DETAILED ACTION
Applicant' s arguments, filed 05/12/2026, have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed 03/06/2023, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 7-8 are the current claims hereby under examination.
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 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:
A first warning module in claim 7 which is interpreted as a speaker and its equivalents as per paragraphs 0056-0058 of the specification.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 7-8 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 7 recites “at least one electrode for measuring a brain wave of a user as a bio-signal” but it is unclear how this brainwave measurement relates to the rest of the claimed system. It is unclear how the measured brainwave is utilized by the system as the currently recited process executed by the circuit does not utilize the measured brainwave in any manner. For the purposes of this examination, any teaching of the presence of an electrode will be considered sufficient to anticipate this limitation.
Claim 7 recites “a first detector disposed in the housing and comprising an acceleration and position sensor configured to measure an acceleration and a position of the user to detect a change in a motion state of the user based on the measured acceleration and position” but it is unclear how the first detector relates to the claimed system. In particular, the first detector is recited as being present in the system but appears to have no relation to the process carried out by the circuit of the system. It is unclear how this sensor and its signals are used by the system and what effect is achieved by its presence. For the purposes of this examination, any teaching of a presence of such a sensor will be considered sufficient to satisfy this limitation.
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 electrode for bio-signal measurement, 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 and motion signal 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 “the circuit is configured to determine …” however it would seem that the limitation of “circuit” encompasses electrical circuitry incapable of performing processing operations. It is thus unclear how a “circuit” is configured to perform the recited processing steps. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation of “circuit” will be interpreted as a processor. Examiner’s Note: it would seem that amending the limitation to “processing circuit” or the like would be sufficient to overcome this limitation and would be considered to be supported by the recitations of the specification of the circuit performing processing steps.
Claim 8 recites “determine whether an emergency condition has occurred to the user based on the bio-signal measured by the at least one electrode and the change in the motion state of the user measured by the first detector” but it is unclear what such a determination entails. It is further unclear what constitutes “an emergency condition” for the user. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as any adverse health effect or lack of movement being detected.
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.
Claims 7-8 are 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 7 recites that a circuit performs a determination however the full scope of a “circuit” includes circuitry that is incapable of making the recited determination. Applicant’s specification does not appear to describe a specific circuit for performing the recited determination nor does it describe how species of circuits that are capable of performing the determination to support the claimed genus of any circuit carrying out the determination.
Claim 8 recites “determine whether an emergency condition has occurred to the user based on the bio-signal measured by the at least one electrode and the change in the motion state of the user measured by the first detector” the scope of this limitation includes any processing method using both the brainwave bio-signal and the change in motion state to determine any type of condition that may be considered an “emergency condition”. It would seem that to support such a scope the specification would need to provide particular examples of how these two parameters may be considered in combination to detect various conditions that may be classified as emergency conditions. The specification appears to describe that an emergency condition may be determined using the motion data by detecting a fall or collapse and that the bio-signal may further be used to detect an emergency situation in paragraphs 0052 and 0054. The specification does not appear to describe how these signals may be used in conjunction or describe what types of conditions may be detected as emergency conditions. As such, the specification is considered to lack sufficient written description support because no species of examples as to how these input parameters may be considered to detect emergency conditions have been provided to support the claimed genus of detecting any emergency condition through any processing method of the two input parameters.
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.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myers US Patent Application Publication Number US 20190012895 A1 hereinafter Myers in view of Everman US Patent Application Publication Number US 20200261009 A1 hereinafter Everman, in view of Bui US Patent Application Publication Number US 20200396532 A1 hereinafter Bui, in view of US Kaib Patent Application Publication Number US 20120293323 A1 hereinafter Kaib, and further in view of Karsten US Patent Application Publication Number US 20170004685 A1 hereinafter Karsten
Regarding claim 7, Myers discloses a bio-signal measurement band (Abstract) comprising:
at least one sensor for measuring a brain wave of a user as a bio-signal (Paragraphs 0024: the physiological sensor may include a sensor for measuring brain activity);
a housing (Paragraph 0017: the device may be implemented into a variety of form factors, or housings ) wherein an electrical wire, a circuit, and a battery connected to the at least one sensor (Paragraph 0016; Fig. 1: the processing circuit, power supply and sensors are all connected);
a first detector and comprising an acceleration and position sensor configured to measure an acceleration and a position of the user to detect a change in a motion state of the user based on the measured acceleration and position (Paragraph 0023: the position sensor; Fig. 1 reference 170);
a second detector comprising a gas sensor configured to measure at least one of a presence or absence of a gas, an oxygen concentration, and an amount of dust (Paragraph 0025: the environmental sensor may include a gas sensor or particular matter sensor); and
the circuit disposed in the housing and electrically connected to the at least one electrode (Paragraph 0016; Fig. 1: the various components are all connected to the processing unit),
wherein the circuit is configured to determine, based on a measurement of the second detector, whether environmental conditions of the user's working environment satisfy a predetermined condition for allowing the user to work (Paragraph 0025: the environmental sensor input is analyzed to detect abnormal or potentially dangerous environmental conditions),
wherein, in response to determining that the environmental conditions of the working environment do not satisfy the predetermined condition, the circuit is configured to control a first warning module to output a first warning (Paragraph 0025: the environmental sensor input is analyzed to detect abnormal or potentially dangerous environmental conditions and may output an alert when these conditions are detected; Paragraph 0022: the system may use a speaker to output audible alerts).
Myers fails to further disclose the device comprising an electrode for bio-signal measurement, the housing comprising a first housing and a second housing made of an electromagnetic wave shielding material and coupled to each other to define an inner space therebetween, and the components being received in the inner space, the first detector disposed in the housing, the second detector disposed on or extending from the housing, and wherein, in response to determining that the environmental conditions of the working environment do not change after the first warning, the circuit is configured to apply an electrical current through the at least one electrode to stimulate the user as a second warning
Everman teaches a system for detecting unsafe working conditions (Abstract). Thus, Everman falls within the same field of endeavor as Applicant’s invention.
Everman teaches a device comprising housing comprising a first housing and a second housing made of an electromagnetic wave shielding material and coupled to each other to define an inner space therebetween, and the components being received in the inner space (Paragraphs 0019 and 0037: the outer cover and the covering which may each be made of metal. The cover serves to enclose the processor and other electrical components within an area defined by the outer shell and the cover; Fig. 5), the first detector disposed in the housing (Paragraph 0037: the accelerometer; Fig. 5 the accelerometer 124 is located with the processor in the housing), Everman further teaches that the device may include additional sensors such as gas sensors or particulate matter in the air sensors (Paragraph 0037), and the presence of a user-signaling device which may contact the user and provide stimulation in response to the generated alarms through a plurality of different modalities based on the nature of the alarm (Paragraphs 0051-0055).
An obvious variation of Everman would be to dispose gas and/or particulate matter sensors on, or extending from the housing. Such a variation is obvious because it is a mere rearrangement of parts to facilitate the operation of the sensors depending on the form factor and positioning of the device. In particular, the gas and particulate matter sensors being disposed on or extending from the device allow such sensors to receive air from the environment and thus make accurate readings. Placing such sensors inside a sealed container would render them inoperable for their intended purpose and there are a finite number of locations where such sensors may be disposed with a reasonable expectation of success such as within the housing with an access port to receive outside air, or disposed on or adjacent to the housing to provide access to ambient air. As such, the claimed placement of the second detector being disposed on or extending from the housing is considered to be an obvious variation of Everman and thus rendered obvious by the above teachings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the metal housing and sensor placements as taught by the obvious variation of Everman described above into the system of Myers because the use of metal housing would improve the durability of the system and provide electromagnetic shielding to the processing components which may reduce interference in certain work environments and improve operation of the system.
Myers in view of Everman fail to further teach the system comprising an electrode for bio-signal measurement, and wherein, in response to determining that the environmental conditions of the working environment do not change after the first warning, the circuit is configured to apply an electrical current through the at least one electrode to stimulate the user as a second warning.
Bui teaches a headset which contains one or more physiological sensors (Abstract). Thus Bui falls within the same field of endeavor as Applicant’s invention.
Bui teaches a device comprising an electrode for bio-signal measurement (Paragraphs 0082-0087: the device may include a plurality of electrodes for monitoring EEG signals).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to implement the electrodes for monitoring a user’s brainwaves as taught by Bui into the system of Myers in view of Everman because Myers contemplates monitoring the user’s brainwaves (Myers Paragraph 0024) and the EEG electrodes of Bui are suitable sensors for performing such monitoring and are thus a simple substitution of one known element (the sensor of Myers) with another known element (the EEG electrodes of Bui) with no surprising technical effect.
Myers in view of Everman further in view of Bui fails to further teach the system wherein, in response to determining that the environmental conditions of the working environment do not change after the first warning, the circuit is configured to apply an electrical current through the at least one electrode to stimulate the user as a second warning.
Kaib teaches a wearable medical device with adaptable response patterns (Abstract). Thus, Kaib is reasonably pertinent to the problem at hand.
Kaib teaches a system wherein, in response to determining that no predetermined response has been received within a response time after the first warning, the circuit is configured to adapt a characteristic of the alarm to stimulate the user as a second warning (Paragraphs 0018). The act of adapting a characteristic of the alarm may include increasing the intensity of the alarm and/or changing the conduit of the alarm (Paragraph 0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to implement the adaptive alarm system as taught by Kaib into the system of Myers in view of Everman further in view of Bui such that the detection of a dangerous environment triggers an alarm as taught by Myers (Myers: paragraph 0025) and the lack of a predetermined response within a response time is the continued presence in the dangerous environment which trigger the second, adapted alarm. Such an implementation is would provide the system with a method of increasing the severity and/or importance of an alarm based on the duration the user is exposed to the hazardous environment and thus may provide the user with guidance as to how quickly they must exit a dangerous environment.
Myers in view of Everman in view of Bui further in view of Kaib fails teach the system wherein the second warning is the application of an electrical current through the at least one electrode to stimulate the user.
Karsten teaches a wearable device for providing alert signals to a user (Abstract). Thus, Karsten is reasonably pertinent to the problem at hand.
Karsten teaches the delivery of alerts at a plurality of alert levels based on their determined urgency. The alerts may take the form of mild electrical shocks with variable type and intensity as well as audible and/or vibrational alerts (Paragraphs 0010-0011). The pulses are provided through electrodes (Paragraph 0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to configure the EEG electrodes of Myers in view of Everman in view of Bui further in view of Kaib (Bui: Paragraph 0087) to be capable of delivering electrical shocks as stimulation as taught by Karsten as well as performing EEG monitoring because such a stimulation mechanism provides the system of Myers in view of Everman in view of Bui in view of Kaib further in view of Karsten with an additional modality to alert the user of a dangerous environment which may be more effective in certain conditions where audible or visual alerts may not be noticed by the user.
Regarding claim 8, modified Myers teaches the bio-signal measurement band of claim 7. Modified Myers further teaches wherein the circuit is configured to determine whether an emergency condition has occurred to the user based on the bio-signal measured by the at least one electrode and the change in the motion state of the user measured by the first detector (Paragraphs 0047-0048: the system may determine the user is experiencing an abnormal physiological condition based on the input of one or more of the physiological sensors and the position of the user).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 7 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights