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
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are allowed. Claim 21 is rejected. Claim 12 is canceled.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
The previous claim objection of claim 13 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 112(d) rejection of claim 13 has been withdrawn in view of canceled claim 12 which claim 13 used to depend from.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/1/25, with respect to claims 1-11 and 13-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment of new claim 21 and remarks filed 12/1/25 merit new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 20170118439 filed on 4/15/16 as cited in the IDS and a copy relied upon is being furnished with this Office Action) in view of Eagon (US 20140275845 filed on 3/14/14 as cited in the IDS).
Applicant’s Remarks on pages 9-10 are directed solely to whether Choi and Shi teach the new claim. However, this is unpersuasive as the rejection is made in view of new reference Eagon. Eagon teaches transferring heat from the first electrode to a second electrode (¶44-contacting spaced-apart palmar surfaces of the single finger with respective first and second raised electrodes of the sensor, shown as 102 in FIG. 6. Such contact with the thermally and electrically conductive electrodes allows for the one or more different physiological signals to be captured; ¶37-the expression "thermally coupled" refers to the conductive heat transfer link formed between the palmar surface of the finger 60 and the temperature sensing device 34) and being based on the transferred heat received by the second electrode from the first electrode by a temperature sensor (¶7-the temperature sensing device being disposed beneath the second electrode and thermally coupled therewith for sensing temperature of the skin abutted against the skin-abutting electrode surface of the second electrode; ¶47). See the rejection below for additional details and reasoning.
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:
display module in claim 13.
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.
For “display module” in claim 13, the specification recites ”the display module160 may include, for example, a display, a hologram device, or a projector and control circuitry to control a corresponding one of the display, hologram device, and projector” (page 7). Therefore, the Examiner is interpreting a display module to be a display, a hologram device, or a projector and control circuitry to control a corresponding one of the display, hologram device, and projector.
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 § 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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 20170118439 filed on 4/15/16 as cited in the IDS and a copy relied upon is being furnished with this Office Action) in view of Eagon (US 20140275845 filed on 3/14/14 as cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 21, Choi teaches a method comprising: contacting a user's body with a first electrode disposed on a first surface of a cover (¶8-a second electrode located on the other surface of the housing and contacting the user's body when the electronic device is worn); a second electrode disposed on a second surface of the cover (¶8-a first electrode located on one side of the housing, a sensor module electrically coupled to the first electrode and the second electrode), wherein the second electrode is electrically coupled directly to the first electrode (¶8-a first electrode located on one side of the housing, a sensor module electrically coupled to the first electrode and the second electrode); generate biometric information based on an electrical signal received via the first electrode and the second electrode (¶10-provide a plurality of biometric information with a single touch as a plurality of electrodes and sensors are positioned adjacent to each other); and detect a temperature of a user's body (¶18-the user's health state analyzed on the basis of the user's biometric signal collected through the plurality of sensors and the plurality of electrodes, body temperature). However, Choi does not teach transferring heat from the first electrode to a second electrode and being based on the transferred heat received by the second electrode from the first electrode by a temperature sensor.
Eagon relates generally to biofeedback sensors and, more particularly, to a sensor and a method for capturing different physiological signals from a single finger (¶2). Eagon further teaches the invention using the following steps:
transferring heat from the first electrode to a second electrode (¶44-contacting spaced-apart palmar surfaces of the single finger with respective first and second raised electrodes of the sensor, shown as 102 in FIG. 6. Such contact with the thermally and electrically conductive electrodes allows for the one or more different physiological signals to be captured; ¶37-the expression "thermally coupled" refers to the conductive heat transfer link formed between the palmar surface of the finger 60 and the temperature sensing device 34) and being based on the transferred heat received by the second electrode from the first electrode by a temperature sensor (¶7-the temperature sensing device being disposed beneath the second electrode and thermally coupled therewith for sensing temperature of the skin abutted against the skin-abutting electrode surface of the second electrode; ¶47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Choi to include transferring heat from the first electrode to a second electrode and being based on the transferred heat received by the second electrode from the first electrode by a temperature sensor of Eagon in order to allow for stable and consistent measurements of the temperature while minimizing or preventing interference (Eagon, ¶37).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the scope of wherein the first electrode is thermally connected to the second electrode by a conductive material disposed in a passage penetrating the first surface and the second surface of the cover; a contact configured to electrically connect the printed circuit board and the second electrode; wherein the temperature sensor is thermally connected to the second electrode; and detect a temperature of the user's body, which is thermally conducted from the first electrode to the second electrode, via the temperature sensor were not found in the prior art alone or in combination with one another to be obvious over the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record is KR 20170118439; however it fails to recite wherein the first electrode is thermally connected to the second electrode by a conductive material disposed in a passage penetrating the first surface and the second surface of the cover; wherein the temperature sensor is thermally connected to the second electrode; and being thermally conducted from the first electrode to the second electrode, via the temperature sensor.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 LAURA HODGE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7101. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am-5:00 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.
/L.N.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/UNSU JUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792