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 .
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 1-3, and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (Wireless battery-free wearable sweat sensor powered by human motion 2020-Previously cited), hereinafter Song, further in view of Emaminejad et al. (US 20180070870-Previously cited), hereinafter Emaminejad, and Price (WO 2021079358-Previously cited). Price (US 20220361810- Previously cited) will be referenced instead of (WO 2021079358).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 14, Song teaches a self-powered wearable system (see fig.1), comprising: a wearable sensor patch with microfluidic sensor; supporting circuitry communicatively coupled to the wearable sensor patch (see pg. 1, para. 2: “Here, we propose a battery-free, fully self-powered wearable system that consists of a highly efficient wearable free standing mode TENG (FTENG), low-power wireless sensor circuitry, and a microfluidic sweat sensor patch on a single flexible printed circuit);
and a motion power component comprising a stator and a slider, wherein the motion power component is configured produces current when the slider moves across the stator (see fig. 1D, slider and stator for motion energy harvesting, i.e., FTENG), and wherein the motion power component further comprises a triboelectric nanogenerator (FTENG) electrically coupled to the stator and the slider (see fig. 1D-F, “Schematic diagram of the FPCB-based FTENG with a grating slider and an interdigital stator”);
and continuously collecting, analyzing, and monitoring human sweat samples over a period of time (see pg. 2, para. 1, “a disposable microfluidic sweat sensor patch can continuously perform electrochemical measurements of key biomarkers in sweat (Fig. 1E)”)
Song fails to teach an electrochemical analog front-end (AFE) chip and a voltage current source.
Emaminejad teaches a wearable sweat analysis system (same field of endeavor as the present invention) comprising an AFE chip (see para. [0036], AFE chip 132) to amplify the signal and aid in minimizing high frequency noise and electromagnetic interference and a voltage current source to aid in using Bluetooth commands to control delivery of currents to the test subject (see para. [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Song-Price, such that an electrochemical analog front-end (AFE) chip and a voltage current source is included in the supporting circuitry, as taught by Emaminejad, to aid in minimizing high frequency noise and electromagnetic interference, and/or aid in using Bluetooth commands to control delivery of currents to the test subject.
Song-Emaminejad fail to teach a photovoltaic panel electrically coupled to the supporting circuitry, wherein the photovoltaic panel comprises a flexible perovskite solar cell.
Price teaches a wearable device (see abstract) comprises a flexible photovoltaic panel coupled to supporting flexible circuitry (see para. [0037,0060,0101,0143,0157,0205], “ the device is partially or fully self-powered or self-sustained, wherein the device comprises one or a plurality of power supply unit,” “[t]he PSU may comprise one or a plurality of power supplies for powering the device, units and/or modules, selected from one or a plurality of power generating unit(s) such as one or more energy harvesting unit(s) (EHU(s)) such as solar power unit,” “circuitry may be flexible or conformable and may comprise flexible material such as flexible or thin film or foil material or substrate, for example organic and/or inorganic materials and/or metals including electronically and/or optically insulating, semi-conducting and conducting polymers, non-polymeric inorganic materials and metals and smart materials and combinations thereof,” and “perovskite solar cell and nanocells and arrays thereof”). Additionally, Song teaches “an alternative, energy can be harvested from renewable, portable, and sustainable sources such as solar light, biofluids, and human motion to power future wireless wearable electronics.” (see Introduction, second paragraph)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Song, such that a photovoltaic panel is electrically coupled to the supporting circuitry, as taught by Price, because providing solar energy harvesting aids in reducing charging time and/or battery replacement, improving wearability, and avoiding short operation distance (para. 2 of the Introduction in Song, “Battery-free systems . . . could suffer from short operation distance” of Song).
Claims 10 and 14 differ from claim 1 in that sweat is induced via iontophoresis using a current source within the supporting circuitry powered by the wearable photovoltaic panel, which Song and Price fail to teach.
Emaminejad teaches a sweat sensing device formed on a printed circuit, that further includes a microcontroller, an iontophoresis circuit, a sensing circuit, and an electrode array (abstract). Emaminejad further teaches that iontophoresis aids in stimulating local sweat secretion that provides sufficient sweat analyte levels that are regarded as the gold standard for diagnosing certain diseases, allows for continuous analyte monitoring via sweat analysis, and extracts sweat that accurately describes physiological parameters (see para. [0004] of Emaminejad).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Song-Price- Emaminejad, such that sweat is induced via iontophoresis using a current source within the supporting circuitry powered by the wearable, as taught by Emaminejad, to aid in stimulating local sweat secretion that provides sufficient sweat analyte levels that are regarded as the gold standard for diagnosing certain diseases, allows for continuous analyte monitoring via sweat analysis, and extracts sweat that accurately describes physiological parameters. The purpose of Song is to measure the analytes for health monitoring, the addition of iontophoresis would allow for continuous monitoring by inducing sweat.
Regarding claims 2, Song teaches the wearable sensor patch further comprises a microfluidic sweat sensor patch (see fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 3, Song teaches wherein the supporting circuitry further comprises: a power management integrated circuit (PMIC) (see fig. 1F, PMIC) and a Bluetooth low energy programmed system on a chip (BLE) module.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Song teaches wherein the triboelectric nanogenerator is a free standing triboelectric nanogenerator (FTENG) (see fig. 1D) and wherein the stator and the slider are an interdigital stator and a grating patterned slider (fig. 1D, FTENG consists of an interdigital stator and a grating-patterned slider).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Song teaches a user interface wherein the user interface wirelessly receives sample data collected by the wearable sensor patch (see pg.1, para. 2, “The integrated Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) module allows sensor data to be conveniently transmitted to a mobile interface for health status tracking during exercise”(emphasis added)).
Regarding claim 7, Song-Pierce teach wherein the photovoltaic panel, power component, and supporting circuitry supply a stable voltage to the wearable sensor patch for a period of time (see pg.1, para. 2 of Song, self-powered wearable device that is powered by movement integrated in supporting circuitry modified with the solar panel of Pierce to arrive at the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 8, Song fails to teach wherein the photovoltaic panel and motion power component supply the battery with power and where the power supplied by the photovoltaic panel and motion power component is stored in the battery.
Pierce teaches that the photovoltaic panel is combined with one or a plurality of energy storage cell(s) (ESC(s)) selected from a capacitor, supercapacitor and rechargeable battery and combination thereof, for storage/accumulation of energy (see para. [0037]). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Song-Pierce, such that energy producing components include a battery for power storage, as taught by Pierce, to aid in providing a fully self-powered or self-sustained wearable device (see para. [0037] of Pierce). Additionally, the modification is merely applying a known technique (battery for energy harvesting storage) to improve similar systems (wearable monitoring systems) in the same way.
Regarding claim 9, Song-Pierce teach wherein the wearable sensor patch, supporting circuitry, photovoltaic panel, and motion power component are supported on integrated platform leveraging printed circuit board (PCB) technology (see abstract of Song, “we propose a highly robust, mass-producible, and battery-free wearable platform that efficiently extracts power from body motion through a flexible printed circuit board (FPCB)–based freestanding triboelectric nanogenerator (FTENG).” (emphasis added) ; see para. [0103] of Pierce “Output(s), input(s) and connections are suitably provided by rigid or flexible circuit board(s) (e.g. PCB(s)), flex circuits, integrated circuits (ICs including EIC, PIC or HE) or the like, which may include SR-RF ICs such as for SR-RF connectivity, e.g. NFC, BAN or PAN such as Bluetooth™” (emphasis added)).
Regarding claim 11, Song teaches wherein the one or more electrochemical measurements comprise potentiometric measurements (see para. 1 of Design and characterization of microfluidic sweat sensor patch section).
Regarding claims 12 and 15, Song fails to teach wherein the light source comprises an artificial light source.
Pierce teaches that an energy source, e.g., artificial light, thermal, etc., are incorporated to aid in energy transferring between components and powering components (see para. [0124,0129,0227-0230], it is noted that photovoltaic panels can be powered with both ambient sunlight and artificial light in a location it is being used in). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Song, such that artificial light source is provided, as taught by Pierce, to aid in providing a self-powered or self-sustaining wearable device (see para. [0205] of Pierce).
Regarding claim 13, Song-Pierce teach collecting power from human movement with a wearable freestanding triboelectric nanogenerator (FTENG) (see fig. 1D of Song) and converting the power collected from the artificial light source into electrical energy with supporting circuity (see para. [0143] of Pierce) connected to the FTENG (it is noted that the combination of Song-Pierce leads to the photovoltaic components to incorporated in the PCB of Song and therefore are electrically and mechanically connected via the PCB).
Regarding claim 17, Song-Pierce teaches wherein the period of operation time is based on a period of charging time from the photovoltaic panel and FTENG component (see fig. 2G, the charge, and therefore charging time, of capacitors dictate how long the wearable device can function).
Regarding claim 18-19, Song-Pierce teach wherein wearing the wearable device further comprises applying the photovoltaic panels to an exposed area of skin on a human arm or torso (see pg. 5, col. 1-2, the device can be affixed to the side of the torso and inner part of the arm).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Emaminejad and Price, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Sun et al. (Architecture of p-i-n Sn-Based Perovskite Solar Cells: Characteristics, Advances, and Perspectives 2021), hereinafter Sun.
Regarding claim 4, Price fails to teach wherein the perovskite solar cell comprises a p-i-n architecture (see para. [0143]).
Sun teaches a perovskite solar cell comprising a p-i-n architecture over the n-i-p architecture to aid in reducing the interfacial contact, instability, hysteresis effect, and energy loss issues of perovskite solar cells (see Architecture Engineering of Sn-Based PSCs section on page 2866, and From n-i-p to p-i-n Device Architecture section).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Song- Emaminejad-Price, such that the perovskite solar cell comprises a p-i-n architecture, as taught by Sun, to aid in reducing the interfacial contact, instability, hysteresis effect, and energy loss issues.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, in-part, with respect to 103 rejection claims have been considered but are moot because amendments require new grounds of rejection.
Applicant contends that Song and Price fail to teach an AFE chip and voltage current source, on page 8 of the Remarks. The examiner agrees because neither of the references are relied to teach the subject matter. Emaminejad is relied upon for the teachings.
Applicant contends that the solar cell in Price is not configured for on-body use, nor harvesting indoor/artificial light to power the device, on page 8 of the Remarks. The examiner disagrees. Price’s invention is a flexible device conformable to the user’s body (see para. [0083-85,0101], “A flexible, e.g. conformable or deformable or resiliently deformable AU is configured to conform to a shape of e.g. to loosely or closely contact, a contacted patient member or body part”). Additionally, the devices uses incident light (solar or internal) for energy harvesting (see para. [0129,0143], “Photoelectric exhibit a free electron release response to incident light such as solar or internal light”).
Applicant further contends that Song appears to emphasize a battery-free platform and therefore incorporation of solar energy harvesting teaches away from the reference, on page 8 of the Remarks. The examiner disagrees. Song teaches “an alternative, energy can be harvested from renewable, portable, and sustainable sources such as solar light, biofluids, and human motion to power future wireless wearable electronics.” (see Introduction, second paragraph) Therefore, Song does not teach away and in fact would benefit from such energy harvesting by reducing charging time and/or battery replacement, improving wearability, and avoiding short operation distance (see Introduction, second paragraph).
Applicant contends that Emaminejad no longer applies to the rejection and fails to make up for the deficiencies of Song and Price, on page 10 of the Remarks. The examiner disagrees. There is no reason provided by the Applicant as to why the rationale no longer applies or what deficiencies exist. As a result the argument is unpersuasive due to a lack of reasoning behind the contention. It is noted that both Song and Emaminejad are related to sweat sensing devices, and therefore, reasonably obvious to combine.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Verma teaches a wearable device for sensing sweat analytes, comprising iontophoresis and a solar panel as the power source. US 20230088449 A1
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 MARTIN NATHAN ORTEGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:10 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571) 272-3672. 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.
/MARTIN NATHAN ORTEGA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /TSE W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791