DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claim 7 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/12/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the modeling of measuring impedance using an equivalent circuit and analyzing the in vivo component based on the modeling. These limitations cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. As such, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites an impedance sensor which is used as part of an insignificant extra-solution activity of data-gathering. The processor is recited at a high level of generality. The data gathering elements are considered to be well understood, routine, and conventional in view of Buck below (see prior art rejection).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the data-gathering elements are considered to be well understood, routine, and conventional. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims are directed to additional aspects of the abstract idea or to the structure of the data gathering device, which is still considered to be well understood, routine, or conventional in view of the prior art rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Buck (US 2008/0214910).
As to claim 1, Buck teaches a method of analyzing an in vivo component ([0058] – implanted; [0061]), the method comprising: applying a current to a first electrode and a second electrode ([0083]) of an impedance sensor ([0082]), measuring a voltage between the first electrode and the second elect rode based on applying the current ([0088]); modeling the measured impedance using an equivalent circuit([0093-0094, 0109, 0113]); and analyzing the in vivo component based on modeling the measured impedance using the equivalent circuit ([0093]).
As to claim 3, Buck teaches the modeling of the measured impedance using the equivalent circuit comprises extracting one or more parameters, related to properties of the fluid to be analyzed, based on the modeling the equivalent circuit ([0083] - properties of the environment, which would be the interstitial fluid being measured in an implanted device).
As to claim 4, Buck teaches the analyzing of the in vivo component comprises obtaining a parameter variation by normalizing the extracted one or more parameters using a parameter at a reference time ([0109]).
As to claim 5, Buck teaches the analyzing of the in vivo component comprises obtaining an estimated in vivo component value, including at least one of blood glucose, cholesterol, triglyceride, protein, and uric acid, by applying an in vivo component analysis model to the parameter variation ([0132]).
As to claim 6, Buck teaches adjusting at least one of a temperature and a flow property of the fluid to be analyzed ([0066] - diffusion barrier).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck (US 2008/0214910) in view of Nonaka et al. (US 2012/0274337).
As to claim 2, Buck does not teach that the use of the equivalent circuit comprises reducing an effect of noise, including at least one of a parasitic component and a polarization effect of the impedance sensor, from the measured impedance. Lee teaches the use of equivalent circuits within an impedance sensor allows for the removal of polarization effects ([0021]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Buck with Nonaka to allow for the reduction of noise or signal artifacts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN JANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7-3:30 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, Robert 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.
CHRISTIAN JANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTIAN JANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791 4/21/26
Prosecution Insights