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 11/10/2025, 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.
Claims 8-10, 13-16, and 19-20 continue to be withdrawn per applicant's election of restriction requirement filed on 07/02/2025.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed 11/10/2025, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Applicant canceled claim 5 in the response filed on 11/10/2025.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 11-12, and 17-18 are the current claims hereby under examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an periphery edge” should read “a periphery edge”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
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) 1-4, 6-7, 11-12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furukawa et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20160135728 – previously cited) hereinafter Furukawa in view of Hashimshony et al. (CN 103271718 – previously cited) hereinafter Hashimshony, and further in view of Ko et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20180055449) hereinafter Ko.
Regarding Claim 1, Furukawa discloses a measurement device (an intraoral moisture measuring device 1 [0035]; fig 1) comprising: a contact surface configured to contact a measurement portion of a living body (the moisture amount detection unit 30 to be brought into lightly contact with a measurement site 200 in the mouth of a subject to be measured [0051]; fig 3b); a biosensor disposed on the contact surface and having a detection surface configured to acquire biological information from the measurement portion of the living body (surface 34a of the substrate 34… the sensor 32 measures an amount of moisture [0039]; fig 2c).
Furukawa fails to disclose a suction portion configured to suck the living body from at least one suction hole provided in the contact surface, wherein the biosensor comprises an electrode disposed in a center portion of the contact surface and the at least one suction hole is disposed in the contact surface and between the electrode and a periphery edge of the detection surface of the biosensor.
However, Hashimshony teaches a suction portion configured to suck a living body from at least one suction hole provided in a contact surface on a periphery of a detection surface of a biosensor (when the suction applied to the soft tissue 44, the soft tissue 44 is drawn element in 20, maintaining the at least one effective contact of sensor 24 [0282]; fig 2C; Examiner notes element 20 is a suction hole).
Hashimshony is considered analogous art to the present invention 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 measurement device of Furukawa such that there is a suction portion configured to suck the living body from at least one suction hole provided in the contact surface, as taught by Hashimshony, because it would allow for effective contact between the living body and the biosensor.
Furukawa in view of Hashimshony fails to teach wherein the biosensor comprises an electrode disposed in a center portion of the contact surface and the at least one suction hole is disposed in the contact surface and between the electrode and a periphery edge of the detection surface of the biosensor.
However, Ko teaches a measurement device with a contact surface (the main-body elastic part 200 [0111]; fig 4), a biosensor comprising an electrode (The biometric signal sensor 300 in accordance with one aspect may include an optical sensor. The optical sensor may include a light source [0053]; For example, the light source may include a light emitting diode (LED) or a laser diode. [0054]; fig 4), wherein the biosensor is disposed in a center portion of the contact surface (the wearer's body part 20 becomes in contact with the first main-body elastic part 210, as well as the biometric signal sensor 300 [0114]; fig 4), and at least one recessed contact portion is disposed in the contact surface and between the electrode and a periphery edge of a detection surface of the biosensor (the main-body elastic part 200 in accordance with another exemplary embodiment includes a first main-body elastic part 210 and a second main-body elastic part 220 [0111]; the wearer's body part 20 becomes in contact with the first main-body elastic part 210, as well as the biometric signal sensor 300 [0114]; fig 4). Examiner notes the recessed contact portions 210 and 220 function similarly to the at least one suction hole.
Ko is considered analogous art to the present invention 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 device of Furukawa in view of Hashimshony such that the biosensor comprises an electrode disposed in a center portion of the contact surface and the at least one suction hole is disposed in the contact surface and between the electrode and a periphery edge of the detection surface of the biosensor, as taught by Ko, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (see MPEP §§ 2143, A. and 2143.02). Furthermore, the rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 2, Furukawa in view of Hashimshony and further in view of Ko teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Furukawa further teaches a housing having a longer direction (longitudinal direction of the main body 10 [0068]; fig 1) and a shorter direction that is orthogonal to the longer direction (fig 1), wherein the housing includes: a sensor disposed on one end side in the longer direction (a moisture amount detection unit 30 [0035]; fig 1), and a grip disposed on another end side in the longer direction (a hand holding the main body 10 [0066]; fig 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Furukawa in view of Hashimshony and further in view of Ko teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 2. Furukawa further teaches the biosensor is disposed in the sensor (moisture amount detection unit 30 includes a capacitance type sensor 32 [0039]; fig 1). Hashimshony further teaches “at least one sensor 24 is embedded in or mounted on the rigid surface 22 of the element 20” [0290] (fig 4A).
Furukawa in view of Hashimshony and further in view of Ko fails to teach the at least one suction hole comprises multiple suction holes that sandwich the biosensor in the longer direction.
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 measurement device of Furukawa in view of Hashimshony and further in view of Ko such that the at least one suction hole comprises multiple suction holes. 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). It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the measurement device of Furukawa in view of Hashimshony and further in view of Ko such that the at least one suction hole comprises multiple suction holes that sandwich the biosensor in the longer direction. The rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 4, Furukawa in view of Hashimshony and further in view of Ko teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 2. Furukawa teaches the biosensor is disposed in the sensor (moisture amount detection unit 30 includes a capacitance type sensor 32 [0039]; fig 1).
Furukawa in view of Hashimshony and further in view of Ko fails to teach the at least one suction hole comprises multiple suction holes that sandwich the biosensor in the shorter direction that is orthogonal to the longer direction.
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 measurement device of Furukawa in view of Hashimshony and further in view of Ko such that the at least one suction hole comprises multiple suction holes. 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). It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective date to have modified the measurement device of Furukawa in view of Hashimshony and further in view of Ko such that the at least one suction hole comprises multiple suction holes that sandwich the biosensor in the shorter direction that is orthogonal to the longer direction. The rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 6, Furukawa in view of Hashimshony and further in view of Ko teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Furukawa further teaches the detection surface of the biosensor has a polygonal shape (sensor 32 includes: a substrate 34 which is an insulator having a generally square plate shape [0039]; the first electrode 36 and the second electrode 38 are each formed in a generally rectangular shape [0040]; fig 2c).
Furukawa in view of Hashimshony and further in view of Ko fails to teach the at least one suction hole comprises multiple suction holes that are disposed in corner portions of the detection surface.
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 measurement device of Furukawa in view of Hashimshony and further in view of Ko such that the at least one suction hole comprises multiple suction holes. 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). It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective date to have modified the measurement device of Furukawa in view of Hashimshony and further in view of Ko such that the at least one suction hole comprises multiple suction holes that are disposed in corner portions of the detection surface. The rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 7, Furukawa in view of Hashimshony and further in view of Ko teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1.
Furukawa in view of Hashimshony and further in view of Ko fails to teach the at least one suction hole comprises multiple suction holes that are symmetrically disposed with respect to the biosensor.
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 measurement device of Furukawa in view of Hashimshony and further in view of Ko such that the at least one suction hole comprises multiple suction holes. 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). It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective date to have modified the measurement device of Furukawa in view of Hashimshony and further in view of Ko such that the at least one suction hole comprises multiple suction holes that are symmetrically disposed with respect to the biosensor. The rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 11, Furukawa in view of Hashimshony and further in view of Ko teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Furukawa further teaches a calculation unit configured to calculate an amount of a measurement target based on the biological information acquired by the biosensor (control unit 60 derives the moisture amount [0055]; fig 2a and 4).
Regarding Claim 12, Furukawa in view of Hashimshony and further in view of Ko teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 11. Furukawa teaches the amount of the measurement target is a moisture amount (control unit 60 derives the moisture amount [0055]; fig 2a and 4).
Regarding Claim 18, Furukawa in view of Hashimshony and further in view of Ko teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Furukawa further teaches the measurement portion of the living body is a measurement portion in an oral cavity (an intraoral moisture measuring device 1 [0035]; fig 1; moisture amount detection unit 30 is a part to be directly or indirectly abutted against lingual mucosa, buccal mucosa, palatine mucosa, labial mucosa, or the like in the mouth of a subject to be measured in order to detect a moisture amount in that site [0039]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furukawa (US Patent Pub. No. 20160135728 – previously cited) in view of Hashimshony (CN 103271718 – previously cited), and further in view of Ko (US Patent Pub. No. 20180055449) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zenda et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20030113498 – previously cited) hereinafter Zenda.
Regarding Claim 17, Furukawa in view of Hashimshony and further in view of Ko teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Furukawa in view of Hashimshony and further in view of Ko further teaches a cover film that covers the biosensor (a bag-shaped cover 110 is attached so as to cover the moisture amount detection unit 30 [0049 of Furukawa]; cover 110 is formed by a suitable insulating resin film [0050 of Furukawa]; fig 3a of Furukawa) and the at least one suction hole (Examiner notes the modified measurement device of Furukawa in view of Hashimshony and further in view of Ko teaches a cover film that covers the at least one suction hole because the at least one suction hole would be located in close proximity to the biosensor and not in the grip of the measurement device which is the only part of the measurement device that is not covered by the cover film (fig 3 of Furukawa)). Furukawa also teaches “the cover 110 can prevent the moisture amount detecting unit 30 and the swing member 20 from being directly brought into contact with the mucosa or skin of a subject to be measured” [0050]. Therefore, “the measuring device 1 can be kept in an appropriate hygienic condition, and thus various infections or the like can be prevented” [0050].
Furukawa in view of Hashimshony and further in view of Ko fails to teach the cover film has a membrane that isolates liquid from gas.
However, Zenda teaches a “moisture-permeable/waterproof heat-retaining resin film” [0001].
Zenda is considered analogous art to the present invention 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 measurement device of Furukawa in view of Hashimshony and further in view of Ko such that the cover film is formed by a moisture-permeable/waterproof heat-retaining resin film, as taught by Zenda, because the cover film of Furukawa is formed by a suitable insulating resin film and the resin film of Zenda would be suitable. Furthermore, the moisture-permeable/waterproof heat-retaining resin film of Zenda would isolate liquid from gas, allowing moisture detection by the measurement device of Furukawa in view of Hashimshony and further in view of Ko and preventing bodily fluids from the living body from coming into contact with the measurement device of Furukawa in view of Hashimshony and further in view of Ko to maintain appropriate hygienic condition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of Remarks, filed 11/10/2025, with respect to drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of Remarks, filed 11/10/2025, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections have been withdrawn. However, upon further examination, a new objection is made to claim 1 as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 of Remarks, filed 11/10/2025, with respect to the 112(b) claim rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) claim rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by amendments.
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