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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/13/206 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schabbach (US. Pub. No. 2020/0342973 A1) in view of Liu et al. (US. Pub. No. 2016/0286518 A1; hereinafter “Liu”).
Regarding claim 45, Schabbach teaches a method of controlling an electronics module for a wearable article to transmit sensor data (see Schabbach, fig. 1, memory device 2, para. [0044], wristwatch), the method comprises:
storing, by the electronics module, sensor data obtained from a sensor of or in communication with the electronics module (see Schabbach, fig. 1, sensor 8, memory 2, para. [0032]);
determining, by the electronics module, to transmit historic sensor data (see Schabbach, fig. 4, activate 58, connection 60, transmit 64, para. [0068-72]),
the determining comprising determining that an external device has been brought into proximity with the electronics module and that a request for historic sensor data has been received from the external device via a first antenna of the electronics module (see Schabbach, fig. 4, activate 58, connection 60, transmit 64, para. [0068-72], NFC); and
in response to determining to transmit historic sensor data: retrieving, by the electronics module, a plurality of stored samples of historic sensor data (see Schabbach, fig. 4, 62, para. [0071]), and wirelessly transmitting the plurality of samples of historic sensor data (see Schabbach, fig. 4, 60, para. [0070], Bluetooth to external device).
Schabbach is silent to teaching that wirelessly transmitting, by a second antenna of the electronics module, the plurality of samples data.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches a method wirelessly transmitting, by a second antenna of the electronics module, the plurality of samples data (see Liu, fig. 2, S111, para. [0053], sensor data, Bluetooth/first protocol) in response to the processor determining to transmit (see Liu, fig. 3, S120, connection request, para. [0053], NFC/second protocol).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Schabbach with Liu in order to minimize errors and improve energy consumption (see Liu, para. [0003,53]).
Claim(s) 26, 28, 33, and 35-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schabbach in view of Liu and Murata et al. (US. Pub. No. 2019/0244698 A1; hereinafter “MURATA”)
Regarding claim 26, Schabbach teaches an electronics module for a wearable article (see Schabbach, fig. 1, memory device 2, para. [0044], wristwatch), the electronics module comprising:
a memory operable to store sensor data obtained from a sensor of or in communication with the electronics module (see Schabbach, fig. 1, sensor 8, memory 2, para. [0032]);
a communicator comprising a first antenna operable to use a first wireless communication protocol (see Schabbach, fig. 2, NFC 6) and a second antenna operable to use a second wireless communication protocol which is different from the first wireless communication protocol (see Schabbach, fig. 2, network 38, para. [0042-43], Bluetooth);
a processor operable to retrieve a plurality of samples of historic sensor data from the memory (see Schabbach, fig. 4, 62, para. [0071]), and control the second antenna to wirelessly transmit the plurality of samples of historic sensor data over the second wireless communication protocol (see Schabbach, fig. 4, 60, para. [0070], Bluetooth to external device), wherein determining to transmit historic sensor data comprises the processor determining that an external device has been brought into proximity with the electronics module and that a request for historic sensor data has been received from the external device via the first antenna over the first wireless communication protocol (see Schabbach, fig. 4, activate 58, connection 60, transmit 64, para. [0068-72]).
Schabbach is silent to teaching that wherein the processor operable to control the second antenna to wirelessly transmit in response to the processor determining to transmit historic sensor data, and wherein the sensor data covering a time period that immediately precedes a determination, by the processor, of an anomaly condition in the sensor data.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches a device wherein the processor operable to control the second antenna to wirelessly transmit (see Liu, fig. 2, S111, para. [0053], sensor data, Bluetooth/first protocol) in response to the processor determining to transmit historic sensor data (see Liu, fig. 3, S120, connection request, para. [0053], NFC/second protocol).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Schabbach with Liu in order to minimize errors and improve energy consumption (see Liu, para. [0003,53]).
The combination of Schabbach and Liu is silent to teaching that wherein the sensor data covering a time period that immediately precedes a determination, by the processor, of an anomaly condition in the sensor data.
In the same field of endeavor, MURATA teaches a device wherein the sensor data covering a time period that immediately precedes a determination, by the processor, of an anomaly condition in the sensor data (See MURATA, fig. 5, para. [0061], biological data 5 immediately before even 8, para. [0029], event 8 as medically significant event).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Schabbach and Liu with the teaching of MURATA in order to efficiently use a storage area for measurements with lifestyle information (see MURATA, para. [0005]).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Schabbach, Liu and MURATA teaches the electronics module according to claim 26, wherein the processor is operable to control the communicator to wirelessly pair with the external device and, once paired, transmit the plurality of samples of historic sensor data to the external device (See Liu, fig. 2, S111, para. [0039-41]).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Schabbach, Liu and MURATA teaches the electronics module according to claim 26, wherein the communicator is arranged to receive the request while the external device is in proximity with the electronics module (see Schabbach, fig. 4, activate 58, connection 60, transmit 64, para. [0068-72]).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Schabbach, Liu and MURATA teaches the electronics module according to claim 26, wherein the memory is operable to store sensor data obtained from a plurality of sensors of or in communication with the electronics module (see Schabbach, fig. 1, sensors 8, para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Schabbach, Liu and MURATA teaches the electronics module according to claim 35, wherein the processor is operable to retrieve a plurality of samples of historic sensor data from the memory, the plurality of samples of historic sensor data comprising sensor data obtained from the plurality of sensors or a subset thereof (See Schabbach, para. [0071]).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Schabbach, Liu and MURATA teaches the electronics module according to claim 26, wherein the plurality of samples of historic sensor data cover a time period of at least 0.5 seconds preceding the determination to transmit sensor data by the processor (see Schabbach, para. [0027,79], days).
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Schabbach, Liu and MURATA teaches the electronics module according to claim 37, wherein the plurality of samples of historic sensor data cover a time period of at least 1 second preceding the determination to transmit sensor data by the processor (see Schabbach, para. [0027,79], days).
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Schabbach, Liu and MURATA teaches the electronics module according to claim 38, wherein the plurality of samples of historic sensor data cover a time period of at least 5 seconds preceding the determination to transmit sensor data by the processor (see Schabbach, para. [0027,79], days).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Schabbach, Liu and MURATA teaches the electronics module according to claim 39, wherein the plurality of samples of historic sensor data cover a time period of at least 10 seconds preceding the determination to transmit sensor data by the processor (see Schabbach, para. [0027,79], days).
Regarding claim 41, the combination of Schabbach, Liu and MURATA teaches the electronics module according to claim 26, wherein the plurality of samples of historic sensor data cover a time period that immediately precedes the determination to transmit sensor data by the processor (see Schabbach, para. [0027,79], days).
Regarding claim 42, the combination of Schabbach, Liu and MURATA teaches the electronics module according to claim 26, wherein the processor is further operable to control the communicator to transmit a request for historic sensor data to a further electronics module (see Schabbach, fig. 1, sensors 8, para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 43, the combination of Schabbach, Liu and MURATA teaches the electronics module according to claim 42, wherein the communicator is operable to receive the historic sensor data from the further electronics module (see Schabbach, fig. 1, sensors 8, para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 44, the combination of Schabbach, Liu and MURATA teaches the system comprising the electronics module according to claim 26 and an external device, wherein the external device is arranged to receive the plurality of samples of historic sensor data from the electronics module (see Schabbach, fig. 4, transmit 64, see Liu, fig. 2, S111, para. [0053]).
Claim(s) 27 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schabbach, Liu and MURATA as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Han et al. (US. Pub. NO. 2020/0245108 A1; hereinafter “Han”).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Schabbach, Liu and MURATA teaches the electronics module according to claim 26.
The combination of Schabbach, Liu and MURATA is silent to teaching that wherein the processor is operable to control the communicator to broadcast the plurality of samples of historic sensor data.
In the same field of endeavor, Han teaches a device wherein the processor is operable to control the communicator to broadcast the plurality of samples of historic sensor data (see Han, fig. 1, sensor 102, para. [0053-54]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Schabbach, Liu and MURATA with the teaching of Han in order to improve sensor data collection and minimize installation and maintenance (see Han, para. [0005-6]).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Schabbach, Liu and MURATA teaches the electronics module according to claim 26.
The combination of Schabbach, Liu and MURATA is silent to teaching that wherein the request comprises authorisation information for the external device, wherein the processor is arranged to determine from the authorisation information whether the external device is authorised to access the sensor data, and wherein, in response to determining that the external device is authorised, the processor is operable to control the communicator to wirelessly transmit the plurality of samples of historic sensor data.
In the same field of endeavor, Han teaches a device wherein the request comprises authorisation information for the external device, wherein the processor is arranged to determine from the authorisation information whether the external device is authorised to access the sensor data, and wherein, in response to determining that the external device is authorised, the processor is operable to control the communicator to wirelessly transmit the plurality of samples of historic sensor data (see Han, para. [0136]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Schabbach, Liu and MURATA with the teaching of Han in order to improve sensor data collection and minimize installation and maintenance (see Han, para. [0005-6]).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schabbach, Liu and MURATA as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Dean et al (US. Pub. No. 2022/0168154 A1; hereinafter “Dean”).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Schabbach, Liu and MURATA teaches the electronics module according to claim 26.
The combination of Schabbach, Liu and MURATA is silent to teaching that wherein the processor is operable to determine that an external device is brought into proximity with the electronics module as a result of a current being induced in the first antenna.
In the same field of endeavor, Dean teaches a device wherein the processor is operable to determine that an external device is brought into proximity with the electronics module as a result of a current being induced in the first antenna (see Dean, para. [0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Schabbach, Liu and MURATA with the teaching of Dean in order to manage urinary incontinence and improve health sensor data collection (see Dean, para. [0005]).
Claim(s) 30 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schabbach, Liu and MURATA as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Otto (US. 7,843,325 B2).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Schabbach, Liu and MURATA teaches the electronics module according to claim 26.
The combination of Schabbach, Liu and MURATA is silent to teaching that wherein the electronics module further comprises a motion sensor.
In the same field of endeavor, Otto teaches a device wherein the electronics module further comprises a motion sensor (see Otto, col. 6, lines 62-67, accelerometer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Schabbach, Liu and MURATA with the teaching of Otto in order to improve sensor data collection and configuration (see Otto, col. 2, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Schabbach, Liu, MURATA and Otto teaches the electronics module according to claim 30, wherein the memory is operable to store motion sensor data obtained from the motion sensor (see Otto, fig. 8, memory 801,811,810), and wherein the processor is operable to retrieve a plurality of samples of historic motion sensor data from the memory (see Otto, fig. 11, memory 1101), and control the communicator to wirelessly transmit the plurality of samples of historic motion sensor data (see Otto, fig. 11, communication 805).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schabbach, Liu and MURATA as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Macieira (US. Pub. No. 2019/0045346 A1).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Schabbach, Liu and MURATA teaches the electronics module according to claim 26.
The combination of Schabbach, Liu and MURATA is silent to teaching that wherein the motion sensor is arranged to detect motion imparted to the electronics module as a result of the external device being brought into proximity with the electronics module, and wherein the processor is operable to determine that the external device has been brought into proximity with the electronics module as a result of motion sensor data sensed by the motion sensor.
In the same field of endeavor, Macieira teaches a device wherein the motion sensor is arranged to detect motion imparted to the electronics module as a result of the external device being brought into proximity with the electronics module, and wherein the processor is operable to determine that the external device has been brought into proximity with the electronics module as a result of motion sensor data sensed by the motion sensor (see Macieira, fig. 2, detector 202, fig. 3, 302, detect presence, para. [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Schabbach, Liu and MURATA with the teaching of Macieira in order to provide consistent sensor network communication and reliability (see Macieira, para. [0003]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 26-44 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN WU HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7852. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/WEN W HUANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648