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 .
Response to Amendment
This Action is in response to the Amendment filed December 29, 2025.
In view of the Amendment, the objections to the drawings and the specification, and the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112, as set forth in the Office Action dated 07/29/2025, are withdrawn.
Claims 40-46, 48-49, and 52 are amended.
Claims 40-59 are pending, with claims 53-59 withdrawn from examination as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Priority
Claims 40-52 are deemed to have an effective filing date of May 21, 2025 for examination purposes. The Office Action dated 07/29/2025 acknowledged receipt of the claim for priority via the Estonia patent application, but as noted in the Office Action Summary, the certified copy has not been received and the Application contents do not include the certified copy of the Estonia patent application for which priority is claimed. If the Estonia patent application is in a non-English language, filing the certified copy does not automatically convey the filing date of that application.
Provisional application no. 63/029,581 does not have support for the claimed invention: in particular: “the shape of the toroidal core follows 1/8 to 1/1 extent the convex surface of the body part” and “galvanically receiving a response” of claim 40; that the body part is a blood vessel in claims 41-43; that the toroidal core is positioned between two capacitive or galvanic electrodes of claims 44-47 and 49-52; that the two electrodes are shorted in claims 45-46; that the response signal is measured by a toroidal core current transformer; and the subject matter of claims 49-52.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Srinivasa (US 2015/0045650) fails to disclose a “electromagnet with a toroidal core, having a transversely wound winding on the toroidal core”, the claims do not preclude an axial sensing coil. There is no special definition for “transversely wound” in the originally-filed specification. The dictionary definition of “transverse” is “situated or extending across something” and a similar word could be “horizontal” (www.bing.com definition of “transverse”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 40 and 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0045650 to Srinivasa et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Srinivasa”).
Referring to claim 40, Srinivasa discloses a method for determining physiological parameters (e.g., abstract: system is adapted for noninvasive measurement of blood flow), the method comprising the steps of: placing an electromagnet with a toroidal core, having a transversely wound winding on said toroidal core, on a convex body part so that the shape of the toroidal core follows ⅛ to 1/1 extent the convex surface of the body part (e.g., Fig. 1, ring 10 is disposed around the entire finger 15 and the ring 10 has an axial sensing coil winding 11), inducing an alternating electric current in said body [part] (e.g., abstract: inductive sensing system generates a magnetic field within the body part as evidenced by Fig. 1 of the conference paper entitled MonitoRing-magnetic induction measurement at your fingertip by Teichmann et al. which was cited by Applicant), galvanically or electromagnetically receiving a response signal from said body part (e.g., paragraphs [0007]-[0008]: using the inductive sensing system to determine changes in the resonance state of the resonator where the output sensor data corresponds to the resonant frequency state as representative of the blood flow through the sensing area), and determining said physiological parameters of the body from said response signal (e.g., paragraph [0003]: the invention relates to noninvasive measurement of blood flow for measuring heart rate).
With respect to claim 42, Srinivasa discloses the method according to 40, wherein said body part is a blood vessel and heart function parameters are determined from the response signal (e.g., abstract: noninvasive measurement of blood flow through a blood vessel and paragraph [0003]: measuring heart rate).
As to claim 43, Srinivasa discloses the method according to claims 40, wherein said body part is a blood vessel and vascular function is determined from the response signal (e.g., abstract).
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.
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.
Claims 41, 44-46 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasa as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0143150 to Bezemer et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Bezemer”).
As to claim 41, Srinivasa discloses the method according to claim 40, wherein said body part is a blood vessel, but does not expressly disclose that lung function parameters are determined from the response signal. However, Bezemer teaches, in the magnetic induction parameter measurement art, that the excitation field can be set at a particular value to effect a MIS measurement at a particular depth (e.g., to measure the fluid content of a particular subsurface tissue, such as lungs or muscles (e.g., paragraph [0213] of Bezemer). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the determining physiological parameters in the magnetic induction art would have recognized that lung function parameters can be determined from the magnetic induction response signal in view of the teachings of Bezemer. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of Srinivasa to receive a response signal from the lungs as taught by Bezemer, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
With respect to claim 44, Srinivasa discloses the method according to claim 40, but does not expressly teach or suggest that two capacitive or galvanic electrodes are placed on each side of the toroidal core of said electromagnet and are connected to close an intracorporal circuit path. However, Bezemer teaches, in the magnetic induction medical art, that placing two electrodes on either side of the excitation coil 46 and connecting the electrodes to the processing unit 54 so that it receives a voltage signal from the electrodes 59 representing the eddy current induced in the tissue sample by the magnetic field from the excitation coil 46 (e.g., paragraphs [0168]-[0169] and [0171] and Fig. 7-8 of Bezemer). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the determining physiological parameters in the magnetic induction would have recognized the benefits of placing two electrodes on either side of the toroidal core of an electromagnet in view of the teachings of Bezemer. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of Srinivasa by placing electrodes on either side of the toroidal core of the electromagnet in order to receive a response signal from the body/tissue as taught by Bezemer, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
As to claim 45, Srinivasa in view of Bezemer teaches the method according to claim 44, wherein said two electrically connected electrodes are closed/shorted to disconnect certain anatomical parts from the intracorporeal circuit path by shorting the electrodes (e.g., paragraph [0166] of Bezemer: two or more (e.g., four) electrodes are placed around the measurement site and that measure the potential (voltage) created by the eddy current induced in the tissue by the magnetic field from the excitation coil). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of placing electrodes around the measurement site in view of the teachings of Bezemer. Depending on the measurement site desired, certain electrodes could be shorted to disconnect those electrodes from the measurement site. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of Srinivasa in view of Bezemer to use the electrically connected electrodes to disconnect certain anatomical parts from the intracorporal circuit path by shorting the electrodes in order to obtain measurements from a particular anatomical part, and because the modification would have yielded a predictable result.
With respect to claim 46, Srinivasa in view of Bezemer teaches the method according to claim 44, wherein the two electrodes are electrically connected to each other via a short-circuit ammeter or an electronic circuit operating equivalent thereto such as a current-voltage converter, for measuring the current of the response signal (e.g., abstract of Bezemer: “obtain a measure of the current induced in the tissue sample” implies that the electrodes are electrically connect to an electronic circuit operating equivalent to an ammeter). Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of Srinivasa in view of Bezemer to have an electronic circuit that measures the current of the response signal (induced current) in order to obtain a measure of the induced current.
As to claim 49, Srinivasa in view of Bezemer, the method according to claim 45, wherein an intracorporal circuit is closed through an electrically conductive device (as discussed above w/r/t claim 44, Bezemer, electrodes are an electrically conductive device).
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasa in view of Bezemer as applied to claim 46 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0057093 to deSa et al. (hereinafter referred to as “deSa”).
Srinivasa in view of Bezemer teaches the method according to claim 46, but does not expressly disclose that the current of the response signal is measured by a toroidal core current transformer. However, deSa in the patient monitoring system art, teaches that a current transformer system can be used to monitor a patient’s use of appliances (e.g., paragraphs [0017], [0019]-[0020] of deSa) by using non-intrusive electric load measuring techniques including coils embedded in current transformer sensor (e.g., paragraph [0048] of deSa). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the patient monitoring art using magnetic waves would have recognized the benefits using a toroidal core current transformer to measure a response signal in view of the teachings of deSa. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of Srinivasa in view of Bezemer so that the current of the response signal is measured by a toroidal core current transformer, such as the coils embedded in a current transformer sensor as taught by deSa, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasa in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0212625 to Kumar.
Srinivasa discloses the method according to claim 40, but does not expressly teach belts arranged around the body part. However, Kumar, in a sensor assembly that produces electrical signals indicative of physiological signals of a user, teaches that a belt/strap can be arranged around the body to sense desired physiological signals (e.g., paragraph [0045] and Fig. 8 of Kumar). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of Srinivasa i to have belts arranged around the body part to close intracorporeal circuits as such were known in the sensing and monitoring art to hold the sensors in the desired location(s) as taught by Kumar.
Claims 50-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasa in view of Bezemer as applied to claim 49 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0212625 to Kumar.
As to claim 50, Srinivasa in view of Bezemer teaches the method according to claim 49, but does not expressly teach that said electrically conductive device is selecting from the group consisting of a sports aid, ski poles, walking poles, a bicycle handlebar, a motorcycle handlebar, a handle for a training equipment or a rehabilitation equipment, and a steering wheel for a vehicle. However, Kumar, in a related art: integrated electrocardiography system, teaches that ECG sensors may be integrated into a body of handlebars (e.g., of a bike, motorcycle, exercise equipment) using electrodes 218a, 218b where the electrodes make contact with the user’s skin (e.g., paragraphs [0060] and [0062] and Fig. 13 of Kumar). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of an electrically conductive device (electrodes) integrated with handlebars in view of the teachings of Kumar. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of Srinivasa in view of Bezemer so that the electrodes are integrated in the handlebars of a bicycle, motorcycle, or exercise/training equipment in view of the teachings of Kumar, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
With respect to claim 51, Srinivasa in view of Bezemer teaches the method according to claim 49, but does not expressly teach that the intracorporeal circuit path is closed through an electrically conductive device integrated into a garment. However, Kumar, in a related art: integrated electrocardiography system, teaches that ECG sensors may be integrated into a body of a helmet using electrodes 118a, 118b where the electrodes make contact with the user’s scalp (e.g., paragraphs [0058] and [0062] and Figs. 10-12 of Kumar). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of an electrically conductive device (electrodes) integrated with a garment (helmet) in view of the teachings of Kumar. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of Srinivasa in view of Bezemer so that the electrodes are integrated in garment or helmet in view of the teachings of Kumar, and because the combination would have yielded a predictable result.
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasa in view of Bezemer and US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0188864 to Drury.
Srinivasa in view of Bezemer teaches the method according to claim 44, but does not expressly teach that an intracorporeal circuit path is closed by a connecting device through which a connection between two hands is made capacitively, magnetically, optically or via a near electromagnetic field. However, Drury, in a related art: handheld biosensor array device for physiological status monitoring, teaches that an intracorporeal circuit path is closed by a connecting device through which a connection between two hands is made capacitively (e.g., Fig. 3B and paragraphs [0365]-[0369] of Drury: two hands are connected by a biosensor device to read the user’s physiological signs and [0081]: optical heart rate monitor and capacitive touch/proximity detector to determine heart rate).
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 CATHERINE M VOORHEES whose telephone number is (571)270-3846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at 571 272-8506. 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.
/CATHERINE M VOORHEES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792