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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 8-11, filed 05/01/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2 and 4-19 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Dion (US 20210038084 A1) and Fraden (US 20020035340 A1).
In response to the applicant’s argument that the target temperature difference of greater than or equal to 0.3°C is critical to the invention, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that looking to Table 1 within the applicant’s specification appears to show the optimization being carried out, in that the thickness of the insulator is being optimized to obtain a minimum optimum temperature difference threshold for the purpose of obtaining a more reliable temperature reading.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-11, 14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teller (US 20040133081 A1) in view of Dion (US 20210038084 A1) and Fraden (US 20020035340 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Teller teaches a wearable device comprising:
a first temperature sensor [Fig. 26 Item 890A] configured to measure a first voltage when the wearable device is in contact with a user [0160 “The heat flux off of the body of the wearer can be determined by measuring a first voltage VI with heat flux thermistor 890A and a second voltage V2 with heat flux thermistor 890B”];
a second temperature sensor [Fig. 26 Item 890B] disposed apart from the first temperature sensor in a thickness direction of the wearable device [see Fig. 26, the examiner notes that directionality is relative], and configured to measure a second voltage when the wearable device is in contact with the user [0160];
a thermally insulating material [Fig. 26 Item 860 “PCB”] between the first temperature sensor [Fig. 26 Item 890A] and the second temperature sensor [Fig. 26 Item 890B] in the thickness direction of the wearable device [See Fig. 26];
an amplifier [0160 “differential amplifier”] configured to amplify a voltage difference between the first voltage and the second voltage [0160 “These voltages are then electrically differenced, such as by using a differential amplifier, to provide a voltage value that, as is well known in the art, can be used to calculate the temperature difference (T2-T1)…”];
an analog-to-digital (A/D) converter [0163 “A/D converter”] configured to convert the amplified voltage difference in an analog format to a digital signal [this is the inherent function of an A/D converter]; and
at least one processor configured to estimate a body temperature of the user based on the digital signal representing the amplified voltage difference [0157 “…heat flux skin interface component 835 and skin temperature skin interface component 840 are adapted to be in contact with the wearer's skin when sensor device 800 is worn, and facilitate the measurement of GSR, heat flux from the body and skin temperature data”, 0163 “…heat flux thermistors 890A and 890B are coupled to A/D converter 915 and processing unit 900, where the heat flux calculations are performed…”].
Teller teaches a thickness of a thermally insulating material, but fails to specifically teach the thickness is in a range of 0.4 mm to 1.3 mm. Upon review of the disclosure, the range of 0.4 mm to 1.3 mm is not stated as critical or important (see par. 0042).
However, Dion teaches a similar system in the same field of endeavor utilizing an insulator thickness of between 1 mm and 5 mm [0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to adjust the thickness of the insulator to an optimum range/value, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the thickness of the insulator which achieves the recognized result of optimizing the temperature difference to ensure an accurate and reliable measurement may be obtained, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
The combination of Teller and Dion teach observing non-zero temperature difference across two sensors (see Dion par. 0073), but fail to explicitly teach a temperature difference greater than or equal to 0.3°C. Upon review of the disclosure, the temperature difference greater than or equal to 0.3°C is not stated as critical or important (see par. 0072, Table 1).
However, Fraden teaches a similar system in the same field of endeavor utilizing a temperature difference of no greater than 2°C [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to adjust the minimum temperature difference an optimum range/value, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the temperature difference which achieves the recognized result of optimizing the temperature difference to ensure an accurate and reliable measurement may be obtained, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 2, Teller, Dion, and Fraden teach the wearable device of claim 1, wherein the thickness of the thermally insulating material is in a range of 0.6 mm to 1.3 mm [Dion “…the heater insulator 208 can have a thickness of polyurethane foam of at least 1 mm, or a range between 1 mm to 5 mm inclusive”] such that the temperature difference between the first temperature sensor and the second temperature sensor is greater than or equal to 0.3°C [Fraden 0041 “…a typical temperature difference between sensors 56 and 57 should be no greater than 2°C”].
Regarding claim 7, Teller, Dion, and Fraden teach the wearable device of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first temperature sensor [Teller Fig. 26 Item 390A] and the second temperature sensor [Teller Fig. 26 Item 390B] is a thermistor [Teller 0160 “Provided on the bottom side of PCB 860 is a first heat flux thermistor 890A, and provided on the top side of PCB 860 is a second heat flux thermistor 890B”].
Regarding claim 8, Teller, Dion, and Fraden teach the wearable device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to convert the amplified voltage difference into a corresponding temperature difference [Teller 0160 “These voltages are then electrically differenced, such as by using a differential amplifier, to provide a voltage value that, as is well known in the art, can be used to calculate the temperature difference (T2-T1)…”], 0163 “…heat flux thermistors 890A and 890B are coupled to A/D converter 915 and processing unit 900, where the heat flux calculations are performed, through low pass filter 935 and amplifier 940”], and to estimate the body temperature based on the corresponding temperature difference [Teller 0157 “…heat flux skin interface component 835 and skin temperature skin interface component 840 are adapted to be in contact with the wearer's skin when sensor device 800 is worn, and facilitate the measurement of GSR, heat flux from the body and skin temperature data”, 0163 “…heat flux thermistors 890A and 890B are coupled to A/D converter 915 and processing unit 900, where the heat flux calculations are performed, through low pass filter 935 and amplifier 940”].
Regarding claim 9, Teller, Dion, and Fraden teach the wearable device of claim 1, further comprising a display [Teller Fig. 28 Item 1025] configured to display the body temperature of the user [Teller 0176 “coupled to processing unit 900 on PCB 860 are LCDs and/or LEDs 1025 for outputting information to the wearer”, the information that is being output is inherent as the system disclosed in the embodiment is measuring heat flux, as well as other parameters, of a subject].
Regarding claim 10, Teller teaches a method of measuring a body temperature using a wearable device, the method comprising:
measuring a first voltage by a first temperature sensor [Fig. 26 Item 890A] when the wearable device is in contact with a user [0160 “The heat flux off of the body of the wearer can be determined by measuring a first voltage VI with heat flux thermistor 890A and a second voltage V2 with heat flux thermistor 890B”], wherein a thermally insulating material [Fig. 26 Item 860 “PCB”] is disposed between the first temperature sensor [Fig. 26 Item 890A] and the second temperature sensor [Fig. 26 Item 890B] in the thickness direction of the wearable device [see Fig. 26];
measuring a second voltage by a second temperature sensor [Fig. 26 Item 890B] that is disposed apart from the first temperature sensor in a thickness direction of the wearable device [see Fig. 26, the examiner notes that directionality is relative], when the wearable device is in contact with the user [0160];
amplifying a voltage difference between the first voltage and the second voltage [0160 “These voltages are then electrically differenced, such as by using a differential amplifier, to provide a voltage value that, as is well known in the art, can be used to calculate the temperature difference (T2-T1)…”];
converting the amplified voltage difference in an analog format to a digital signal [0163 “…heat flux thermistors 890A and 890B are coupled to A/D converter 915 and processing unit 900, where the heat flux calculations are performed, through low pass filter 935 and amplifier 940”]; and
estimating the body temperature of the user based on the digital signal representing the amplified voltage difference [0157 “…heat flux skin interface component 835 and skin temperature skin interface component 840 are adapted to be in contact with the wearer's skin when sensor device 800 is worn, and facilitate the measurement of GSR, heat flux from the body and skin temperature data”, 0163 “…heat flux thermistors 890A and 890B are coupled to A/D converter 915 and processing unit 900, where the heat flux calculations are performed…”].
Teller teaches a thickness of a thermally insulating material, but fails to specifically teach the thickness is in a range of 0.4 mm to 1.3 mm. Upon review of the disclosure, the range of 0.4 mm to 1.3 mm is not stated as critical or important (see par. 0042).
However, Dion teaches a similar system in the same field of endeavor utilizing an insulator thickness of between 1 mm and 5 mm [0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to adjust the thickness of the insulator to an optimum range/value, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the thickness of the insulator which achieves the recognized result of optimizing the temperature difference to ensure an accurate and reliable measurement may be obtained, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
The combination of Teller and Dion teach observing non-zero temperature difference across two sensors (see Dion par. 0073), but fail to explicitly teach a temperature difference greater than or equal to 0.3°C. Upon review of the disclosure, the temperature difference greater than or equal to 0.3°C is not stated as critical or important (see par. 0072, Table 1).
However, Fraden teaches a similar system in the same field of endeavor utilizing a temperature difference of no greater than 2°C [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to adjust the minimum temperature difference an optimum range/value, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the temperature difference which achieves the recognized result of optimizing the temperature difference to ensure an accurate and reliable measurement may be obtained, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 11, Teller, Dion, and Fraden teach the method of claim 10, further comprising:
converting the amplified voltage difference into a temperature difference [Teller 0160 These voltages are then electrically differenced, such as by using a differential amplifier, to provide a voltage value that, as is well known in the art, can be used to calculate the temperature difference (T2-T1)…”]; and
estimating the body temperature based on the temperature difference corresponding to the amplified voltage difference [Teller 0157 “…heat flux skin interface component 835 and skin temperature skin interface component 840 are adapted to be in contact with the wearer's skin when sensor device 800 is worn, and facilitate the measurement of GSR, heat flux from the body and skin temperature data”, 0163 “…heat flux thermistors 890A and 890B are coupled to A/D converter 915 and processing unit 900, where the heat flux calculations are performed, through low pass filter 935 and amplifier 940”].
Regarding claim 14, Teller, Dion, and Fraden teach the method of claim 10, further comprising:
identifying a thermal coefficient of resistivity [Teller 0160 “K”] of the thermally insulating material [Teller Fig. 26 Item 360] disposed between the first temperature sensor [Teller Fig. 26 Item 390A] and the second temperature sensor [Teller Fig. 26 Item 390B] in the thickness direction [Teller 0160 “As is well-known in the art, PCB 860 is made of a rigid or flexible material, such as a fiberglass, having a preselected, known thermal resistance or resistivity K”]; and
estimating the body temperature of the user based on the amplified voltage difference and the thermal coefficient of resistivity of the thermally insulating material [Teller 0157 “…heat flux skin interface component 835 and skin temperature skin interface component 840 are adapted to be in contact with the wearer's skin when sensor device 800 is worn, and facilitate the measurement of GSR, heat flux from the body and skin temperature data”, 0163 “…heat flux thermistors 890A and 890B are coupled to A/D converter 915 and processing unit 900, where the heat flux calculations are performed…”].
Regarding claim 17, Teller teaches a sensor device comprising:
a first temperature sensor [Fig. 26 Item 390A] configured to measure a first voltage when the sensor device is in contact with a user [0160 “The heat flux off of the body of the wearer can be determined by measuring a first voltage VI with heat flux thermistor 890A and a second voltage V2 with heat flux thermistor 890B”];
a second temperature sensor [Fig. 26 Item 390B] disposed apart from the first temperature sensor in a thickness direction of the sensor device [see Fig. 26, the examiner notes that directionality is relative], and configured to measure a second voltage when the sensor device is in contact with the user [0160];
a thermally insulating material [Fig. 26 Item 860] between the first temperature sensor [Fig. 26 Item 890A] and the second temperature sensor [Fig. 26 Item 890B] in the thickness direction of the sensor device [see Fig. 26]; and
an amplifier [0160 “differential amplifier”] configured to amplify a voltage difference between the first voltage and the second voltage [0160 “These voltages are then electrically differenced, such as by using a differential amplifier, to provide a voltage value that, as is well known in the art, can be used to calculate the temperature difference (T2-T1)…”], and output the voltage difference as a value that represents a body temperature of the user [0157 “…heat flux skin interface component 835 and skin temperature skin interface component 840 are adapted to be in contact with the wearer's skin when sensor device 800 is worn, and facilitate the measurement of GSR, heat flux from the body and skin temperature data”, 0163 “…heat flux thermistors 890A and 890B are coupled to A/D converter 915 and processing unit 900, where the heat flux calculations are performed…”].
Teller teaches a thickness of a thermally insulating material, but fails to specifically teach the thickness is in a range of 0.4 mm to 1.3 mm. Upon review of the disclosure, the range of 0.4 mm to 1.3 mm is not stated as critical or important (see par. 0042).
However, Dion teaches a similar system in the same field of endeavor utilizing an insulator thickness of between 1 mm and 5 mm [0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to adjust the thickness of the insulator to an optimum range/value, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the thickness of the insulator which achieves the recognized result of optimizing the temperature difference to ensure an accurate and reliable measurement may be obtained, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
The combination of Teller and Dion teach observing non-zero temperature difference across two sensors (see Dion par. 0073), but fail to explicitly teach a temperature difference greater than or equal to 0.3°C. Upon review of the disclosure, the temperature difference greater than or equal to 0.3°C is not stated as critical or important (see par. 0072, Table 1).
However, Fraden teaches a similar system in the same field of endeavor utilizing a temperature difference of no greater than 2°C [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to adjust the minimum temperature difference an optimum range/value, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the temperature difference which achieves the recognized result of optimizing the temperature difference to ensure an accurate and reliable measurement may be obtained, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 19, Teller, Dion, and Fraden teach the method of claim 10, wherein the thickness of the thermally insulating material is in a range of 0.6 mm to 1.3 mm [Dion 0030 “…the heater insulator 208 can have a thickness of polyurethane foam of at least 1 mm, or a range between 1 mm to 5 mm inclusive”] such that the temperature difference between the first temperature sensor and the second temperature sensor is greater than or equal to 0.3°C [Fraden 0041 “…a typical temperature difference between sensors 56 and 57 should be no greater than 2°C…”].
Claims 4-5 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teller, Dion, and Fraden as applied to claim 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Zahner (US 20200085310 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Teller, Dion, and Fraden teach the wearable device of claim 1, wherein Teller teaches an insulating material, but fails to teach the thermally insulating material has a conductivity of 0.1 W/mK or less. Upon review of the disclosure, a conductivity of 0.1 W/mK or less is not stated as critical or important (see par. 0042).
However, Zahner teaches a similar system in the same field of endeavor utilizing a conductivity of the insulator being between 0.01 W/m/K and 0.1 W/m/K
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to adjust the conductivity of the insulator to an optimal range/value, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the conductivity which achieves the recognized result of optimizing thermal conductivity for the purpose of enhancing energy efficiency by improving insulation and cooling, leading to reduced costs and lower environmental impact, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 5, Teller, Dion, Fraden, and Zahner teach the wearable device of claim 4, wherein the thermally insulating material is air [Zahner 0049 “…a thermal insulator 23 is shown running within the cross-section of the printed circuit board 22, whereby this thermal insulator can be an insulating layer, for example an air pocket”].
Regarding claim 15, Teller, Dion, and Fraden teach the method of claim 14, wherein Teller teaches an insulating material, but fails to teach the thermally insulating material has a conductivity of 0.1 W/mK or less. Upon review of the disclosure, a conductivity of 0.1 W/mK or less is not stated as critical or important (see par. 0042).
However, Zahner teaches a similar system in the same field of endeavor utilizing a conductivity of the insulator being between 0.01 W/m/K and 0.1 W/m/K
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to adjust the conductivity of the insulator to an optimal range/value, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the conductivity which achieves the recognized result of optimizing thermal conductivity for the purpose of enhancing energy efficiency by improving insulation and cooling, leading to reduced costs and lower environmental impact, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 16, Teller, Dion, Fraden, and Zahner teach the method of claim 15, wherein the thermally insulating material is air [Zahner 0049 “…a thermal insulator 23 is shown running within the cross-section of the printed circuit board 22, whereby this thermal insulator can be an insulating layer, for example an air pocket”].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teller, Dion, and Fraden as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Salahieh (US 20160051321 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Teller, Dion, and Fraden teach the wearable device of claim 1, wherein Teller teaches a first and second temperature sensor, but fails to teach the first temperature sensor and the second temperature sensor are connected in a Wheatstone bridge configuration.
Salahieh teaches the first temperature sensor and the second temperature sensor are connected to have a Wheatstone bridge configuration [0199 “The pattern includes two flexible thermistors (flextors). The two flextors are used in a battery-powered Wheatstone bridge electrical circuit to measure the differential temperature of the two flextors”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Teller, Dion, and Fraden and incorporate the teachings of Salahieh to include the first temperature sensor and the second temperature sensor are connected to have a Wheatstone bridge configuration. Doing so configures the system with a circuit configuration that is capable of measuring a temperature differential between to temperature sensors (thermistors) and using that temperature differential to analyze a patient’s condition, as recognized by Salahieh para. 0199.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teller, Dion, and Fraden as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Kubo (US 20180140254 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Teller, Dion, and Fraden teach the method of claim 10, further comprising:
generating a conversion model based on a first temperature corresponding to the first voltage, the first voltage, [Teller 0160 “These voltages are then electrically differenced, such as by using a differential amplifier, to provide a voltage value that, as is well known in the art, can be used to calculate the temperature difference (T2-T1)…”];
converting the amplified voltage difference into a temperature difference via the conversion model [Teller 0160 “These voltages are then electrically differenced, such as by using a differential amplifier, to provide a voltage value that, as is well known in the art, can be used to calculate the temperature difference (T2-T1)…”]; and
estimating the body temperature based on the temperature difference corresponding to the amplified voltage difference [Teller 0157 “…heat flux skin interface component 835 and skin temperature skin interface component 840 are adapted to be in contact with the wearer's skin when sensor device 800 is worn, and facilitate the measurement of GSR, heat flux from the body and skin temperature data”, 0163 “…heat flux thermistors 890A and 890B are coupled to A/D converter 915 and processing unit 900, where the heat flux calculations are performed”].
Teller, Dion, and Fraden fail to teach the conversion model comprises an external supply voltage.
Kubo teaches the conversion model comprises an external supply voltage [0072 “…on the basis of the power supply voltage data and the temperature data that are obtained in Step S10 and on the basis of the information S2 stored in the storage 103, the processor 101 calculates a measurement error that occurs in the wearable sensor 10 with respect to body temperature, and generates correction data that indicates the calculated measurement error”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Teller, Dion, and Fraden and incorporate the teachings of Kubo to include the conversion model includes an external supply voltage. Doing so configures the system to correct the measured data from external sources/noise to provide for a more accurate analysis of the acquired data.
Regarding claim 13, Teller, Dion, and Fraden teach the method of claim 10, further comprising:
generating a conversion model based on a second temperature corresponding to the second voltage, the second voltage [Teller 0160 “These voltages are then electrically differenced, such as by using a differential amplifier, to provide a voltage value that, as is well known in the art, can be used to calculate the temperature difference (T2-T1)…”];
converting the amplified voltage difference into a temperature difference via the conversion model [Teller 0160 “These voltages are then electrically differenced, such as by using a differential amplifier, to provide a voltage value that, as is well known in the art, can be used to calculate the temperature difference (T2-T1)…”]; and
estimating the body temperature based on the temperature difference corresponding to the amplified voltage difference [Teller 0157 “…heat flux skin interface component 835 and skin temperature skin interface component 840 are adapted to be in contact with the wearer's skin when sensor device 800 is worn, and facilitate the measurement of GSR, heat flux from the body and skin temperature data”, 0163 “…heat flux thermistors 890A and 890B are coupled to A/D converter 915 and processing unit 900, where the heat flux calculations are performed”].
Teller, Dion, and Fraden fail to teach the conversion model comprises an external supply voltage.
Kubo teaches the conversion model comprises an external supply voltage [0072 “…on the basis of the power supply voltage data and the temperature data that are obtained in Step S10 and on the basis of the information S2 stored in the storage 103, the processor 101 calculates a measurement error that occurs in the wearable sensor 10 with respect to body temperature, and generates correction data that indicates the calculated measurement error”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Teller, Dion, and Fraden and incorporate the teachings of Kubo to include the conversion model includes an external supply voltage. Doing so configures the system to correct the measured data from external sources/noise to provide for a more accurate analysis of the acquired data.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teller, Dion, and Fraden as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Baxi (US 20190209028 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Teller, Dion, and Fraden teach the sensor device of claim 17, wherein the sensor device further comprises:
an analog-to-digital (A/D) converter configured to convert the amplified voltage difference in an analog format to a digital signal [Teller 0075 “analog-to-digital converter 18”]; and
at least one processor configured to determine the body temperature of the user based on the digital signal [Teller 0075 “microprocessor 20”].
Teller, Dion, and Fraden fail to teach the first temperature sensor, the second temperature sensor, and the amplifier are included in analog front-end of the sensor device.
Baxi teaches the first temperature sensor, the second temperature sensor, and the amplifier are comprised in an analog front-end of the sensor device [0066 “Each of the AFEs (e.g., the ECG AFE 1204, the stretch AFE 1205, the PPG AFE 1206, and the temperature AFE 1207) include circuitry specific to a sensing application, such as to sense, amplify, and/or condition the signals from the respective sensor (e.g., the electrodes 310, stretch sensor 316, photodiode 326, or thermistor 328). Such circuitry can include analog and/or digital circuitry, such as can include one or more transistors, resistors, capacitors, inductors, diodes, amplifiers, analog to digital converters (ADC), high-pass, low-pass, sensors or other circuitry for measuring motion, noise, other bio-signals, band pass filters, or the like”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the teachings of Teller, Dion, and Fraden and incorporate the teachings of Baxi to include the first temperature sensor, the second temperature sensor, and the amplifier are included in analog front-end of the sensor device. Doing so improves system performance by conditioning and filtering raw analog sensor signals, making them suitable for digital processing while also contributing to smaller, more portable devices by integrating multiple functions into a single component, enhancing overall system efficiency and reliability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M HANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 0730-1630 ET.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571)272-4233. 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.
/JONATHAN M HANEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JUSTIN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights