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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Processor for Generating Sweat Amount Data Based on External and Internal Sweat Amount Data.
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.
No claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-12 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 1 recites “the external sweat amount data being generated on a basis of an output of a first sensor section, the internal sweat amount data being generated on a basis of an output of a second sensor section” in lines 4-6, which are action steps in an apparatus claim. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because it creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. (MPEP 2173.05(p) citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 97 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Claim 1 recites “the external sweat amount data being generated on a basis of an output of a first sensor section, the internal sweat amount data being generated on a basis of an output of a second sensor section” in lines 4-6, but it is not clear if the first and second sensor sections are part of the claimed processor. The claim language presents them as being separate and distinct. If they are, it is not clear how these first and second sensor sections are interpreted in view of their non-inclusion in the claimed processor. Are they required or not? This ambiguity renders claim 1 indefinite.
Claims 2-11 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “detection times” in line 4, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “detection times” in claim 2, line 3. If they are the same, “the” should be inserted before “detection times” in claim 3, line 4. If they are different, these recitations should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements).
Claim 3 recites “resulting data” in line 7, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “resulting data” in claim 2, line 7. If they are the same, “the” should be inserted before “resulting data” in claim 3, line 7. If they are different, these recitations should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). Further, if they are different, the recitation “sets resulting data as the sweat amount data” of claim 3, line 7 contradicts “sets resulting data as the sweat amount data” of claim 2, line 7. This contradiction renders claim 3 indefinite.
Claims 4-5 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 3.
Claim 4 recites “each reliability of portions in the correlation of the reverse phase with respect to each other” in lines 4-5 and “each reliability of portions in the correlation of the in phase with respect to each other” in lines 8-9, which renders the claim indefinite. These recitations connoted that there is a plurality of reliability determinations, but it is not clear how these reliability determinations relate, if at all, to the single reliability determination of claim 2, lines 1-4 or the single reliability determination of claim 3, line 1-4. The relationship among these recitations is confusing and not clear. Clarification is required.
Claim 4 recites “the portions evaluated to have high reliability” in line 11, but it is not clear if this recitation is referring to the recitation “a high evaluation to each reliability of portions in the correlation of the in phase with respect to each other” in lines 8-9. There seems to be some relationship but the variations in phrasing make that relationship unclear.
Claim 4 recites “the portions evaluated to have low reliability” in line 13, but it is not clear if this recitation is referring to the recitation “a low evaluation to each reliability of portions in the correlation of the reverse phase with respect to each other” in lines 4-5. There seems to be some relationship but the variations in phrasing make that relationship unclear.
Claim 5 is rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 4.
Claim 5 recites “the evaluation” in line 2, but it is not clear which of the previous evaluations from claim 2, line 2; claim 3, line 2; claim 4, line 4; or claim 4, line 8 are being referred to. Clarification is required.
Claim 8 recites “detection times” in line 4, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “detection times” in claim 6, line 3. If they are the same, “the” should be inserted before “detection times” in claim 8, line 4. If they are different, these recitations should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements).
Claim 10 recites “The information processor according to claim 1 further comprising: the first sensor section that detects an external sweat amount, and outputs data thus obtained; and the second sensor section that detects an internal sweat amount, and outputs data thus obtained” in lines 1-5, but it is not clear if the first and second sections are supposed to be part of the claimed processor. Sensors are not thought of as being part of a processor so an interpretation of the sensors being part of the processor would run counter to conventional understanding. This deviation creates confusion as to what is meant by the recitations.
Claim 10 recites “data thus obtained” in lines 2-3, but it is not clear this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the “external sweat amount data” of claim 1, line 2. They appear to be alluding to the same thing, but the claim language treats them as being separate and distinct. Clarification is required.
Claim 10 recites “data thus obtained” in lines 4-5, but it is not clear this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from the “internal sweat amount data” of claim 1, line 3. They appear to be alluding to the same thing, but the claim language treats them as being separate and distinct. Clarification is required.
Claim 11 is rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 10.
Claim 12 recites “the external sweat amount data being generated on a basis of an output of a first sensor section, the internal sweat amount data being generated on a basis of an output of a second sensor” in lines 3-5, but it is not clear if these steps performed by the first and second sensor sections are part of the claimed program. The claim language presents them as being separate and distinct. If they are, it is not clear how these steps performed by the first and second sensor sections are interpreted in view of their non-inclusion in the claimed program. Are they required or not? This ambiguity renders claim 12 indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-11 are directed to a method of generating sweat amount data using a computational algorithm, which is an abstract idea. Claims 1-11 do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons provided below which are in line with the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, p 74618, December 16, 2014), the July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 146, p. 45429, July 30, 2015), the May 2016 Subject Matter Eligibility Update (Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 88, p. 27381, May 6, 2016), and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, page 50, January 7, 2019).
The analysis of claim 1 is as follows:
Step 1: Claim 1 is drawn to a machine.
Step 2A – Prong One: Claim 1 recites an abstract idea. In particular, claim 1 recites the following limitations:
[A1] acquires external sweat amount data on an amount of sweat oozing out of an epidermis and internal sweat amount data on an amount of sweat inside the epidermis and a dermis, and
[B1] generates sweat amount data on a basis of the external sweat amount data and the internal sweat amount data.
These elements [A1]-[B1] of claim 1 are drawn to an abstract idea since (1) they involve mathematical concepts in the form of mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations and/or (2) they involve a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and using pen and paper.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Claim 1 recites the following limitations that are beyond the judicial exception:
[A2] 1. An information processor comprising: an acquisition section… and a generation section…
[B2] the external sweat amount data being generated on a basis of an output of a first sensor section, the internal sweat amount data being generated on a basis of an output of a second sensor section.
These elements [A2]-[B2] of claim 1 do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the element [A2] is merely an instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the element [B2] is merely describing the nature of the data which does not physically impact the claimed processor.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. In particular, the element [A1] does not qualify as significantly more because this limitation is simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
The element [B2] does not qualify as significantly more because this limitation merely describes the nature of the data and does not incorporate the first and second sensor sections as part of the claimed processor.
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Claims 2-11 depend from claim 1, and recite the same abstract idea as claim 1. Furthermore, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the algorithm), with the following exceptions:
Claims 2-4, 6, and 8: an evaluation section and the generation section;
Claim 5: an output section that outputs, to an outside, the sweat amount data in which the evaluation by the evaluation section is reflected;
Claim 7: an output section that outputs, as the sweat amount data, the external sweat amount data and the first reliability evaluation data to an outside;
Claim 9: an output section that outputs, as the sweat amount data, the external sweat amount data, the internal sweat amount data, the first reliability evaluation data, and the second reliability evaluation data to an outside;
Claim 10: the first sensor section that detects an external sweat amount, and outputs data thus obtained; and the second sensor section that detects an internal sweat amount, and outputs data thus obtained;
Claim 11: wherein the first sensor section electrically detects the external sweat amount, and the second sensor section optically detects the internal sweat amount.
Each of these claims limitations does not integrate the exception into a practical application. In particular, the evaluation section and the generation section of claims 2-4, 6, and 8 are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
The output sections of claims 5, 7, and 9 are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere outputting the results of the algorithm.
The first and second sensor sections of claim 10-11 are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data gathering at a higher level of generality - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, each of these limitations does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. In particular, the evaluation section and the generation section of claims 2-4, 6, and 8 are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
The output sections of claims 5, 7, and 9 are merely insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere outputting the results of the algorithm in conjunction with the abstract idea that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements. Further, the output sections are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions (that is, one of display) that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
The first and second sensor sections of claim 10-11 are merely insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements. In particular, the first and second sensor sections are nothing more than (1) an optical sweat sensor and (2) a conventional perspiration meter, respectively.
Optical sweat sensors are known, as disclosed, for example, in:
paragraph 0006 of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0146898 (Begtrup)(“Sweat sensors can include, for example, … optical… or other means known by those skilled in the art of sensing or biosensing.”); or
paragraph 0011 of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0112164 (Heikenfeld 164)(“More indirect measurements of sweat rate are also possible through common electronic/optical/chemical measurements, including those such as pulse, pulse-oxygenation, respiration, heart rate variability, activity level, and 3-axis accelerometry, or other common readings published by Fitbit, Nike Fuel, Zephyr Technology, and others in the current wearables space, or demonstrated previously in the prior art.”).
Conventional perspiration meters are known, as disclosed, for example, in:
pages 1 and 5 of JP 5298703 (Konica Minolta);
paragraph 0006 of Begtrup (“Sweat sensors can include, for example, … impedance… or other means known by those skilled in the art of sensing or biosensing.”); or
paragraph 0011 of Heikenfeld 164 (“More indirect measurements of sweat rate are also possible through common electronic/optical/chemical measurements, including those such as pulse, pulse-oxygenation, respiration, heart rate variability, activity level, and 3-axis accelerometry, or other common readings published by Fitbit, Nike Fuel, Zephyr Technology, and others in the current wearables space, or demonstrated previously in the prior art.”).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations of each claim as an ordered combination in conjunction with the claims from which they depend (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Claim 12 is drawn to “[a]n information processing program” which is a claim not drawn to any of the statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03(I) provides:
“Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include:
• Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as “data per se”) or a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) when claimed as a product without any structural recitations”
Since claim 12 is drawn only to a processing program, it does not fall into any of the statutory categories.
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.
Claims 1, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 5298703 (Konica Minolta). Citations to Konica Minolta will refer to the English machine translation that accompanies this Office Action.
With respect to claim 1, Konica Minolta teaches an information processor (the signal processing unit 50 of Konica Minolta) comprising:
an acquisition section that acquires external sweat amount data on an amount of sweat oozing out of an epidermis (the identification and quantification of the amount of external sweating; pages 4-5 of Konica Minolta) and internal sweat amount data on an amount of sweat inside the epidermis and a dermis (the identification and quantification of the amount of internal sweating; pages 4-5 of Konica Minolta), the external sweat amount data being generated on a basis of an output of a first sensor section (the existing sweat meter; pages 4-5 of Konica Minolta), the internal sweat amount data being generated on a basis of an output of a second sensor section (the OCT apparatus of Konica Minolta; pages 4-5 of Konica Minolta); and
a generation section that generates sweat amount data on a basis of the external sweat amount data and the internal sweat amount data (the amount of sweating of both external and internal sweating can be quantifiably measured to determine total sweat; pages 2 and 4-5 of Konica Minolta).
With respect to claim 10, Konica Minolta teaches the first sensor section that detects an external sweat amount, and outputs data thus obtained (the existing sweat meter of Konica Minolta and its output; pages 4-5 of Konica Minolta); and the second sensor section that detects an internal sweat amount, and outputs data thus obtained (the OCT apparatus of Konica Minolta and its output; pages 4-5 of Konica Minolta).
With respect to claim 12, Konica Minolta teaches an information processing program that causes a computer to:
acquire external sweat amount data on an amount of sweat oozing out of an epidermis (the identification and quantification of the amount of external sweating; pages 4-5 of Konica Minolta) and internal sweat amount data on an amount of sweat inside the epidermis and a dermis (the identification and quantification of the amount of internal sweating; pages 4-5 of Konica Minolta), the external sweat amount data being generated on a basis of an output of a first sensor section (the existing sweat meter; pages 4-5 of Konica Minolta), the internal sweat amount data being generated on a basis of an output of a second sensor (the OCT apparatus of Konica Minolta; pages 4-5 of Konica Minolta); and
generate sweat amount data on a basis of the external sweat amount data and the internal sweat amount data (the amount of sweating of both external and internal sweating can be quantifiably measured to determine total sweat; pages 2 and 4-5 of Konica Minolta).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 5298703 (Konica Minolta) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0229661 (Sekiguchi). Citations to Konica Minolta will refer to the English machine translation that accompanies this Office Action.
Konica Minolta teaches the external sweat amount data being generated on a basis of an output of a first sensor section (the existing sweat meter; pages 4-5 of Konica Minolta). Sekiguchi teaches a sweat sensor 13, 21 that has a plurality of electrodes that measure impedance (paragraphs 0050-0051 of Sekiguchi). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sweat sensor of Sekiguchi in place of the sweat meter of Konica Minolta since it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
With respect to claim 11, the combination teaches or suggests that the first sensor section electrically detects the external sweat amount (the sweat sensor of Sekiguchi electrically detects; paragraph 0051 of Sekiguchi), and the second sensor section optically detects the internal sweat amount (the OCT apparatus of Konica Minolta optically detects; pages 4-5 of Konica Minolta).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 5298703 (Konica Minolta) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0301436 (Teixeira). Citations to Konica Minolta will refer to the English machine translation that accompanies this Office Action.
Konica Minolta teaches the external sweat amount data being generated on a basis of an output of a first sensor section (the existing sweat meter; pages 4-5 of Konica Minolta). Teixeira teaches a sweat sensor that measure impedance to determine skin perspiration levels (paragraph 0125 of Teixeira). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sweat sensor of Teixeira in place of the sweat meter of Konica Minolta since it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
With respect to claim 11, the combination teaches or suggests that the first sensor section electrically detects the external sweat amount (the sweat sensor of Teixeira electrically detects; paragraph 0125 of Teixeira), and the second sensor section optically detects the internal sweat amount (the OCT apparatus of Konica Minolta optically detects; pages 4-5 of Konica Minolta).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include 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.
With respect to claim 2, Konica Minolta does not teach or suggest “an evaluation section that evaluates reliability of the external sweat amount data on a basis of internal sweat amount difference data which is a difference between two pieces of data having detection times different from each other, among the internal sweat amount data, wherein the generation section performs processing on the external sweat amount data on a basis of a result of the evaluation of the reliability of the external sweat amount data by the evaluation section, and sets resulting data as the sweat amount data” along with the other features of claim 2.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0100072 (Heikenfeld 072) teaches that sweat analyte measurements can be used to distinguish genuine sweat data from counterfeit data (paragraph 0046 of Heikenfeld 072).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0296571 (Shinoda) teaches that a reliability information generation circuit 115 that reads a perspiration amount and calculates the absolute value of a change amount of the read perspiration amount. Reliability information is generated such that the value of which becomes smaller when the perspiration amounts changes to become greater than or equal to the predetermined reference value compared to when there is no change greater than or equal to the reference value (paragraph 0091 of Shinoda).
However, these teachings Heikenfeld 072 and Shinoda, alone or in combination with Konica Minolta or with each other, does not teach or suggest “an evaluation section that evaluates reliability of the external sweat amount data on a basis of internal sweat amount difference data which is a difference between two pieces of data having detection times different from each other, among the internal sweat amount data, wherein the generation section performs processing on the external sweat amount data on a basis of a result of the evaluation of the reliability of the external sweat amount data by the evaluation section, and sets resulting data as the sweat amount data” along with the other features of claim 2.
Claims 3-5 are allowable by virtue of their dependence from claim 2.
With respect to claim 6, Konica Minolta does not teach or suggest “an evaluation section that evaluates reliability of the external sweat amount data on a basis of internal sweat amount difference data which is a difference between two pieces of data having detection times different from each other, among the internal sweat amount data, wherein the generation section generates first reliability evaluation data on the external sweat amount data on a basis of a result of the evaluation of the reliability of the external sweat amount data by the evaluation section” along with the other features of claim 6.
Heikenfeld 072 teaches that sweat analyte measurements can be used to distinguish genuine sweat data from counterfeit data (paragraph 0046 of Heikenfeld 072).
Shinoda teaches that a reliability information generation circuit 115 that reads a perspiration amount and calculates the absolute value of a change amount of the read perspiration amount. Reliability information is generated such that the value of which becomes smaller when the perspiration amounts changes to become greater than or equal to the predetermined reference value compared to when there is no change greater than or equal to the reference value (paragraph 0091 of Shinoda).
However, these teachings Heikenfeld 072 and Shinoda, alone or in combination with Konica Minolta or with each other, does not teach or suggest “an evaluation section that evaluates reliability of the external sweat amount data on a basis of internal sweat amount difference data which is a difference between two pieces of data having detection times different from each other, among the internal sweat amount data, wherein the generation section generates first reliability evaluation data on the external sweat amount data on a basis of a result of the evaluation of the reliability of the external sweat amount data by the evaluation section” along with the other features of claim 6.
Claims 7-9 are allowable by virtue of their dependence from claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW KREMER whose telephone number is (571)270-3394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am to 6 pm; every other Friday off.
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, JACQUELINE CHENG can be reached at (571) 272-5596. 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.
/MATTHEW KREMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791