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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 6 and 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, ln. 2-3 should read ---repeating the trigger message a certain number of times.---
Claim 6, ln. 2-3 should read ---determining the certain number of times of repetitions---
Claim 11, ln. 2-3 should read ---retrying to transmit the event message a certain number of times---
Claim 12, ln. 2-3 should read ---determining the certain number of times of retrying to send---
Claim 13, ln. 2-3 should read ---in the case that after the certain number of times of retrying to transmit the respective event message and no acknowledgement has been received---
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5, 7 and 17-18 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 5 recites “wherein the third time interval is in the range of seconds”. It is unclear what range is encompassed by the recited claim.
Claim 17 is rejected due to dependency on claim 5.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the first time interval is in the range of seconds to minutes”. It is unclear what is encompassed by the recited claim.
Claim 18 is rejected due to dependency on claim 7.
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) 1-11, 14-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (Pub. No.: US 2019/0365572 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses (fig. 1-2) a communication method for communication of a monitoring device (sensors 110, 120, 130, 140) being attachable to an absorbent article of a wearer (¶ 0025, ¶ 0014) with a back-end unit (mobile terminal M) (¶ 0040), the communication method comprising the steps of:
Checking proper attachment of the monitoring device to the absorbent article and/or measuring status information of the absorbent article (¶ 0026) and/or of the wearer after every first time interval in order to acquire corresponding measurement data for each respective time interval (¶ 0032), and
Transmitting a trigger message comprising at least the first measurement data from the monitoring device to the back-end unit if the latest measurement data is different from the corresponding previous measurement data of the respective previous time interval (¶ 0040, ¶ 0047-¶ 0048) or a second time interval has elapsed.
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses wherein the trigger message is an unconfirmed uplink message comprising solely data sent from the monitoring device to the back-end unit without acknowledgement sent from the back-send unit to the monitoring device (¶ 0048), and/or
Wherein the trigger message comprises solely non-critical information with respect to the wearer and/or information not requiring an action and/or feedback of the wearer and/or a caregiver of the wearer (¶ 0048), and/or
Wherein the absorbent article comprises or is a diaper (¶ 0014), and/or
Wherein the monitoring device comprises or is a diaper monitoring device (¶ 0014, ¶ 0033).
Regarding claim 3, Park discloses wherein the communication method further comprises the step of repeating the trigger message a certain amount of times, and/or
Wherein the non-critical information comprises at least one of voiding events, presence of exudates, detection of exudates, bowel movements, temperature changes, or any combination thereof (¶ 0048).
Regarding claim 4, the step of repeating the trigger message a certain amount of times is optional, as recited in claim 3. Accordingly, such limitation of claim 4, wherein, in the case of at least two repetitions of the trigger message, between each repetition, there is a third time interval, is optional and disclosed by Park.
Regarding claim 5, as discussed above in claims 3 and 4, the third time interval is optional. Accordingly, such limitation of claim 5, wherein the third time interval is lower than the first time interval, and/or wherein the third time interval is in the range of seconds, is optional and disclosed by Park. Regarding claim 6, as discussed above in claim 3 and 4, step of repeating the trigger message a certain amount of times is optional and the third time interval is optional. Accordingly, such limitation of claim 6, wherein the communication method further comprises the step of determining the certain times of repetitions of the trigger message and/or the third time interval on the basis of the risk for the trigger message not to arrive to the back-end unit and/or an overall network load o fa network comprising at least the monitoring device and the back-end unit, is optional and disclosed by Park.
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses the first time interval (¶ 0032). Since Park discloses a first time interval, Park implies that the first interval is in the range of seconds to minutes.
Regarding claim 8, as discussed above in claim 1, the second time interval is optional. Accordingly, such limitation of claim 8, wherein the second time interval is larger than the first time interval, is optional and disclosed by Park.
Regarding claim 9, Park discloses wherein the communication method further comprises the step of transmitting an event message comprising the latest measurement data from the monitoring unit to the back end unit (¶ 0040).
Regarding claim 10, Park discloses wherein the event message is a confirmed uplink message comprising data sent from the monitoring device to the back-end unit and a corresponding acknowledgement sent from the back-end unit to the monitoring device, and/or
Wherein the event message comprises critical information with respect to the wearer (¶ 0039-¶ 0040) and/or information requiring an action and/or a feedback of the wearer and/or a caregiver of the wearer.
Regarding claim 11, Park discloses wherein the communication method further comprises the step of retrying to transmit the event message a certain amount of times until the corresponding acknowledgement has been received by the monitoring device from the back-end unit, and/or
Wherein the critical information comprises at least one of disconnection of the monitoring device, detachment of the of the monitoring device, detection of a fall of the wearer, no movement of the monitoring device within a predetermined time interval (¶ 0029, ¶ 0039-¶ 0040), irritation of the skin of the wearer, a time being too long in one position, a body posture with respect to the wearer, an orientation with respect to the wearer, a time being too long since first exudated detection with respect to the wearer, low battery of the monitoring device, a battery level of the monitoring device being less than 10 percent, or any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 14, Park discloses wherein the communication between the monitoring device and the back-end unit comprises or is based on at least one of wide area network, long range wide area network, Bluetooth, Bluetooth low energy, wireless local area network (¶ 0041), Sigfox, lora, internet of things, narrowband internet of things, zigbee, or any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 15, Park discloses (fig. 1-2) a monitoring device (smart infant toilet system) being attachable to an absorbent article of a wearer (¶ 0014, ¶ 0024), the monitoring device comprising:
A sensing unit (sensors 110, 120, 130 140 ¶ 0024), and
A communication unit (alarming unit 300) connected to the sensing unit (¶ 0041),
Wherein the sensing unit is configured to check proper attachment of the monitoring device to the absorbent article and/or to measure status information of the absorbent article (¶ 0026) and/or of the wearer after every first time interval to acquire corresponding measurement data for each respective time interval (¶ 0032), and
Wherein the communication unit is configured to transmit a trigger message comprising at least the latest measurement data to a back-end unit (mobile terminal M) if the latest measurement data is different from the previous measurement data of the respective previous time interval (¶ 0040, ¶ 0047-¶ 0048).
Regarding claim 16, Park discloses wherein the communication method further comprises the step of repeating the trigger message between 2 and 5 times, and/or
Wherein the non-critical information comprises at least one of voiding events, presence of exudates, detection of exudates, bowel movements, temperature changes, or any combination thereof (¶ 0048).
Regarding claim 17, as discussed above in claims 3, 4 and 5, the third interval is optional. Accordingly, such limitation of claim 17, wherein the third interval is lower than the first time interval, and/or wherein the third time interval is between 1 and 10 seconds, is optional and disclosed by Park.
Regarding claim 19, as discussed above in claims 1 and 8, the second time interval is optional. Accordingly, such limitation of claim 19, wherein the second time interval is between 3 and 30 times the first time interval, is optional and disclosed by Park.
Regarding claim 20, Park discloses wherein the communication method further comprises the step of retrying to transmit the event message between 3 and 10 times until the corresponding acknowledgement has been received by the monitoring device from the back-end unit, and/or
Wherein the critical information comprises at least one of disconnection of the monitoring device, detachment of the of the monitoring device, detection of a fall of the wearer, no movement of the monitoring device within a predetermined time interval (¶ 0029, ¶ 0039-¶ 0040), irritation of the skin of the wearer, a time being too long in one position, a body posture with respect to the wearer, an orientation with respect to the wearer, a time being too long since first exudated detection with respect to the wearer, low battery of the monitoring device, a battery level of the monitoring device being less than 10 percent, or any combination thereof.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Heyl et al. (Pat. No.: US 10,713,372 B1).
Regarding claim 12, Park fails to disclose wherein the communication method further comprises the step of determining the certain number of times of retrying to send the event message on the basis of the risk for the event message not to arrive to the back-end unit and/or an overall network load of a network comprising at least the monitoring device and the back-end unit.
Heyl teaches (fig. 3) for communication of a monitoring device being attachable to an absorbent article of a wearer with a back-end unit (abstract), and thus in the same field of endeavor, wherein the communication method further comprises the step of determining the certain number of times of retrying to send the event message on the basis of the risk for the event message not to arrive to the back-end unit (the system may be programmed to issue reminder pages, if the alert exists longer than a programmed amount of time, col. 12, ln. 53-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Park such that the communication method further comprises the step of determining the certain number of times of retrying to send the event message on the basis of the risk for the event message not to arrive to the back-end unit, as taught by Heyl, in order to ensure that a caretaker is made aware of the alert.
Regarding claim 13, Park in view of Heyl disclose wherein in the case that after the certain times of trying to transmit the respective event message and no acknowledgement has been received by the monitoring device, the communication method further comprises the steps of:
Storing the respective event message with the aid of a memory of the monitoring device (Heyl, an alarm appears on the web page, col. 12, ln. 60-65), and/or
Transmitting the respective event message in combination with the next occurring message to be transmitted form the monitoring device to the back-end unit, regardless of which type the next occurring message is.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (Pub No.: US 2021/0393448 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Park fails to disclose wherein the first time interval is between 30 seconds and 3 minutes.
Wang teaches (fig. 1) a method for communication of a monitoring device (sensor 017) being attachable to an absorbent article of a wearer (¶ 0042) with a back-end unit (mobile device, ¶ 0045), and thus in the same field of endeavor, the communication method comprises measuring status information of the absorbent article after every first time interval (¶ 0049), wherein the first time interval is between 10 seconds and 120 minutes (¶ 0049), which overlaps with the claimed range of between 30 second and 3 minutes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first time interval of Park such that it is between 30 seconds and 3 minutes, as taught by Wang, in order to provide active monitoring the absorbent article.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. He (Pub. No.: US 2020/0323450 A1) discloses a method for communication of a monitoring device with a back-end unit. Jhangiani et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0250174 A1) discloses a method for communication of a monitoring device with a back-end unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEAGAN NGO whose telephone number is (571)270-1586. The examiner can normally be reached M - TH 8:00 - 4:00 PT.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at (571) 272-7159. 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.
/MEAGAN NGO/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/JESSICA ARBLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781