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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/16/26 has been entered.
Notice of Amendment
In response to the amendment(s) filed on 6/16/26, amended claim(s) 10-14, 18-21, and 26, and canceled claim(s) 27-29 is/are acknowledged. The following new and/or reiterated ground(s) of rejection is/are set forth:
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “at first output” (lines 2-3) appears that it should be “at a first output.”
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “at first output” (line 3) appears that it should be “at a first output.”
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.
Claim(s) 13 is/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.
For claim 13, the claim term “the rotational movement” lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 13, the claim language “the first axis against which at least the rotational movement of the oximeter is detected” is ambiguous. What is meant by the rotational movement being “against” the first axis? Does that mean opposing one another? The claim is examined as meaning that the accelerometer integrated circuit is configured to detect rotational movement of the oximeter device.
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.
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) and 10-11, 13-17, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0212612 to Hohl et al. (hereinafter “Hohl”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0067305 to Oliver et al. (hereinafter “Oliver”) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0347899 to Bhushan et al. (hereinafter “Bhushan”).
For claim 10, Hohl discloses a method (Abstract) comprising:
providing an oximeter device (“oximeter,” para [0010]) comprising a housing (103) (Fig. 1) (para [0043]) and printed circuit board (“printed circuit board (PCB),” para [0053]) (also see para [0055], [0085]-[0086], and [0088]) enclosed within the housing (see “connector 336” in Fig. 3 and para [0088]), a sensor tip (338) (Fig. 7) (para [0054]) at a distal end of the oximeter device (as can be seen in Fig. 7), and the oximeter device comprises a proximal end (proximal end of “oximeter”) that is opposite to the distal end (distal end of “oximeter”);
coupling an accelerometer (“one or more accelerometers,” para [0064]) (as can be seen in Fig. 3, the accelerometer being part of element 319) to the printed circuit board (as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 3) (also see para [0053] and [0085]-[0086]) so as to facilitate detection (Examiner’s Note: functional language/intended use, i.e., capable of) of at least a movement of the oximeter device (para [0065]), wherein
the printed circuit board with the accelerometer integrated circuit facilitate the detection of at least the movement of the oximeter device with respect to at least a first direction or a second direction (para [0064]-[0067] and [0069]),
a first directional orientation of the accelerometer integrated circuit is in the first direction and a second directional orientation of the accelerometer is in the second direction (para [0065]), and the second direction is transverse to the first orientation (para [0065]).
Hohl does not expressly disclose that the accelerometer is an accelerometer integrated circuit.
However, Oliver teaches an accelerometer integrated circuit (para [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Hohl such that the accelerometer is an accelerometer integrated circuit, in view of the teachings of Oliver, because an accelerometer integrated circuit is a suitable type of accelerometer that would lead to the predictable result of sensing movement.
Hohl does not expressly disclose upon detecting the movement including an orientation change in at least the first direction or the second direction, storing a value in a memory location of a memory of the oximeter device.
However, Oliver teaches upon detecting the movement including an orientation change in at least the first direction or the second direction, storing a value in a memory location of a memory of the oximeter device (para [0047] and [0062]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Hohl to include upon detecting the movement including an orientation change in at least the first direction or the second direction, storing a value in a memory location of a memory of the oximeter device, in view of the teachings of Oliver, for the obvious advantage of creating a log of orientations of the device over time so that movement of an individual can be tracked.
Hohl does not expressly disclose at least by mounting the accelerometer on a planar surface defined by the printed circuit board.
However, Bhushan teaches at least by mounting the accelerometer on a planar surface defined by the printed circuit board (see either of 102 in Fig. 2) (also see “printed circuit board,” para [0025] and para [0096]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Hohl to include at least by mounting the accelerometer on a planar surface defined by the printed circuit board, in view of the teachings of Bhushan, because such a configuration is a suitable way to couple the accelerometer to printed circuit board, which is what Hohl already wants to do.
Hohl does not expressly disclose wherein the printed circuit board with the accelerometer integrated circuit are positioned within the housing such that the accelerometer integrated circuit is closer to the proximal end of the oximeter device than to the distal end of the housing.
However, Bhushan teaches wherein a printed circuit board (“printed circuit board,” para [0025]) with an accelerometer integrated circuit (either of 102) (Fig. 2) (para [0096]) are positioned within a housing (“casing,” para [0027] or [0030]) such that the the accelerometer integrated circuit is closer to the proximal end of the oximeter device than to the distal end of the housing (as can be seen in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Hohl wherein the printed circuit board with the accelerometer integrated circuit are positioned within the housing such that the accelerometer integrated circuit is closer to the proximal end of the oximeter device than to the distal end of the housing, in view of the teachings of Bhushan, because such an arrangement of parts is a suitable arrangement of the different components that would lead to the predictable result of being able to sense the acceleration of the PCB.
For claim 11, Hohl further discloses in response to the detection by the accelerometer of a first movement in the first direction, sending a first signal that activates a first function of the oximeter device (para [0064]-[0067] and [0069]); and in response to the detection by the accelerometer of a second movement in the second direction, sending a second signal that activates a second function of the oximeter device (para [0064]-[0067] and [0069]), wherein the first function is different from the second function (para [0064]-[0067] and [0069]), and the first direction and second direction are parallel to a plane of the printed circuit board upon which the accelerometer integrated circuit is coupled (para [0064]-[0067] and [0069]).
For claim 13, Hohl further discloses wherein the first direction is parallel to a second axis that passes through the sensor tip of the oximeter device (para [0064]-[0067] and [0069]) and is transverse to the first axis against which at least the rotational movement of the oximeter device is detected by the accelerometer integrated circuit (para [0065] and [0069]).
For claim 14, Hohl further discloses in response to the detection by the accelerometer of the movement of a first type in the first direction, sending a first signal that activates a first function of the oximeter device (para [0064]-[0067] and [0069]); and in response to the detection by the accelerometer of the movement of a second type in the first direction, sending a second signal that activates a second function of the oximeter device (para [0064]-[0067] and [0069]), wherein the first direction is transverse to an axis that passes through the sensor tip of the oximeter device (para [0064]-[0067] and [0069]).
For claim 15, Hohl further discloses wherein at least the first direction or second direction is parallel to an axis that passes through the sensor tip of the oximeter device (para [0064]-[0067] and [0069]).
For claim 16, Hohl further discloses wherein at least the first direction or second direction is transverse to an axis that passes through the sensor tip of the oximeter device (para [0064]-[0067] and [0069]).
For claim 17, Hohl further discloses wherein a third directional orientation of the accelerometer is in a third direction (para [0065]), which is transverse to the first and second directions (para [0064]-[0067] and [0069]).
For claim 22, Hohl, as modified, further discloses wherein the accelerometer is not located at the center of the printed circuit board (as can be seen in Fig. 2 of Bhushan).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hohl in view of Oliver Bhushan, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0043271 to Mannheimer et al. (hereinafter “Mannheimer”).
For claim 12, Hohl, Oliver, and Bhushan do not expressly disclose wherein the storing of a value in the memory location of a memory of the oximeter device comprises resetting a counter to an initial value; and initializing the memory that stores a sum of a plurality of oxygen saturation measurements made by the oximeter device.
However, Mannheimer teaches wherein the storing of a value in the memory location of a memory of the oximeter device comprises resetting a counter to an initial value; and initializing the memory that stores a sum of a plurality of oxygen saturation measurements made by the oximeter device (para [0031]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Hohl wherein the storing of a value in the memory location of a memory of the oximeter device comprises resetting a counter to an initial value; and initializing the memory that stores a sum of a plurality of oxygen saturation measurements made by the oximeter device, in view of the teachings of Mannheimer, for the obvious advantage of time stamping the data as it is being recorded.
Claim(s) 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hohl in view of Oliver and Bhushan, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0338153 to Barrera et al. (hereinafter “Barrera”).
For claim 18, Hohl, Oliver, and Bhushan do not expressly disclose wherein a detected orientation change in at least the first direction or the second direction comprises a value that changes from a positive value to a negative value at a first output of the accelerometer integrated circuit.
However, Barrera teaches wherein a detected orientation change in at least the first direction or the second direction comprises a value that changes from a positive value to a negative value at a first output of the accelerometer integrated circuit (para [0083]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Hohl wherein a detected orientation change in at least the first direction or the second direction comprises a value that changes from a positive value to a negative value at a first output of the accelerometer integrated circuit, in view of the teachings of Barrera, for the obvious advantage of performing posture detection based on the indicated orientation derived from the value of the signal (para [0083]).
For claim 19, Hohl and Oliver do not expressly disclose wherein a detected orientation change in at least the first direction or the second direction comprises a value that changes sign at a first output of the accelerometer integrated circuit.
However, Barrera teaches wherein a detected orientation change in at least the first direction or the second direction comprises a value that changes sign at a first output of the accelerometer integrated circuit (para [0083]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Hohl wherein a detected orientation change in at least the first direction or the second direction comprises a value that changes sign at a first output of the accelerometer integrated circuit, in view of the teachings of Barrera, for the obvious advantage of performing posture detection based on the indicated orientation derived from the value of the signal (para [0083]).
For claim 20, Hohl and Oliver do not expressly disclose wherein a detected orientation change in at least the first direction or the second direction comprises a value that changes sign at a first output of the accelerometer integrated circuit when an axis that passes through the housing and the sensor tip changes at least by 160 degrees from an initial orientation of the axis.
Hohl does disclose an initial orientation of an axis that passes through the housing and the sensor tip (para [0064]-[0067] and [0069]).
Additionally, Barrera teaches wherein a detected orientation change in at least the first direction or second direction comprises a value changing sign when an axis changes at least 160 degrees from an initial orientation (para [0083]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Hohl wherein a detected orientation change in at least the first direction or the second direction comprises a value that changes sign at a first output of the accelerometer integrated circuit when an axis that passes through the housing and the sensor tip changes at least by 160 degrees from an initial orientation of the axis, in view of the teachings of Hohl and Barrera, for the obvious advantage of performing posture detection based on the indicated orientation derived from the value of the signal (para [0083]).
For claim 21, Hohl and Oliver do not expressly disclose wherein a detected orientation change in at least the first direction or the second direction comprises a value that indicates a change of at least 160 degrees relative to an initial value at a first output of the accelerometer integrated circuit.
However, Barrera teaches wherein a detected orientation change in at least the first direction or the second direction comprises a value that indicates a change of at least 160 degrees relative to an initial value at a first output of the accelerometer integrated circuit (para [0083]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Hohl wherein a detected orientation change in at least the first direction or the second direction comprises a value that indicates a change of at least 160 degrees relative to an initial value at a first output of the accelerometer integrated circuit, in view of the teachings of Barrera, for the obvious advantage of performing posture detection based on the indicated orientation derived from the value of the signal (para [0083]).
Claim(s) 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hohl in view of Oliver and Bhushan, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,216,537 to Henschel et al. (hereinafter “Henschel”).
For claim 23, Hohl, Oliver, and Bhushan do not expressly disclose wherein the first directional orientation of the accelerometer integrated circuit comprises a first detection axis that is perpendicular to the surface of the printed circuit board and the surface is in a planar surface of the printed circuit board.
However, Henschel teaches wherein the first directional orientation of the accelerometer integrated circuit comprises a first detection axis that is perpendicular to the surface of the printed circuit board (Abstract) and the surface is in a planar surface of the printed circuit board (as can be seen in Fig. 3) (also see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Hohl wherein the first directional orientation of the accelerometer integrated circuit comprises a first detection axis that is perpendicular to the surface of the printed circuit board and the surface is in a planar surface of the printed circuit board, in view of the teachings of Henschel, for the obvious advantage of fixing the accelerometer and the PCB together so that movement of the accelerometer can be calibrated to movement of the PCB, so that no transforms need to be performed to get accurate determination of movements/gestures by the user, which is what Hohl wants to do (see para [0065]-[0067] of Hohl).
For claim 24, Hohl, as modified, further discloses wherein the oximeter device comprises a first side positioned between the proximal (unlabeled, but as can be seen in Figs. 7-10) and distal ends and a second side positioned between the proximal and distal ends (unlabeled, but as can be seen in Figs. 7-10), the first and second sides are opposite sides of the oximeter device (Figs. 7-10), and the accelerometer integrated circuit is located nearer to the first side than the second side (see Fig. 2 of Bhushan, which shows element 102 mounted on a first, top side and is opposite of a second, bottom side).
For claim 25, Hohl further discloses providing the printed circuit board extends in a direction that is from the proximal end to the distal end of the device (as can be seen in Fig. 10).
For claim 26, Hohl, as modified, further discloses allowing for the accelerometer integrated circuit to detect (Examiner’s Note: functional language/intended use, i.e., capable of) rotation of the proximal and distal ends of the device with respect to a direction of an acceleration-of-gravity vector when the first detection axis is at a non-zero angle with respect to the direction based on the first detection axis being perpendicular to the planar surface of the printed circuit board (para [0064]-[0067] and [0069]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/26 have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim objection(s), Applicant’s amendments and arguments are persuasive and thus the previous objections are withdrawn.
With respect to the 112 rejection(s), Applicant’s amendments and arguments are persuasive and thus the previous rejections are withdrawn.
With respect to the 103 rejection(s), the arguments will be treated in the order they were presented in the response. With respect to the first argument, this argument appears conclusory. The examiner submits that the cited portions above from the applied reference(s) teach the newly amended claim limitations. With respect to the second argument, this argument appears to not be commensurate in scope with the claim language. Specifically, the claims don’t specify that the PCB is rigid and therefore the fact that Bhushan can adapt to almost any surface of the body doesn’t prevent it from reading on the claim language. The claimed just required a “printed circuit board” and Bhushan reads on that claim limitation. With respect to the third argument, this argument appears to be relying on assumptions and/or hypotheticals that are not in the rejection. Therefore, this argument doesn’t address the rejection of record. With respect to the fourth argument, this argument also appears to be relying on assumptions and/or hypotheticals that are not in the rejection. Therefore, this argument doesn’t address the rejection of record either. It should be noted that the rejection does not attempt to modify Bhushan’s PCB because Bhushan is not the primary reference. Hohl is the primary reference and therefore it is the reference being modified. With respect to the fifth argument, the rejection of the independent claim(s) is not erroneous for the reasons given above and therefore the additional references do not need to be consulted at this time for the rejection of the independent claim(s).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights