DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to the claims filed on 06/22/2026. Claims 7-18 and 20 are pending. A first action on the merits of claims 7-18 and 20 is as follows.
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
Applicant’s amendment to the claims are acknowledged and entered accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 7, 9-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega (U.S. PGPub No. 2018/0317770) in view of Ross (U.S. PGPub No. 2019/0000357).
Regarding claims 7, Ortega teaches A device for calculating a perspiration metric of a user (see Fig 7, [0026-0028], comprising: a housing having an exterior surface (Fig 7, housing of wrist band form factor); a perspiration sensor comprising: a first electrode; and a second electrode (Fig 7 galvanic skin sensors 715 for detecting perspiration [0014] and [0026-0028]); and a processer configured to calculate the perspiration metric using the perspiration sensor ([0023]); wherein: the exterior surface of the housing defines a cavity; and the first electrode extends at least partially into the cavity (Fig 7 cavity of housing of wrist watch containing sensors 715, 720, 740, 760, screen 710 and processor as disclosed in [0023] defines a cavity in which the electrode 715 is at least partially disposed).
Ortega fails to teach the first electrode at least partially defines the cavity.
In related prior art, Ross teaches a similar electrode at least partially defining the cavity (Fig 5, cavity 520 defined by sensors 510a-b). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the perspiration sensor of Ortega in view of Ross to incorporate the first and second electrode at least partially defining the cavity to arrive at claim 7. Doing so would advantageously provide a well or cavity for collecting the perspiration for physiological measurement therein.
Regarding claim 9, Ortega teaches the device of claim 7, and further teaches wherein electrodes 715 make direct contact with skin ([0014]).
Ortega fails to explicitly teach wherein a portion of the first electrode is positioned outside of the cavity.
In an alternative embodiment, Ortega discloses similar sensors protruding outside of the device (see Fig 3). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sensors 715 of Ortega to be incorporated to have a portion positioned outside of the cavity to arrive at claim 9. Doing so would advantageously ensure that the sensors make good and stable contact with the skin ([0014]).
Regarding claim 10, Ortega teaches wherein: the exterior surface comprises a first region laterally surrounding a second region (Fig 7, second region interpreted as the 3D area of and around sensor 715; the first region is interpreted as the area laterally surrounding said second region in the x-z plane from the perspective of Fig 7); and a first portion of the second region is recessed relative to the first region to define the cavity (Fig 7, first portion of the second region is interpreted as the portion of the housing that is recessed in the ‘y-axis’ direction to fit the sensor 715 therein).
Regarding claim 11, Ortega further teaches wherein: a second portion of the second region protrudes past the first region (Fig 7, second portion of second region is interpreted as the space occupied by sensor 715 located within the cavity that protrudes past the first region in the ‘y-axis’ direction of Fig 7; examiner notes this interpretation appears consistent with the recited claim given the recitation of the first region “surrounding” the second region, but a portion of the second region simultaneously protruding past the first region).
Regarding claim 13, Ortega further teaches an optical sensor comprising a set of windows; wherein the set of windows is positioned in the second region (Fig 7 photoplethysmogram 740 with 3 sensors and windows [0014]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega in view of Ross and Pernu (U.S. PGPub No. 2013/0131484).
Regarding claim 8, Ortega teaches the device of claim 7, and further teaches wherein: the second electrode extends at least partially into the cavity (Fig 7, both sensors 715 are in a cavity).
Ortega fails to teach wherein the cavity is the same cavity where the first electrode extends into.
In related prior art, Pernu teaches a device wherein electrode snaps are located within the same cavity (Fig 5, conductive electrode snaps 62A-B). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cavity of Ortega in view of Ross and Pernu to incorporate a larger cavity containing both the first and second electrodes to arrive at the device of claim 8. Doing so would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since applicant has not disclosed that single cavity solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with two distinct cavities respectively holding one of the first and second electrodes.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega in view of Ross and Al-Ali (U.S. PGPub No. 2023/0028745).
Regarding claim 12, Ortega/Ross teaches the device of claim 10 as stated above.
Ortega fails to teach wherein: the cavity has an annular shape.
In related prior art, Al-Ali teaches a similar device wherein: the cavity has an annular shape ([0276] disclosing semi-annular recesses; Fig 1E, 5C, 7E showing annular recesses). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the cavity of Ortega in view of Al-Ali to incorporate the cavity as an annular shape to arrive at claim 12. Doing so would have been a simple substitution of one well-known cavity configuration (Ortega cavity of Fig 7) for another well-known cavity configuration (Al-Ali Figs 1E, 5C, 7E) to yield the predictable result of a cavity for holding electronic functional components therein on a wrist band type of device. Furthermore, it has been held that the configuration of a claimed shape was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega in view of Ross and Tan (U.S. PGPub No. 2015/0305690).
Regarding claim 14, Ortega/Ross teaches the device of claim 7 as stated above.
Ortega fails to teach the device comprises a second perspiration sensor.
In related prior art, Tan teaches a similar device comprising a second perspiration sensor ([0099] sensor 15a is a capacitive sensing element that measures relative humidity to determine perspiration). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ortega in view of Tan to incorporate a second perspiration sensor to arrive at the device of claim 14. Doing so would advantageously incorporate a sensor capable of measuring a relative humidity to provide another measure of perspiration ([0099]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega in view of Ross and Murphy (U.S. PGPub No. 2016/0256070).
Regarding claim 15, Ortega/Ross teaches the device of claim 7 as stated above. Ortega teaches the perspiration sensor functions as a galvanic skin response sensor to measure sweat rate ([0026]).
Ortega fails to teach wherein: the perspiration sensor comprises capacitance measurement circuitry configured to measure a capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode.
In related prior art, Murphy teaches a similar device comprising perspiration sensor comprises capacitance measurement circuitry configured to measure a capacitance between the first electrode and the second electrode ([0011], [0026], [0029] perspiration sensor comprises capacitance circuitry to measure capacitance changes between electrodes to gather perspiration rates). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the perspiration sensor of Ortega in view of Murphy to incorporate the capacitive perspiration sensor of Murphy to arrive at claim 15. Doing so would be a simple substitution of one well-known perspiration sensor (Ortega galvanic skin response sensors) for another well-known perspiration sensor (Murphy, capacitance perspiration sensors) to yield the predictable result of measuring perspiration rates (Murphy [0011]).
Claim(s) 16-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega in view of Pernu and Tan (U.S. PGPub No. 2015/0305690).
Regarding claim 16, Ortega teaches A device for calculating a perspiration metric of a user (see Fig 7, [0026-0028]), comprising: a housing having an exterior surface that defines a first cavity (Fig 7 wrist band form factor defines a housing with exterior surface with multiple cavities); a first perspiration sensor comprising: a first electrode defining a first portion of the exterior surface (Fig 7 galvanic skin sensors 715 for detecting perspiration as disclosed in [0014] and [0026-0028]); and a second electrode defining a second portion of the exterior surface (Fig 7 first and second sensors 715 each define respective portions of exterior surface of housing); and a processer configured to calculate the perspiration metric using the first perspiration sensor ([0023]).
Ortega fails to teach a second perspiration sensor contained within the first cavity and calculating the perspiration metric by also using the second perspiration sensor and configured to measure an amount of moisture present in the first vcavity when the exterior surface contacts skin of the user.
In related prior art, Tan teaches a similar device comprising a second perspiration sensor for calculating a perspiration metric and configured to measure an amount of moisture present in the first cavity when the exterior surface contacts skin of the user ([0099] sensor 15a is a capacitive sensing element that measures relative humidity to determine perspiration). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ortega in view of Tan to incorporate a second perspiration sensor in a first cavity used with the first perspiration sensor to calculate the perspiration metric to arrive at the device of claim 16. Doing so would advantageously incorporate a sensor capable of measuring a relative humidity to provide another measure of perspiration ([0099]).
Ortega fails to teach wherein: the first cavity is positioned between at least a portion of the first electrode and at least a portion of the second electrode.
In related prior art, Pernu teaches a device wherein two electrode snaps are located within the same cavity (Fig 5, conductive electrode snaps 62A-B such that the cavity is positioned between at least a portion of the first and second electrodes). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cavity of Ortega in view of Tan and Pernu to incorporate a larger cavity containing both the first and second electrodes such that the first cavity is positioned between at least a portion of the first and second electrodes to arrive at the device of claim 16. Doing so would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since applicant has not disclosed that single cavity solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with two distinct cavities respectively holding one of the first and second electrodes.
Regarding claim 17, Ortega/Pernu/Tan teaches the device of claim 16 as stated above, and further teaches wherein: the housing defines a second cavity; and the first electrode extends at least partially into the second cavity (Ortega, Fig 7 sensor 715 is in a second cavity; Pernu Fig 5 snaps 62A-B each have own distinct cavity within main first cavity).
Regarding claim 20, the Ortega/Pernu/Tan combination teaches the device of claim 16 as stated above.
Pernu further teaches wherein:the first cavity is positioned closer to a center of the exterior surface of the housing relative to the first electrode (Fig 5 cavity 64 is located closer to center than first electrode). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cavity of Ortega in view of Tan and Pernu to incorporate a larger cavity containing both the first and second electrodes such that the first cavity is positioned between at least a portion of the first and second electrodes and positioned closer to a center to arrive at the device of claim 20. Doing so would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since applicant has not disclosed that single cavity solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with two distinct cavities respectively holding one of the first and second electrodes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 18 the Ortega, Ross, Pernu, Tan, , Murphy, Al-Ali references fail to teach the second cavity encircles the first cavity along with the intervening limitations of claims 16-17. No other pertinent prior art reference were found that would overcome the above deficiencies. Therefore, there is no motivation (either in these references or elsewhere in the art) for making such specific and significant modifications thereto to arrive at claim(s) 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 06/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7-18 and 20 under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the Ross reference.
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 Adam Z Minchella whose telephone number is (571)272-8644. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri 7-3 EST.
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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at (571) 272-1213. 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.
/ADAM Z MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
