DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to the claims filed on 12/01/2025. Claims 7-20 are pending. A first action on the merits of claims 7-20 is as follows.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 7-20 in the reply filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/01/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/23/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "a second portion of the second region protrudes past the first region" while parent claim 10 recites “a first region surrounding a second region”. It is unclear how the first region surrounds the second region while a portion of the second region simultaneously protrudes past the first region. If a portion of the second region is protruding beyond the first region, then it is unclear how the first region is to “surround” the second region. Alternatively, if the first region surrounds the second region, then it is unclear how a portion of the second region protrudes beyond the first region.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7, 10-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ortega (U.S. PGPub No. 2018/0317770).
Regarding claim 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).
Regarding claim 10, Ortega teaches wherein: the exterior surface comprises a first region 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 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 second 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 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(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega in view of 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 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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega.
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]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega in view of Al-Ali (U.S. PGPub No. 2023/0028745).
Regarding claim 12, Ortega 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 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega in view of Tan (U.S. PGPub No. 2015/0305690).
Regarding claim 14, Ortega 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]).
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.
In related prior art, Tan teaches a similar device comprising a second perspiration sensor for calculating a perspiration metric ([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]).
Regarding claim 17, Ortega 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 (Fig 7 sensor 715 is in a second cavity).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega in view of Murphy (U.S. PGPub No. 2016/0256070).
Regarding claim 15, Ortega 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) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega in view of Tan and in further view of Panneer Selvam (U.S. PGPub No. 2020/0367816).
Regarding claim 18, the Ortega/Tan combination teaches the device of claim 17 as stated above.
Ortega fails to teach wherein: the second cavity encircles the first cavity.
In related prior art, Panneer Selvam teaches a similar device wherein a similar second cavity encircles a similar first cavity (Fig 3, recess of housing where electrodes 106 are located encircle recess where sensor 111 is located). 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 further modified Ortega in view of Tan and Panneer Selvam to incorporate the second perspiration sensor in a central first cavity and the first electrode in a surrounding second cavity to arrive at the device of claim 18. Providing the second cavity encircling the first cavity would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as this configuration is well-known in the art (see Panneer Selvam) to yield the predictable result of skin-side sensors located on an underside of a wristband device all capable of transmitting and/or receiving signals to or from the skin for monitoring purposes.
Regarding claim 19, the Ortega/Tan combination teaches the device of claim 16 as stated above.
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, Panneer Selvam teaches a similar device wherein a similar first cavity is positioned between at least a portion of the first electrode and at least a portion of the second electrode (Fig 3, sensor 111 is located between portions of sensors 106). 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 further modified Ortega in view of Tan and Panneer Selvam to incorporate the second perspiration sensor of Tan in a central first cavity of Ortega such that it is between the first and second electrodes of the first perspiration sensor to arrive at claim 19. Providing the first cavity between the first and second electrodes would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as this configuration is well-known in the art (see Panneer Selvam) to yield the predictable result of skin-side sensors located on an underside of a wristband device all capable of transmitting and/or receiving signals to or from the skin for monitoring purposes.
Regarding claim 20, the Ortega/Tan combination teaches the device of claim 16 as stated above.
Ortega fails to teach wherein:the first cavity is positioned closer to a center of the exterior surface of the housing relative to the first electrode.
In related prior art, Panneer Selvam teaches a similar device wherein:the first cavity is positioned closer to a center of the exterior surface of the housing relative to the first electrode (Fig 3, sensor 111 and its cavity is located closer to a center than sensors 106). 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 further modified Ortega in view of Tan and Panneer Selvam to incorporate the second perspiration sensor of Tan in a central first cavity closer to a center of the housing of Ortega to arrive at claim 20. Providing the first cavity and corresponding perspiration sensor closer to a center of the exterior surface of the housing relative to the first electrode would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as this configuration is well-known in the art (see Panneer Selvam) to yield the predictable result of skin-side sensors located on an underside of a wristband device all capable of transmitting and/or receiving signals to or from the skin for monitoring purposes.
Conclusion
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