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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 08/08/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 08/08/2025, with respect to the objection of claims 1, 8, and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 1, 8, and 15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, filed 08/08/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 7, and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Applicant contends that Dominijanni fails to disclose “a first wave length of a light emitted by said light therapy device (216) is 446nm-477nm for tackling problem areas on a skin, a second wave length of said light emitted by said light therapy device (216) is 630nm-700nm for promoting skin wound healing, a third wave length of said light emitted by said light therapy device (216) is 700nm-1200nm for skin improving circulation, promoting healing” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Dominijanni teaches all three of the disclosed wavelengths (See Dominijanni ¶[0030], which teaches that the light source is capable of generating light in a visible spectrum with multiple LEDs of varying colors to provide a configurable range of, e.g., red, green, blue (RGB) color combinations or light in an infrared and/or ultraviolet spectrum) since wavelengths in the blue-light, red-light, and infrared-light spectrums encompass the claimed ranges. Furthermore, “tackling problem areas on a skin,” “promoting skin wound healing,” and “improving skin circulation, promoting healing” are all functional limitations that are a result of applying the claimed wavelengths such that application of these wavelengths will inherently produce the claimed beneficial effects. Additionally, Examiner would like to note that Dominijanni teaches illumination of the skin (Dominijanni ¶[0011], where “the optical light source may be configured to provide optical energy into the eye of the user by illuminating a portion of skin near the eye of the user).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that “Dominijanni also fails to disclose a blood pressure sensor, a temperature sensor, an ultrasonic device, a piezoelectric vibration sensor,” Examiner would like to note that this limitation as written discloses a list of sensors that can be chosen such that at least one of those conditions must be true for an element to be included in the resulting selection. Since Dominijanni teaches at least one of the listed sensors, it discloses this limitation.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a first wave length … for tackling problem areas on a skin, a second wave length … for promoting skin wound healing, a third wave length … for improving skin circulation, promoting healing, and a noise pattern database stores noise patterns of various noise sources in advance, wherein said noise is eliminated by a corresponding noise waveform signal selected by said processor, in regards to claims 1 and 15, and wherein said noise is received by said sound receiver and identified by comparing with said noise pattern database using said processor, in regards to claim 15) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since the amendments to claims 1 and 15 change the scope of claims 1-20, and do not merely incorporate limitations from previous dependent claims, a new grounds of rejection is made as explained in further detail below.
Applicant's arguments, filed 08/08/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 6, 8-14, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a noise pattern database stores noise patterns of various noise sources in advance, wherein said noise is eliminated by a filter using a corresponding noise waveform signal selected by said processor) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since the amendments to claim 9 change the scope of claim 9, and does not merely incorporate limitations from previous dependent claims, a new grounds of rejection is made as explained in further detail below.
Regarding claims 10-12 and 20, Applicant contends that “Hua suggests playing the corresponding sound signal by the speaker to offset the ambient noise at the human ear. The procedure is quietly different form the claimed invention. In the claimed invention, the noise pattern database stores noise patterns of various noise sources in advance, wherein said noise is eliminated by a filter using a corresponding noise waveform signal selected by said processor. Apparently, the noise is eliminated within the filter instead of being at the human ear. It should be note, the claimed invention does not play the corresponding sound signal by the speaker to offset the ambient noise at the human ear. None of them suggests the limitations as set in the claims.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although Applicant mentions the different noise reduction methods, the method that Applicant is referring to, where “the claimed invention does not play the corresponding sound signal by the speaker to offset the ambient noise at the human ear” is not apparent from the claims as currently written. Claims 10-12 and 20 require recognition of a noise pattern and utilization of a database and noise filter to filter noise using destructive interference, where the type of noise filter is not apparent from the claims as currently written. Therefore, Examiner takes the position that Hua teaches these limitations (See Hua Page 1, ¶ 5, ¶ 8-9 and ¶ 11).
Regarding claim 13, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Abreu teaches a motivation to combine since Abreu teaches “support structure includes patches, clips, eyeglasses, head mounted gear and the like” (Abreu Abstract) and further teaches that an infrared detector is suitable for non-invasive measurement of glucose and other measurements (Abreu ¶[0299], where “a[n] infrared detector and is suitable for non-invasive measurement of analytes including glucose as well as temperature, with detector adapted to contact the skin or adapted as non-contact detectors, not contacting skin during measurement”).
Regarding claim 14, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Kwon teaches a motivation to combine since Kwon teaches a neckband similar to that of the claimed device (Kwon Figure 2) and further teaches a heater element in order to stimulate a dermis muscle (Kwon ¶[0049], where “slight heat stimulates a dermis muscle layer”).
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the statement “and a noise reduction device coupled to said processor to reduce noise” is repeated twice within the claim. Examiner suggests amending to remove the repeated occurrence of the statement such that the claim reads “The device of claim 5, wherein said neckband sensing device includes a noise reduction device coupled to said processor to reduce noise, and a noise pattern database stores noise patterns of various noise sources in advance, wherein said noise is eliminated by a filter using a corresponding noise waveform signal selected by said processor.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 5-12, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominijanni (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0224491 A1) in view of Trail (U.S. Pat. No. 10,061,352 B1) and Hua et al. (hereinafter “Hua”) (CN 106792315 B).
Regarding claim 1, Dominijanni teaches a neckband sensing device (¶[0028], where “The headphones 100 include two earpieces … intercoupled by a headband 106 ... Additionally, although the example headphones 100 include a headband 106, other examples may include different support structures to maintain one or more earpieces (e.g., earcups, in-ear structures, neckband, etc.) … a personal speaker system may include a neckband to support and maintain acoustic driver(s) near the user's ears, shoulders, etc.”, ¶[0033], where “The headphones 100, 200 and/or the headphone system 300 may further include one or more sensors 318”), comprising: a processor (¶[0032], where “an example headphone system 300, such as for the headphones 100, 200 ... includes a controller 310 … controller 310 includes a processor 312”), a light therapy device (¶[0003], where “Aspects and examples are directed to headphone systems and methods that are capable of providing light therapy to the user”) coupled to said processor (¶[0037], where “the headphones 200 (see FIG. 2) include an interface 314 (see FIG. 3) that allows a device 400, such as a smart phone or other user device, to have a wireless communication link 402 with the headphones 200 ... device 400 for user control of one or more light programs, that may be stored in a memory, which may be referenced by (or may instruct) the processor 312 (see FIG. 3) in controlling the light source 202”), wherein a first wave length of a light emitted by said light therapy device is 446nm-477nm for tackling problem areas on a skin (¶[0030], where “the light source 202 may be capable of generating monochromatic light, dichromatic light, of broad or narrow wavebands, and may be configurable or otherwise adjustable to vary a color and/or color temperature of light produced by the light source 202 ... may include multiple LEDs of varying colors to provide a configurable range of, e.g., red, green, blue (RGB) color combinations.” Examiner takes the position that since Dominijanni teaches wavelengths in the blue-light spectrum that this inherently teaches a wavelength within the range of 446 nm – 477 nm since blue light has a range of 450 nm – 495 nm. According to In re Wertheim, where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Additionally, Examiner takes the position that the limitation of tackling problem areas on a skin is inherently taught as this is a functional limitation where the described benefit is a result of applying light in the wavelength range given.), a second wave length of said light emitted by said light therapy device is 630nm- 700nm for promoting skin wound healing (¶[0030], where “the light source 202 may be capable of generating monochromatic light, dichromatic light, of broad or narrow wavebands, and may be configurable or otherwise adjustable to vary a color and/or color temperature of light produced by the light source 202 ... may include multiple LEDs of varying colors to provide a configurable range of, e.g., red, green, blue (RGB) color combinations.” Examiner takes the position that since Dominijanni teaches wavelengths in the red-light spectrum that this inherently teaches a wavelength within the range of 630 nm – 700 nm since red light has a range of 620 nm – 750 nm. According to In re Wertheim, where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Additionally, Examiner takes the position that the limitation of tackling problem areas on a skin is inherently taught as this is a functional limitation where the described benefit is a result of applying light in the wavelength range given.), a third wave length of said light emitted by said light therapy device is 700nm-1200nm for improving skin circulation, promoting healing (¶[0030], where “the light source 202 may be capable of producing light in a visible spectrum, but in some examples the light source 202 may additionally or alternately be capable of producing light in an infrared and/or ultraviolet spectrum.” Examiner takes the position that since Dominijanni teaches wavelengths in the infrared-light spectrum that this inherently teaches a wavelength within the range of 700 nm – 1200 nm since infrared-light has a range of 780 nm – 1000 nm. According to In re Wertheim, where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Additionally, Examiner takes the position that the limitation of tackling problem areas on a skin is inherently taught as this is a functional limitation where the described benefit is a result of applying light in the wavelength range given.), and a sensor coupled to said processor (¶[0032], where “controller 310 includes a processor 312”, ¶[0033], where “one or more sensors 318, such as light sensors, and the controller 310 may receive signals from such sensors and may control the light source 202 based in part upon the sensor signals”), wherein said sensor is selected from the group of an infrared sensor, a blood pressure sensor (¶[0034], where “A physiological monitor (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure, respiration, etc.) or sensor, for example, sensor 318 may provide indications of user activity or physiologic status and the controller 310 may adjust the light source 202 in response thereto”), heart rate sensor (¶[0034], where “the controller 310 may adjust the light source 202 in response to various parameters, some of which may be indicated by a sensor, for example, sensor 318. For example, sensor 318 may be or may include a microphone may detect user activity (e.g., heavy breathing, snoring, etc.) or heart rate”), a temperature sensor, an ultrasonic device, a piezoelectric vibration sensor or the combination thereof.
Dominijanni does not teach a noise reduction device coupled to said processor to reduce noise, a noise pattern database stores noise patterns of various noise sources in advance, wherein said noise is eliminated by a corresponding noise waveform signal selected by said processor.
Trail teaches a neckband (Col. 18, line 8), where said neckband sensing device includes a noise reduction device coupled to said processor to reduce noise (Col. 11, lines 32-36, where “The microphone array 305 is used to detect the user's speech, or to record audio information about the user's environment. The microphone array 305 may include audio filters to localize a user's speech from background audio noise”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Trail, which teaches a noise reduction device coupled to said processor to reduce noise, with the invention of Dominijanni in order to localize a user's speech from background audio noise (Trail Col. 11, lines 35-36).
Neither Dominijanni nor Trail teaches that a noise pattern database stores noise patterns of various noise sources in advance, wherein said noise is eliminated by a corresponding noise waveform signal selected by said processor.
Hua teaches a method and device for counteracting environmental noise and an active noise reduction earphone (Page 1, ¶ 8), where a noise pattern database stores noise patterns of various noise sources in advance (Page 1, ¶ 9, where “the DSP chip stores several preset noise reduction modes and their corresponding noise reduction parameters,” Page 1, ¶ 11, where “a number of stored preset noise reduction modes based on the environmental noise.” Examiner takes the position that by storing preset noise reduction modes that this teaches storing noise patterns of various noise sources in advance since the modes are based on environmental noise, which is a noise source), wherein said noise is eliminated by a corresponding noise waveform signal selected by said processor (Page 2, ¶ 5, where “the DSP chip periodically collects environmental noise based on the environment collected by the microphone. Noise, select the noise reduction mode that best matches the current environment, send the corresponding noise reduction parameters to the active noise reduction controller, and the active noise reduction controller performs feedforward filtering and noise reduction, and outputs a waveform used to offset the environmental noise”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Hua, which teaches that a noise pattern database stores noise patterns of various noise sources in advance, wherein said noise is eliminated by a corresponding noise waveform signal selected by said processor, with the modified invention of Dominijanni in order to select a noise reduction mode that best matches the current environment and ensures that the noise can be reduced in various environments to provide the best noise reduction experience to users (Hua Page 2, ¶ 5).
Regarding claim 5, Dominijanni in combination with Trail and Hua teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Furthermore, Dominijanni teaches that said neckband sensing device includes speakers (¶[0032], which teaches a “headphone system 300, such as for the headphones 100, 200 ... may provide signals to acoustic drivers 320 for audio playback.” Examiner takes the position that since Dominijanni teaches a headphone device with audio playback that there is an inherent speaker in order to play audio through the device.) and a sound receiver coupled to said processor (¶[0032], where “The controller 310 includes a processor 312, and an interface 314 … interface 314, for example, may be a wired or a wireless interface, and may be configured to provide a user interface (e.g., to prompt for and/or accept feature options and selections by a user), and/or may be configured to receive program content signals for audio playback … may include components to accept an audio signal from one or more microphones”).
Regarding claim 6, Dominijanni in combination with Trail and Hua teaches all limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Furthermore, Trail teaches a voice control device coupled to said processor (Col. 18, lines 7-11, where “audio unit 305 may include a microphone array, as shown in FIG. 3, which may be located on the neckband 735 in close proximity to a user's mouth. The microphone array may be used to record a user's voice or detect user's voice commands,” Col. 11, lines 60-62, where “microphone array 350 conveys audio information to the processor embedded in the computation compartment 130”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Trail, which teaches a voice control device coupled to said processor, with the modified invention of Dominijanni in order to allow a user to control the device, such as powering the device on (Trail Col. 18, lines 10-16).
Regarding claim 7, Dominijanni in combination with Trail and Hua teaches all limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Furthermore, Dominijanni teaches that said neckband sensing device includes a communication device coupled to said processor for communicating with an external device (¶[0032], where “controller 310 includes a processor 312, and an interface 314 ... interface 314, for example, may be a wired or a wireless interface … interface 314 may be a Bluetooth™ interface,” ¶[0037], where “the headphones 200 (see FIG. 2) include an interface 314 (see FIG. 3) that allows a device 400, such as a smart phone or other user device, to have a wireless communication link 402 with the headphones 200”).
Regarding claim 8, Dominijanni in combination with Trail and Hua teaches all limitations of claim 7 as described in the rejection above.
Furthermore, Trail teaches that said neckband sensing device includes an AR/VR audio device coupled to said processor (Abstract, where “A distributed augmented reality system for producing rendered environment includes a neckband formed from a first arm, second arm, and computation compartment. A power source is embedded in the first and/or second arm, while a processor is embedded in the computation compartment of the neckband,” Col. 3, lines 18-22, where “The neckband device may also be capable of use independently of the eyewear device, and can produce its own AR, VR and/or MR experience for the user, which may be audio or visual based AR, VR and/or MR”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Trail, which teaches that said neckband sensing device includes an AR/VR audio device is coupled to said processor, with the modified invention of Dominijanni in order to fully incorporate the AR/VR device into a user's day to day activities (Trail Col. 18, lines 25-27), and to allow a user to directly or indirectly view a real world environment augmented by generated sensory input by super-imposing on the real world environment, allowing the user to interact with both simultaneously (Trail Col. 2, lines 30-35).
Regarding claim 9, Dominijanni in combination with Trail and Hua teaches all limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Although Dominijanni teaches that headphones may provide features such as noise cancellation or reduction (¶[0002]), Dominijanni does not teach a noise reduction device coupled to said processor to reduce noise nor a noise pattern database stores noise patterns of various noise sources in advance, wherein said noise is eliminated by a filter using a corresponding noise waveform signal selected by said processor.
Furthermore, Trail teaches that said neckband sensing device includes a noise reduction device coupled to said processor to reduce noise (Col. 11, lines 32-36, where “The microphone array 305 is used to detect the user's speech, or to record audio information about the user's environment. The microphone array 305 may include audio filters to localize a user's speech from background audio noise”).
Additionally, Hua teaches that a noise pattern database stores noise patterns of various noise sources in advance (Page 1, ¶ 9, where “the DSP chip stores several preset noise reduction modes and their corresponding noise reduction parameters,” Page 1, ¶ 11, where “a number of stored preset noise reduction modes based on the environmental noise.” Examiner takes the position that by storing preset noise reduction modes that this teaches storing noise patterns of various noise sources in advance since the modes are based on environmental noise, which is a noise source), wherein said noise is eliminated by a filter using a corresponding noise waveform signal selected by said processor (Page 2, ¶ 5, where “the DSP chip periodically collects environmental noise based on the environment collected by the microphone. Noise, select the noise reduction mode that best matches the current environment, send the corresponding noise reduction parameters to the active noise reduction controller, and the active noise reduction controller performs feedforward filtering and noise reduction, and outputs a waveform used to offset the environmental noise.” Examiner takes the position that since filtering is being performed that there is an inherent filter to do so.).
Regarding claim 10, Dominijanni in combination with Trail and Hua teaches all limitations of claim 9 as described in the rejection above.
Furthermore, Hua teaches a method and device for counteracting environmental noise and an active noise reduction earphone (Page 1, ¶ 8) that includes a noise pattern recognizer is coupled to said processor for identifying a noise received by said sound receiver (Page 1, ¶ 11, where a DSP (Digital Signal Processor) chip “is used to periodically select the noise reduction mode that best matches the current environment from a number of stored preset noise reduction modes based on the environmental noise collected by the microphone within a preset period of time.” Examiner takes the position that since environmental noise is collected, this correlates to a specific noise pattern being identified by a sounds receiver, which, here, is a microphone.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Hua, which teaches a noise pattern recognizer is coupled to said processor for identifying a noise received by said sound receiver, with the modified invention of Dominijanni in order to select a noise reduction mode that best matches the current environment and ensures that the noise can be reduced in various environments to provide the best noise reduction experience to users (Hua Page 2, ¶ 5).
Regarding claim 11, Dominijanni in combination with Trail and Hua teaches all limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Furthermore, Hua teaches that said noise pattern database includes a plurality of noise reduction parameters (Page 1, ¶ 9, where “the DSP chip stores several preset noise reduction modes and their corresponding noise reduction parameters”).
Regarding claim 12, Dominijanni in combination with Trail and Hua teaches all limitations of claim 11 as described in the rejection above.
Furthermore, Hua teaches that a noise filter is coupled to said processor, destructively interfering said noise with a selected noise pattern (Page 2, ¶ 5, where “the DSP chip periodically collects environmental noise based on the environment collected by the microphone. Noise, select the noise reduction mode that best matches the current environment, send the corresponding noise reduction parameters to the active noise reduction controller, and the active noise reduction controller performs feedforward filtering and noise reduction, and outputs a waveform used to offset the environmental noise.” Examiner takes the position that since a waveform is utilized to offset the noise that this is destructive interference since the waveforms come together to cancel out the noise.).
Regarding claim 15, see the rejection of claims 1 and 5 above. Additionally, claim 15 adds the limitation of “wherein said noise is received by said sound receiver and identified by comparing with said noise pattern database using said processor.”
Hua teaches that said noise is received by said sound receiver and identified by comparing with said noise pattern database using said processor (Page 2, ¶ 5, where “the DSP chip periodically collects environmental noise based on the environment collected by the microphone. Noise, select the noise reduction mode that best matches the current environment, send the corresponding noise reduction parameters to the active noise reduction controller, and the active noise reduction controller performs feedforward filtering and noise reduction, and outputs a waveform used to offset the environmental noise.” Examiner takes the position that by selecting the noise reduction mode that best matches the current environment that this teaches comparing with said noise pattern database since the environmental noise is being compared with the stored noise reduction modes.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Hua, which teaches that said noise is received by said sound receiver and identified by comparing with said noise pattern database using said processor, with the modified invention of Dominijanni in order to select a noise reduction mode that best matches the current environment and ensures that the noise can be reduced in various environments to provide the best noise reduction experience to users (Hua Page 2, ¶ 5).
Regarding claim 20, Dominijanni in combination with Trail and Hua teaches all limitations of claim 15 as described in the rejection above. Furthermore, see the rejection of claim 10 above.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominijanni, Trail, and Hua as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abreu (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0106172 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Dominijanni in combination with Trail and Hua teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Although Dominijanni teaches a physiological sensor (¶[0034], where “A physiological monitor (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure, respiration, etc.) or sensor, for example, sensor 318 may provide indications of user activity or physiologic status”), none of Dominijanni, Trail, nor Hua specify an infrared sensor to do so.
Abreu teaches an infrared sensor detects a blood oxygen saturation level and a blood sugar level (¶[0437], where “an infrared sensing system including a light emitter and a photodetector adapted side-by-side, and using preferably reflectance for measuring the level of a substance, such as glucose or oxygen saturation”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Abreu, which teaches an infrared sensor detects a blood oxygen saturation level and a blood sugar level, with the modified invention of Dominijanni since an infrared detector is suitable for non-invasive measurement of glucose and other measurements (Abreu ¶[0299]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dominijanni, Trail, and Hua as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (hereinafter “Kwon”) (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0121941 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Dominijanni in combination with Trail and Hua teaches all limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
None of Dominijanni, Trail, nor Hua teaches a heater coupled to said processor.
Kwon teaches a neckband (Figure 2) and a heater coupled to said processor (¶[0044], where “when the user applies heat to his/her skin by means of the skin attachment 100, a temperature sensor of the sensor unit may periodically or intermittently check the temperature of the corresponding region and notify the control unit 120,” ¶[0040], where “The control unit 120 is an ultra-thin processor”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the above-described teachings of Kwon, which teaches a heater coupled to said processor, with the modified invention of Dominijanni in order to stimulate a dermis muscle (Kwon ¶[0049]).
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 SEFRA D. MANOS whose telephone number is (703)756-5937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, James Kish can be reached at (571)272-5554. 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.
/SEFRA D. MANOS/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/LYNSEY C Eiseman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796