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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/30/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III comprising claim 7 in the reply filed on 09/30/2025 is acknowledged.
All below references to Applicant’s specification are made using the paragraph numbers assigned in the US publication of the present application US 20230329625 A1.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
an event sensor configured to measure an acceleration and a position of a user in claim 7.
a working environment sensor configured for measuring at least one of a presence or absence of a harmful gas, a level of each of oxygen and the harmful gas, an outside temperature, or a fine dust amount, performing a determination that it is not possible for the user to work in the working environment, performing a first warning sound, and performing a second warning in claim 7
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
An event sensor is described in purely functional language in paragraphs 0052-0054 of the specification. The specification does not describe what types of sensors are acceptable for carrying out the recited function or describe the particular structure used to carry out the recited functions.
A working environment sensor is described in purely functional language in paragraphs 0052, 0055-0056. The specification does not provide examples as to the types of sensors that are capable of carrying out the recited measurements and/or functions or describe a particular structure used for carrying out the recited functions.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner’s Note: the claim recites that the housing is comprised of an electromagnetic wave shielding material but the specification does not provide specific examples of what materials are considered to be shielding materials or provide a required degree of shielding. It is noted that electromagnetic shielding materials are well-known in the art and as such the limitation will be interpreted as any metallic, conductive, or magnetic material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 7 is 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 7 appears to be directed towards “a bio-signal measurement band” as indicated in line 1. However the claimed device, while including the presence of an EEG electrode, is seemingly directed towards an environmental monitor for determining when an environment is acceptable for a user to work. It is unclear how the various aspects of the invention are related to one another. It is unclear what the recorded bio-signals including a brain wave are used for. It is unclear if the recorded bio signals relate in any manner to the determination of whether it is possible to work in a present environment. It is similarly unclear how the event sensor relates to the rest of the claimed elements. For the purposes of this examination, any device which measures the recited signals and performs the recited environmental work condition assessment will be considered a “bio-signal measurement band” regardless of how the measured signals are utilized.
Claim 7 recites “at least one electrode for measuring at least one bio-signal including a brain wave” but it is unclear what other bio-signals are intended to be encompassed by the electrode measurement. It is unclear if the bio-signals are meant to be limited to electrical type bio-signals or if the claim is intended to encompass any and all bio-signals being measured by the electrode(s). For the purposes of this examination, the bio-signals will be consider as any bio-signals but must include brainwaves.
Claim 7 recites “presence or absence of a harmful gas, a level of each of oxygen and the harmful gas” but it is unclear what gasses constitute “harmful gas”. For the purposes of this examination, any detection of particular gases or air quality will be considered analogous to a “harmful gas”.
The term “fine” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fine” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, the specification does not provide examples of fine dust or provide a particular size range to be considered “fine”. For the purposes of this examination, any measurement of particulates in air will be considered analogous to “fine dust amount”.
Claim 7 lines 11-18 recite that the working environment sensor itself performs a determination and provides the first and second warnings. It is unclear if the sensor itself is meant to perform these functions or if some type of processor is carrying out the recited determinations and activating other components to provide the warnings. For the purposes of this examination, the determinations and activation of the alarms will be considered to be carried out by control circuitry of some form rather than the sensor itself.
Claim 7 recites “determines whether it is possible for the user to work in the working environment” but it is unclear what such a determination entails. It is unclear what the inputs are and how they are processed or compared to produce the recited output. For the purposes of this examination, any determination that an environment is unhealthy or less than ideal will be considered analogous.
Claim 7 recites “a first warning based on a sound” but it is unclear whether the warning itself is a sound or is some other form of warning that may be “based on” sound such as vibrations. For the purposes of this examination, the first warning will be interpreted as an audible warning using sound.
Claim 7 recites “wherein when the first warning is not effective” but it is unclear how the device determines if the first warning was “effective” or not. It is unclear what constitutes an “effective” warning and how a determination that a warning was effective is carried out. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted of “effective” will be interpreted as the user responding to the warning in any manner.
Claim 7 recites “applying electrical current to the electrode to stimulate the user” but it is unclear if “the electrode” is the same as, related to, or different from “at least one electrode of claim 7 line 2.
Claim limitations “an event sensor” and “a working environment sensor” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As described in the above presented claim interpretation section, the specification does not provide examples of acceptable sensors to carry out the recited functions or describe a particular structure for carrying out the recited functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim limitations “an event sensor” and “a working environment sensor” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As described in the above presented claim interpretation section, the specification does not provide examples of acceptable sensors to carry out the recited functions or describe a particular structure for carrying out the recited functions. Therefore, the claim lacks written description support and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Claim 7 recites “at least one electrode for measuring at least one bio-signal including a brain wave” but the specification does not support the full scope of the claimed bio-signal measurement. The claimed bio-signal measurement includes brainwaves but also includes any and all other types of bio signals since “including” is an open-ended term. The specification does support the measurement of brainwaves in at least paragraphs 0026, and 0028-0031. Furthermore, paragraph 0033 provides examples of other bio-signals which may be measured but does not elaborate on how each of these bio signals may be measured using an electrode. In particular, it would seems that PPG signals, oxygen saturation, pulse transit time, infrared spectroscopy, and blood pressure are not capable of being conventionally measured using electrodes. Thus the full scope of the claimed measurement is not supported.
Claim 7 lines 11-18 recites that the working environment sensor itself performs a determination and provides the first and second warnings however such functionality is not present in a typical sensor. Applicant’s specification does not appear to describe a specific sensor for measuring the recited environmental parameters, carrying out the recited determination, and carrying out the recited warnings.
Claim 7 recites “determines whether it is possible for the user to work in the working environment” but the specification does not appear to describe what this determination entails and how the various input parameters are considered when making such a determination. In particular, paragraph 0056 provides a statement of functionality that the determination is carried out but does not appear to describe how the determination is carried out.
Claim 7 recites “wherein when the first warning is not effective” but the specification does not appear to describe how the “effectiveness” of the warning is determined. In particular, paragraph 0058 states that continued work or moving to an area of higher concentration of harmful gas indicates that the user has not recognized the warning but the effectiveness of a warning is considered distinct from recognizing the warning. Furthermore, the specification does not appear to describe how “the user does not stop working” is determined. The specification does not appear to describe what metrics are analyzed to determine if the user is working or not and how such an analysis is performed.
Prior Art
The above presented clarity issues preclude a full mapping of the claim language to prior art as the meets and bounds of the claim are unclear. The closest prior art of record given the above presented claim interpretations is considered to be:
Japanese Patent Application Publication Number JP 2015107170 A hereinafter Takizawa which teaches a biological sensor capable of sealing clearances. The biological sensor includes: a case having an opening part; a circuit substrate placed in the case; an electrode larger than the diameter of the opening part and having a first electrode part connected to the circuit substrate and a second electrode part integrally connected to the first electrode part and projecting to the outside from the opening part; and a sealing material intervening between the surface of the first electrode part at the side of the second electrode and the surface of the case facing the surface of the first electrode and between the second electrode part and the surface of the opening part facing the second electrode part (Abstract). Takizawa teaches a housing which encloses a circuit board and an electrode which communicates an electrical signal to the circuit board (Page 2 paragraphs 3-4).
US Patent Application Publication Number US 2016/0157777 A1 hereinafter Attal teaches A headset for acquiring a bio-signal from a subject, includes a hub; at least 3 flexible branches, each branch having a first end extending from the hub and a second free end, the 3 flexible branches defining an opening formed by the relative position of the free ends; and at least 3 electrodes, wherein at least one electrode is located on each of the 3 flexible branches, the electrodes being configured for acquiring a bio-signal; the 3 flexible branches having a collapsed state; and an expanded state wherein the 3 electrodes are in contact with the scalp of the subject; and the headset is expanded from its collapsed state to its expanded state by placing the free ends on the top of the subject's head, and progressively lowering and sliding the same while contacting the scalp until the hub is contacted with the top of the head of the subject (Abstract). Attal teaches a housing made of an electromagnetic shield material (Paragraph 0068).
US Patent Application Publication Number US 2018/0168464 A1 hereinafter Barnett teaches a personal tracking device which receives sensor data from each of a plurality of sensors, and analyzes the sensor data to identify one or more external IoT-capable devices with which to interact and to determine one or more tasks to be performed by the identified IoT-capable devices, each based at least in part on the sensor data. In some cases, the plurality of first sensors might comprise at least one of one or more sensors that monitor physical conditions of a user's body and/or one or more sensors that monitor environmental conditions external to the user's body. The personal tracking device may subsequently autonomously send, via machine-to-machine communication, control instructions to each of the identified external IoT-capable devices, based on the determined tasks (Abstract). Barnett teaches the device may monitor a plurality of different physiological parameters including EEG data and motion or position sensors (Paragraphs 0069-0070). The device may further monitor environmental parameters including various gases and temperature. The environmental data may be used in combination with the physiological data to provide the user with guidance as to whether they should stay in an area or not (Paragraph 0071). Various types of alerts of alarms may be generated by the device based on sensor data (Paragraph 0067 and 0080).
US Patent Application Publication Number US 2020/0396532 A1 hereinafter Bui teaches a ring-shaped cushion for a hearing protector or audio headset. The cushion has a circumferential contact pad for sealing on a wearer's head and an attachment for sealing with an earmuff. The cushion further has a sound insulation tube that inwardly defines an inner space. The sound insulation tube extends between the contact pad and the attachment. The cushion has a ventilation passage that extends entirely through the cushion between an inlet opening in the contact pad and an area outside of the inner space. The cushion may further include one or more physiological sensors to monitor the health of a wearer (Abstract). The device may include embedded physiological sensors including EEG sensors (Paragraph 0082). The device may generate alerts when the user is in the presence of toxic gases and may determine how long the user ma remain in such an area without a visor in place (Paragraph 0195).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW ERIC OGLES whose telephone number is (571)272-7313. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Jason Sims can be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00AM – 4:00PM at (571) 272 – 7540. 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 ERIC OGLES/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JASON M SIMS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791