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 .
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 4, 7, 8, 13, 14, 24, 26, 27, 29, 32, 33, 38 – 40, 42, 44, and 49 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. With regard to claims 4 (and 29), and 13 (and 38), although the claims are drawn to a structure the limitations set forth imply that a step (“comprises determining…”; “captures… using…”, respectively) is performed. With regard to claim 24, it is unclear how “a calibration model” is a structural element in and of itself; Examiner notes that the claim does not relate the model to the “processor”. With regard to claim 26, although the preamble refers to a “switch assembly” none of the positively claimed elements (spectra sensor, force sensors) particularly provide a ‘switch’ type result. As such, it is unclear how a switch assembly has been set forth. Further, neither the spectra sensor nor the force sensors would generally be considered to be configured to provide the result set forth in the final two lines of the claim, and thus it is unclear what structure is intended to implement the limitations. With regard to claim 27, the claim is drawn to a “switch assembly” and the claim indicates that the switch assembly “is in communication with a processor having a memory” implying that the processor and memory (and associated limitations set forth in the remainder of the claim) are outside of the scope of the switch assembly itself. The details of the processor and memory do not appear to affect the scope of any positively claimed element of the switch assembly beyond the indicated communication therebetween. With regard to claim 29, the phrase “wherein applying the one or more spectra collection factors” lacks antecedent basis. With regard to claim 44, the phrase “the processor” lacks antecedent basis. With regard to claim 49, the phrase “the… and assemblies” lacks antecedent basis; it is unclear why the claim refers to the structure of claim 1, which defines both spectra sensor and touch sensor elements, but refers to “a sensor” which appears to be indicating an additional sensor outside of the two that were already defined.
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(s) 1, 4, 7, 8, 13, 14, 17, 19, 24, 26, 27, 29, 32, 33, 38 – 40, 42, 44, and 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. (USPN 5,857,462) in view of Thaveeprungsriporn et al. (USPN 8,761,853). Thomas et al. teach a spectroscopic analyte detection system and assembly (Figures 9 – 12, 14), including light source and detector elements to collect spectral information and a processing element for performing analysis thereof, particularly mentioning that the measurement of blood alcohol may be used to reduce the number of drunk driving fatalities (column 22, lines 35 – 44). Thomas et al. indicate that their spectroscopic analysis may cover a range of wavelengths (Figures 4, 6, 7 and the corresponding descriptions) that is consistent with the claimed measurement ranges. Further, Thomas et al. describe technical details of their analysis (column 20, line 51 – column 21, line 25; column 22, line 45 – column 23, line 65) and one would recognize that at least some of these techniques are within the broadest reasonable interpretation of “chemometric analysis” as that claim phrase is understood in view of Applicant’s disclosure. Thomas et al. particularly recognize that the analysis can include additional information, including consideration of finger pressure (column 12, line 61 – column 13, line 5). Although this force/pressure data would be required to be measured to be utilized by their algorithm, Thomas et al. do not specifically show details of the pressure/force measurement. Thaveeprungsriporn et al. teach an alternate optical physiological measurement invention, in which both optical and force/pressure information is collected (Figures 9 – 12, 16, 17 and the descriptions thereof). Additionally, Thaveeprungsriporn et al. recognize that the force information can be analyzed to determine when optimal measurement conditions are present (Figures 20, 21; as discussed in column 13), as well as to provide feedback to the user to assist them in creating and maintaining the proper pressure, wherein the feedback can be tactile in the form of vibrations (column 6, lines 55 – 67). As such, it would have been within the skill level of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Thomas et al. to use a force sensor in conjunction with the optical sensing elements, as taught by Thaveeprungsriporn et al., to provide the necessary finger pressure information. Additionally, as noted, Thaveeprungsriporn et al. teach that the force data may be used to assess and guide the user through feedback for optimizing measurement results, and therefore in addition to use of the force data in the analysis algorithm, as suggested by Thomas et al., it would further have been within the skill level to use the force information in the manner disclosed by Thaveeprungsriporn et al. to assure improved measurement results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ver Steeg et al. (USPGPub 2013/0110311 – Figures 22, 27 – 29 and the descriptions thereof); Rake et al. (USPN 9,820,685 - Figures 2, 3 and the descriptions thereof); and Newberry (USPN 10,194,871 – Figures 19 – 22 and the descriptions thereof) teach optical sensing arrangements that may be incorporated into switch-type elements of a vehicle to monitor a driver’s physiological status.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC FRANK WINAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4736. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 am - 6 pm.
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, Jackie 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.
/ERIC F WINAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791