DETAILED ACTION
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
The action is in response to amendments filed on 03/23/2026. Claims 1, 3, 13 have been amended. Claims 1-13 are pending and examined below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210275062 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Park”) in view of US 20180110450 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Lamego”).
Regarding claim 1, Park, a wearable photoluminescence sensor, teaches an epidermal, portable wireless transcutaneous sensing device (abstract), comprising:
an emitter adapted to project light of a predetermined sensory wavelength (paragraphs [0044], [0046]);
a photoluminescent film disposed between the emitter a sensed epidermal surface (as shown in Figures 1) for receiving the light from the emitter and responsive to emit light of a sensed wavelength in response to the received light based on a gaseous exposure of the photoluminescent film (110; paragraphs [0045]-[0048]; Figure 1);
an optical sensor responsive to the sensed wavelength for returning a signal indicative of the sensed wavelength (130; paragraph [0044]; Figure 1); and
further teaches the device being capable of measuring a gaseous presence based on a quenching effect of the gaseous exposure on the signal (paragraph [0052], [0055]), but does not explicitly teach a correlation circuit in the wearable sensing device.
However, Lamego, teaches a PCB (part of a correlation circuit) disposed within a patch wearable sensing device (301; paragraph [0109]; Figure 3) and the emitter and optical sensor disposed beneath directly under the PCB/correlation circuit (paragraph [0113]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Park, to have an PCB, as taught by Lamego, because doing so provides a means for calculating a gaseous presence. Further as Lamego teaches the emitter and optical sensor directly beneath the PCB/correlation circuit and Park teaches a photoluminescent film disposed between the emitter a sensed epidermal surface, the combination of Park, in view of Lamego, teaches a configuration in which the correlation circuit is on an opposed side of the photoluminescent film for the emitter.
Regarding claim 2, Park, in view of Lamego, teaches wherein the emitter and the optical sensor are disposed in a common plane and opposed to a plane defining the photoluminescent film (as shown in Figure 1; as taught by Lee).
Regarding claim 3, Park, a wearable photoluminescence sensor, teaches an epidermal, portable wireless transcutaneous sensing device (abstract), comprising:
an emitter adapted to project light of a predetermined sensory wavelength (paragraphs [0044], [0046]);
a photoluminescent film disposed between the emitter a sensed epidermal surface (as shown in Figures 1) for receiving the light from the emitter and responsive to emit light of a sensed wavelength in response to the received light based on a gaseous exposure of the photoluminescent film (110; paragraphs [0045]-[0048]; Figure 1);
an optical sensor responsive to the sensed wavelength for returning a signal indicative of the sensed wavelength (130; paragraph [0044]; Figure 1); and
further teaches the device being capable of measuring a gaseous presence based on a quenching effect of the gaseous exposure on the signal (paragraph [0052], [0055]), but does not explicitly teach a correlation circuit in the wearable sensing device.
However, Lamego, teaches a PCB (part of a correlation circuit) disposed within a patch wearable sensing device (301; paragraph [0109]; Figure 3) and the circuit board including a sensing circuit, the sensing circuit orienting the emitter, optical sensor and correlation circuit in a planar arrangement adapted for engagement with an epidermal surface (paragraph [0113]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Park, to have an PCB, as taught by Lamego, because doing so provides a means for calculating a gaseous presence. Further as Lamego teaches the emitter and optical sensor directly beneath the PCB/correlation circuit and Park teaches a photoluminescent film disposed between the emitter a sensed epidermal surface, the combination of Park, in view of Lamego, teaches a configuration in which the correlation circuit is on an opposed side of the photoluminescent film for the emitter.
Regarding claim 4, Park, in view of Lamego, teaches wherein the photoluminescent film, emitter and the optical sensor define a layered arrangement with an epidermal surface, the layered arrangement disposing the photoluminescent film opposed from the emitter and optical sensor, and between an epidermal surface and the emitter and optical sensor (as shown in Figure 1; as taught by Park).
Regarding claim 5, Park, in view of Lamego, teaches wherein the photoluminescent film is disposed in planar communication with an epidermal surface and responsive to transcutaneous gases passing from the epidermal surface to the photoluminescent film (paragraph [0045]; as shown in Figure 1; as taught by Park).
Regarding claim 6, Park, in view of Lamego, teaches wherein the signal is indicative of a fluorescence intensity of the sensed wavelength, and the correlation circuit includes concentration logic for computing a concentration of a predetermined substance defined by the gaseous presence (paragraph [0052]; as taught by Park; teaches a processing device; paragraph [0109]; Figure 3; as taught by Lamego).
Regarding claim 8, Park, in view of Lamego, teaches wherein the gaseous presence results from transcutaneous gases passing from the epidermal surface to the photoluminescent film (paragraphs [0046]-[0050]; as taught by Park).
Regarding claim 9, Park, in view of Lamego, teaches further comprising a transmission interface coupled to the correlation circuit and adapted to receive a plurality of values based on an iteration of the computed concentration (320; paragraph [0118]-[0120]).
Regarding claim 10, Park, in view of Lamego, teaches wherein the sensed wavelength is based on the predetermined sensory wavelength and a material sensitivity of the photoluminescent film to the gaseous environment (paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claim 13, Park, a wearable photoluminescence sensor, teaches an epidermal, portable wireless transcutaneous sensing device (abstract), comprising:
an emitter adapted to project light of a predetermined sensory wavelength (paragraphs [0044], [0046]);
a photoluminescent film disposed between the emitter a sensed epidermal surface (as shown in Figures 1) for receiving the light from the emitter and responsive to emit light of a sensed wavelength in response to the received light based on a gaseous exposure of the photoluminescent film (110; paragraphs [0045]-[0048]; Figure 1);
an optical sensor responsive to the sensed wavelength for returning a signal indicative of the sensed wavelength (130; paragraph [0044]; Figure 1);
further teaches the device being capable of measuring a gaseous presence based on a quenching effect of the gaseous exposure on the signal (paragraph [0052], [0055]), and
a transmission path for transmitting a value of the computed gaseous presence (320; paragraph [0118]-[0120]); but does not explicitly teach a correlation circuit in the wearable sensing device.
However, Lamego, teaches a PCB (part of a correlation circuit) disposed within a patch wearable sensing device (301; paragraph [0109]; Figure 3) and the emitter and optical sensor disposed beneath directly under the PCB/correlation circuit (paragraph [0113]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Park, to have an PCB, as taught by Lamego, because doing so provides a means for calculating a gaseous presence. Further as Lamego teaches the emitter and optical sensor directly beneath the PCB/correlation circuit and Park teaches a photoluminescent film disposed between the emitter a sensed epidermal surface, the combination of Park, in view of Lamego, teaches a configuration in which the correlation circuit is on an opposed side of the photoluminescent film for the emitter.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, in view of Lamego, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US 20150011852 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Kesteren”).
Regarding claim 7, Park, in view of Lamego, does not explicitly teach wherein the fluorescence intensity is inversely proportional to a partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the gaseous presence, and the concentration logic computes a carbon dioxide concentration.
However, Kesteren, a sensor for determining concentration of gas, teaches wherein the fluorescence intensity is inversely proportional to a partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the gaseous presence, and the concentration logic computes a carbon dioxide concentration (paragraphs [0023], [0028]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Park, in view of Lamego, to measure for CO2, as taught by Kesteren, because doing so provides additional functionality to the system of Park, which already measures for partial pressure of oxygen.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 with regards to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach or suggest Applicant’s claim amendments specifically the device being capable of measuring a gaseous presence based on a quenching effect of the gaseous exposure on the signal and a configuration in which the correlation circuit is on an opposed side of the photoluminescent film for the emitter. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Park teaches the device being capable of measuring a gaseous presence based on a quenching effect of the gaseous exposure on the signal (paragraph [0052], [0055]).
Further, Lamego teaches a PCB (part of a correlation circuit) disposed within a patch wearable sensing device (301; paragraph [0109]; Figure 3) and the emitter and optical sensor disposed beneath directly under the PCB/correlation circuit (paragraph [0113]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Park, to have an PCB, as taught by Lamego, because doing so provides a means for calculating a gaseous presence. Further as Lamego teaches the emitter and optical sensor directly beneath the PCB/correlation circuit and Park teaches a photoluminescent film disposed between the emitter a sensed epidermal surface, the combination of Park, in view of Lamego, teaches a configuration in which the correlation circuit is on an opposed side of the photoluminescent film for the emitter.
As such Applicant’s arguments are found to be unpersuasive.
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 ABID A MUSTANSIR whose telephone number is (408)918-7647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 am to 6 pm Pacific Time.
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.
/ABID A MUSTANSIR/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights