragraphs 0095-0096); said first printed circuit comprising at least a matrix of temperature sensors (Figure 3A; Paragraphs 0095-0096, 0103) adapted to send the detected temperature data to at least a microcontroller integrated in said printed circuit (Paragraphs 0104, 0141);
detection device constituted by a first printed circuit and a second printed circuit arranged on a flexible support (Paragraph 0096; [Examiner’s note, the multi-layer flexible printed circuit is the first and second printed circuit.]), adapted to be placed at a second skin portion, healthy (Paragraph 0156; [Examiner’s note, the site where the detection device is placed can contain both healthy and wounded skin.]), of a patient in order to detect the same data as said first skin portion (Paragraphs 0045, 0084, 0095-0096); said first printed circuit comprising at least a matrix of temperature sensors (Figure 3A; Paragraph 0103) adapted to send the detected temperature data to at least a microcontroller integrated in said printed circuit (Paragraphs 0104, 0141).
Brownhill is silent in teaching the microcontroller being integrated to another printed circuit,
Zhao teaches microcontroller (Zhao | processor – element 840) being integrated to another printed circuit (Zhao | main printed circuit board – element 801A; Figure 8B; Paragraph 0135; [Examiner’s note, the p is located on one printed circuit board and the temperature sensor, IR sensor – element 812, is location on another printed circuit board, daughter board – element 801B.]).
Brownhill teaches the microcontroller being integrated in the printed circuit (Brownhill | Paragraphs 0104, 0141), and Zhao teaches two printed circuit boards (Zhao | Figures 8B; Paragraphs 0135-0143). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to substitute the microcontroller within the system of Brownhill to incorporate the teachings of the main circuit board from Zhao because doing so would allow the production of the wireless vital signs scanner to be affordable and allow the user to obtain a plurality of vital signs at various times throughout the day (Zhao | Paragraph 0144).
Brownhill in view of Zhao are silent in teaching a plurality of detection device;
Duesterhoft does teach a plurality of detection devices (Duesterhoft | Paragraph 0115).
Brownhill teaches the detection device as the primary detection device (Brownhill | Paragraph 0096), and Duesterhoft teaches a plurality of detection devices (Duesterhoft | Paragraph 0115). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the primary detection devices within the system of Brownhill in view of Zhao to incorporate the teachings of the plurality of detection devices from Duesterhoft. Doing so would allow the patient’s physician or caretaker to effectively and accurately monitor a patient with multiple injuries or wounds as their health declines. Furthermore, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Brownhill in view of Zhao and Duesterhoft are silent in teaching a display device connected to said microcontrollers, wired or wireless, provided with at least a screen adapted to allow the display of the detected data by said primary detection device and by said at least a secondary detection device;
Duesterhoft teaches a display device (Duesterhoft | local unit – element 1710; Figure 17; Paragraph 0113) connected to said microcontrollers, wired or wireless, provided with at least a screen adapted to allow the display of the detected data by said primary detection device(Duesterhoft | Figure 17; Paragraphs 0111-0119). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Brownhill in view of Zhao and Duesterhoft to incorporate the teachings of the display from Duesterhoft because the display illustrates the real-time notification to the patient’s physician or caretaker when their health is declining due to the injury (Duesterhoft | Paragraph 0137).
Regarding Claim 2, Brownhill in view of Zhao and Duesterhoft teaches the system for comparing the physiological parameters of a patient, according to claim 1. Brownhill in view of Zhao and Duesterhoft are silent in teaching a plurality of detection devices adapted to detect the physiological parameters in a corresponding plurality of skin portions;
Duesterhoft teaches a plurality of detection devices adapted to detect the physiological parameters in a corresponding plurality of skin portions (Duesterhoft | Paragraph 0115), sending the detected data to said display device (Duesterhoft | Figure 17; Paragraphs 0111-0119). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Brownhill in view of Zhao and Duesterhoft to incorporate the teachings of the plurality of detection devices from Duesterhoft. Doing so would allow the patient’s physician or caretaker to effectively and accurately monitor a patient with multiple injuries or wounds as their health declines. Furthermore, the display provides real-time notifications to the physician or caretaker when this decline occurs (Duesterhoft | Paragraphs 0115, 0137).
Regarding Claim 3, Brownhill in view of Zhao and Duesterhoft teaches the system for comparing the physiological parameters of a patient, according to claim 1, wherein each detection device comprises at least an acidity sensor or matrix of acidity sensors adapted to detect the corresponding data regarding the pH of the skin portion on which said detection devices are positioned (Brownhill | Paragraph 0128; [Examiner’s note, the claim comprises multiple limitations; however, only one of the alternatives needs to be supported by the prior art. Brownhill teaches an acidity sensor through the pH sensor.]).
Brownhill in view of Zhao and Duesterhoft are silent in teaching sending the corresponding data to said display device;
Duesterhoft teaches sending the corresponding data to said display device (Duesterhoft | Figure 17; Paragraphs 0111-0119). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Brownhill in view of Zhao and Duesterhoft to incorporate the teachings of sending data to the display from Duesterhoft because the display illustrates the real-time notification to the patient’s physician or caretaker when their health is declining due to the injury (Duesterhoft | Paragraph 0137).
Regarding Claim 8, Brownhill in view of Zhao and Duesterhoft teaches the system for comparing the physiological parameters of a patient, according to claim 1, wherein at least said primary detection device comprises USB interface means adapted to transmit the digitized data to other periphery devices (Brownhill | Paragraph 0149).
Regarding Claim 9, Brownhill in view of Zhao and Duesterhoft teaches the system for comparing the physiological parameters of a patient, according to claim 1, wherein said flexible supports of said detection devices are made of polyimide so as to be adapted to any curve of the patient's body (Brownhill | Paragraph 0096).
Regarding Claim 10, Brownhill in view of Zhao and Duesterhoft teaches a method for diagnosing the state of perfusion of a wound or, on healthy skin, for diagnosing disturbances of the blood circulation of a patient, the method comprising providing the system of claim 1, and applying the system to perform the diagnosing (Brownhill | Paragraph 0015, 0045, 0135).
Regarding Claim 13, Brownhill in view of Zhao and Duesterhoft teaches the system for comparing the physiological parameters of a patient, according to claim 3, wherein each detection device comprises at least an oxygenation sensor or matrix of oxygenation sensors adapted to detect the corresponding data regarding the skin oxygenation of the skin portion on which said detection devices are positioned (Brownhill | Paragraph 0128; [Examiner’s note, the claim comprises multiple limitations; however, only one of the alternatives needs to be supported by the prior art. Brownhill teaches an oxygenation sensor through the SpO2 sensor.]).
Brownhill in view of Zhao and Duesterhoft are silent in teaching sending the corresponding data to said display device;
Duesterhoft teaches sending the corresponding data to said display device (Duesterhoft | Figure 17; Paragraphs 0111-0119). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Brownhill in view of Zhao and Duesterhoft to incorporate the teachings of sending data to the display from Duesterhoft because the display illustrates the real-time notification to the patient’s physician or caretaker when their health is declining due to the injury (Duesterhoft | Paragraph 0137).
Claims 5, 6, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brownhill et al. (CN 109069712 A) in view of Zhao et al. (US 20190307400 A1), Duesterhoft et al. (US 20130274563 A1), and Wu et al. (US 20090299214 A1).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Brownhill in view of Zhao and Duesterhoft teaches the system for comparing the physiological parameters of a patient, according to claims 1 and 3 respectively, wherein at least said primary detection device comprises at least connection cable for each side (Brownhill | Paragraphs 0104, 0134, 0150), adapted to be reversibly engaged with a corresponding cable of an detection portion, each of which aggregable at one side of the perimeter of said primary detection device (Brownhill | 0045, 0084, 0095-0096, 0104, and 0141); each detection portion comprising a printed circuit with a matrix of sensors adapted to detect the same physiological parameters detected by the matrix of sensors comprised in the first printed circuit of said primary detection device (Brownhill | Paragraph 0096, Paragraphs 0104, 0141); said printed circuit of each portion (Paragraph 0096) being configured for being connected to the printed circuit of the primary detection device by means of said connection cable, sending the detected data to the microcontroller of the aforesaid central portion of the primary detection device (Brownhill | Paragraphs 0134, 0150).
In light of the 112b above ‘additional detection portion’ means ‘detection device,’ therefore Brownhill in view of Zhao and Duesterhoft are silent in teaching additional detection portion.
Duesterhoft teaches the additional detection portions (Duesterhoft | Paragraph 0115).
Brownhill teaches the detection device as the primary detection device (Brownhill | Paragraph 0096), and Duesterhoft teaches a plurality of detection devices (Duesterhoft | Paragraph 0115). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the primary detection devices within the system of Brownhill in view of Zhao to incorporate the teachings of the plurality of detection devices from Duesterhoft. Doing so would allow the patient’s physician or caretaker to effectively and accurately monitor a patient with multiple injuries or wounds as their health declines. Furthermore, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Additionally, Brownhill in view of Zhao and Duesterhoft are silent in teaching of the detection device comprising the central portion and additional detection portions. Wherein the central portion is connected to the additional portions via a connection cable;
Wu teaches the detection device (Wu | Figure 5) comprising the central portion (Wu | main unit – element 10) and additional detection portions (Wu | multiple detector units – elements 25A-C). Wherein central portion (Wu | main unit – element 10) is connected to the additional portions (Wu | multiple detector units – elements 25A-C) via a connection cable (Wu | connection – element 50; Paragraph 0081, 0119).
One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the primary detection devices within the system of Brownhill in view of Zhao and Duesterhoft to incorporate the teachings of the detection device comprising the central portion and additional detection portions and wherein central portion is connected to the additional portions via a connection cable from Wu because doing so would allow the system to detect, process, and measure physiological signals from multiple locations simultaneously (Wu | Paragraph 0119) and further use of a connection cable would be common in the art designs which would yield predictable results.
Lastly, Brownhill in view of Zhao, Duesterhoft, and Wu are silent in teaching the central portion comprises at least connection cables for each side. One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the central portion within the system of Brownhill in view of Zhao, Duesterhoft, and Wu by rearranging the plurality of connections, as discussed within paragraph 0119 and Figure of Wu, by Wu to be place on each side of the detection device. This rearrangement of parts would involve the connections to be placed on one side of the main unit, as shown in Figure 5 of Wu, to be placed on each side of the main unit. This rearrangement enhances the device’s additional detection portions to be placed along multiple locations within the subject’s body. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.C.. The proposed rearrangement involves a straightforward adaptation of known components to yield expected improvements in design efficiency.
Regarding Claim 6, Brownhill in view of Zhao and Duesterhoft teaches the system for comparing the physiological parameters of a patient, according to claim 6, wherein at least said detection device comprises at least connection cable for each side (Brownhill | Paragraphs 0104, 0134, 0150), adapted to be reversibly engaged with a corresponding cable of an detection portion, each of which aggregable at one side of the perimeter of said detection device (Brownhill | 0045, 0084, 0095-0096, 0104, and 0141); each detection portion comprising a printed circuit with a matrix of sensors adapted to detect the same physiological parameters detected by the matrix of sensors comprised in the first printed circuit of said detection device (Brownhill | Paragraph 0096, Paragraphs 0104, 0141); said printed circuit of each portion (Paragraph 0096) being configured for being connected to the printed circuit of the primary detection device by means of said connection cable, sending the detected data to the microcontroller of the aforesaid central portion of the primary detection device (Brownhill | Paragraphs 0134, 0150).
In light of the 112b above ‘additional detection portion’ and ‘second detection device’ means ‘detection device,’ therefore Brownhill in view of Zhao and Duesterhoft are silent in teaching the plurality of detection devices.
Duesterhoft teaches the plurality of detection devices (Duesterhoft | Paragraph 0115).
Brownhill teaches the detection device as the secondary detection device (Brownhill | Paragraph 0096), and Duesterhoft teaches a plurality of detection devices (Duesterhoft | Paragraph 0115). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the primary detection devices within the system of Brownhill in view of Zhao and Duesterhoft to incorporate the teachings of the plurality of detection devices from Duesterhoft. Doing so would allow the patient’s physician or caretaker to effectively and accurately monitor a patient with multiple injuries or wounds as their health declines. Furthermore, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Additionally, Brownhill in view of Zhao and Duesterhoft are silent in teaching of the detection device comprising the central portion and additional detection portions. Wherein the central portion is connected to the additional portions via a connection cable;
Wu teaches the detection device (Wu | Figure 5) comprising the central portion (Wu | main unit – element 10) and additional detection portions (Wu | multiple detector units – elements 25A-C). Wherein central portion (Wu | main unit – element 10) is connected to the additional portions (Wu | multiple detector units – elements 25A-C) via a connection cable (Wu | connection – element 50; Paragraph 0081, 0119).
One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the primary detection devices within the system of Brownhill in view of Zhao and Duesterhoft to incorporate the teachings of the detection device comprising the central portion and additional detection portions and wherein central portion is connected to the additional portions via a connection cable from Wu because doing so would allow the system to detect, process, and measure physiological signals from multiple locations simultaneously (Wu | Paragraph 0119) and further use of a connection cable would be common in the art designs which would yield predictable results.
Lastly, Brownhill in view of Zhao, Duesterhoft, and Wu are silent in teaching the central portion comprises at least connection cables for each side. One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the central portion within the system of Brownhill in view of Zhao, Duesterhoft, and Wu by rearranging the plurality of connections, as discussed within paragraph 0119 and Figure of Wu, by Wu to be place on each side of the detection device. This rearrangement of parts would involve the connections to be placed on one side of the main unit, as shown in Figure 5 of Wu, to be placed on each side of the main unit. This rearrangement enhances the device’s additional detection portions to be placed along multiple locations within the subject’s body. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.C.. The proposed rearrangement involves a straightforward adaptation of known components to yield expected improvements in design efficiency.
Claims 7, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brownhill et al. (CN 109069712 A) in view of Zhao et al. (US 20190307400 A1), Duesterhoft et al. (US 20130274563 A1), Rogers et al. (US 20130041235 A1), Zhang et al. (US 20100249627 A1), Mazar (US 20090264792 A1), Houghton et al. (US 4417588 A), Sejrsen et al. (US 20030139676 A1), and Hunter et al. (US 20160310077 A1).
Regarding Claims 7, 18, and 20 Brownhill in view of Zhao and Duesterhoft teaches the system for comparing the physiological parameters of a patient, according to claims 1, 3, and 5 respectively, wherein said first printed circuit and said second printed circuit of each detection device (Brownhill | Paragraph 0096) comprise: a plurality of sensors arranged in a matrix (Brownhill | Paragraph 0095, 0147).
Brownhill teaches a matrix of sensors being 5x5 (Paragraph 0095). Brownhill are silent on the matrix being 16x32. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Brownhill to have a matrix of 16x32 since it has been held that the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Brownhill in view of Zhao and Duesterhoft are silent in teaching a transistor in series with each sensor adapted to select the corresponding sensor;
Rogers teaches a transistor in series with each sensor adapted to select the corresponding sensor (Rogers | Paragraphs 0065, 0323). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Brownhill in view of Zhao and Duesterhoft to incorporate the teachings of a transistor from Rogers. Doing so would allow allows the system to select the optimal sensor for the specific wound or target location on the patient. As a result, treatment is delivered with pinpoint accuracy to the target location, avoiding to administer the care to the uninjured or nontarget area of the body (Rogers | Paragraph 0008).
Additionally, Brownhill in view of Zhao, Duesterhoft, and Rogers are silent in teaching a connector in which a flexible connection cable is inserted; an MCU adapted to select said sensors one at a time, sending on a bus the number of the line and of the column to be selected and adapted to receive the measurement of the sensor by reading the output of a digital analog converter; selection devices adapted to activate the line and the corresponding column;
Zhang teaches a connector (Zhang | connector block – element 34; Figure 2; Paragraph 0034) in which a flexible connection cable is inserted (Zhang | leads – elements 20, 22, 24; Figure 2; Paragraphs 0023-0025); an MCU adapted to select said sensors one at a time (Zhang | Figure 2; Paragraphs 0024-0026), sending on a bus (Zhang | data bus – element 82) the number of the line and of the column to be selected and adapted to receive the measurement of the sensor (Zhang | Paragraphs 0053-0054) by reading the output of a converter (Zhang | Paragraph 0057); selection devices adapted to activate the line and the corresponding column (Zhang | Paragraph 0049; [Examiner’s note, one skilled in the art can use a field-programmable gate array in combination with the processor to control a specific line and corresponding column.]).
One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Brownhill in view of Zhao, Duesterhoft, and Rogers to incorporate the teachings of the connector, the microcontroller selecting a specific sensor from Zhang. Doing so would allow the system to select the optimal sensor for providing treatment on the target location in the patient (Zhang | Paragraph 0028).
Brownhill in view of Zhao, Duesterhoft, Rogers, and Zhang are silent in teaching a digital to analog converter;
Mazar teaches the use of digital to analog converter for physiological signals (Mazar | D/A – element 256; Figure 2A; Paragraphs 0078-0084; [Examiner’s note, the physiological signals are collected via the electrode to the digital to analog converter ). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Brownhill in view of Zhao, Duesterhoft, Rogers, and Zhang to incorporate the teachings of the digital to analog converter from Mazar because the DAC converts the internal digital data and controls signals into accurate analog outputs that can be further analyzed (Mazar | Paragraph 0079, 0102).
Additionally, Brownhill in view of Zhao, Duesterhoft, Rogers, Zhang, and Mazar are silent in teaching a thermistor adapted to connect the power supply to a resistive divider; said resistive divider adapted to acquire the current from said thermistor and generate a voltage; an amplifier adapted to scale and translate the possible output voltages from said resistive divider in order to fully exploit the input dynamics of said digital analog converter;
Houghton teaches a thermistor (Houghton | thermistor – element 101) adapted to connect the power supply to a resistive divider (Houghton | Figure 4A; Column 3, lines 23-39; [Examiner’s note, the resistive divider is in combination with the resistor.]); said resistive divider (Houghton | resistance divider configuration) adapted to acquire the current from said thermistor and generate a voltage (Houghton | Figure 4A; Column 3, lines 23-39); an amplifier (Houghton | amplifier – element 140) adapted to scale and translate the possible output voltages from said resistive divider (Houghton | resistor – element 102) in order to fully exploit the input dynamics of said digital analog converter (Houghton | A/D converter – element 160; Figure 4A; Column 3, lines 23-39).
One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the system of Brownhill in view of Zhao, Duesterhoft, Rogers, Zhang, and Mazar to incorporate the teachings of a thermistor, resistive divider, and an amplifier to be in series from Houghton. Doing so would allow the linearization of the output voltage over a specific temperature range of interest. (Houghton | Column 4 lines 40-54).
Additionally, Brownhill in view of Zhao, Duesterhoft, Rogers, Zhang, Mazar, and Houghton are silent in teaching a NTC resistor;
Sejrsen teaches thermistor is an NTC resistor (Sejrsen | Paragraph 0040). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to substitute the thermistor of Brownhill in view of Zhao, Duesterhoft, Rogers, Zhang, Mazar, and Houghton with a NTC resistor from Sejrsen. 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.).
Additionally, Brownhill in view of Zhao, Duesterhoft, Rogers, Zhang, Mazar, Houghton, and Sejrsen are silent in teaching an LNA;
Hunter teaches an amplifier is a low noise amplifier (LNA) (Hunter | Paragraph 0099). One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to substitute the amplifier of Brownhill in view of Zhao, Duesterhoft, Rogers, Zhang, Mazar, Houghton, and Sejrsen with a LNA from Hunter. 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.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SRISTI DIVINA GOMES whose telephone number is (571)272-1356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 7:30-4:30 & Friday 7:30-3:30.
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, Robert Chen can be reached at 571-272-3672. 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 http