DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 12/22/2025 (“Amendment”). Claims 8-10, 12, 13, and 21 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claims 8, 9, and 21. Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 remain withdrawn.
The Office notes that Applicant has impermissibly renumbered claims, with claims 9, 10, 12, and 13 having different claim numbers than previously presented. Care should be taken to maintain version control and keep claim numbering consistent.
The objection(s) to the drawings, specification, and/or claims, the interpretation(s) under 35 USC 112(f), and/or the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 and/or 35 USC 112 not reproduced below has/have been withdrawn in view of the corresponding amendments.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-10, 12, 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 8 and 21, there is no support for the detector threshold region comprising a micro-structured region.
Further regarding claims 8 and 21, there is no support for the outlet port being on a forward face of the device, especially if the inlet/detector threshold region is there as well and if the ports are meant to be different ports. Generally, it is unclear which embodiment Applicant intends to claim, as a large mix of different features are included without it being explained, with reference to the specification, which single embodiment includes them. Thus, support is unclear.
Further regarding claims 8 and 21, there is no support for the wireless communication module comprising a microcontroller. The microcontroller is a separate element.
Claims 9, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected because they depend on rejected claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-10, 12, 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 8 and 21 contain the trademark/trade name BLUETOOTH LOW ENERGY. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a transceiver and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claims 9, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected because they depend on rejected claims.
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.
Claims 8-10, 12, 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over various teachings of US Patent Application Publication 2022/0007972 (“Thors”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2021/0345939 (“Jumbe”).
Regarding claim 8, Thors teaches [a] wearable (Fig. 1) analyte breath alert device (Abstract, ¶¶s 0038, 0072) for detecting volatile organic compounds in a sample of gas from a user (¶ 0039), the wearable analyte breath alert device comprising: an outer casing (Fig. 1, housing 10) having a face (Fig. 1, the section with the openings, which can be considered a face at least because the user interacts with that section) that includes a detector threshold region comprising a plurality of openings and/or an enmeshed or micro-structured region (Fig. 3, inlet ports 20a and 20b, and Fig. 4, inlet ports 20a-20d); a volatile organic compound (VOC) sensor disposed within the outer casing and fluidly coupled to the detector threshold region (Figs. 3 and 4, sensor system 50, ¶ 0117); an outlet port located on a forward face of the device and spaced from the detector threshold region, the outlet port being fluidly coupled to the VOC sensor (Figs. 3 and 4, exit port 80); …; a wireless communication module (Figs. 3 and 4, wireless module 70) comprising … a microcontroller operably coupled to the VOC sensor (Figs. 3 and 4, controller 60. Although this is not explicitly described as a microcontroller, ¶ 0031 teaches that the processing device can be a microcontroller, and it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a microcontroller as a known alternative to achieve a desired and predictable result (¶ 0031, carrying out an algorithm or generally implementing various modules)); an alarm module comprising at least one of an LED indicator and an audio transducer configured to alert a user based on a signal from the VOC sensor (Figs. 3 and 4, notification module 102 can include LED indicators for alerting a user, as described in ¶ 0117 – also see ¶ 0072); wherein, in operation, user breath is received through the detector threshold region, passes across the VOC sensor, and is discharged through the outlet port (¶¶s 0070, 0116, 0110, 0111, 0117, etc.); and wherein the VOC sensor comprises at least one nano gas sensor including a nano-structured sensing material configured to selectively bind an analyte and produce a signal in response to VOC concentration (¶¶s 0061, 0062, etc., a nanomaterial such as a nanotube, coated with sensor material that interacts/binds with the analyte, which may include a specific VOC (e.g. ¶ 0060)).
Thors does not appear to explicitly teach an electrical charging interface comprising charging pins on an exterior surface of the device configured to mate with a charging cradle or charging port. Thors does not appear to explicitly teach the wireless communication module comprising a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) transceiver.
Jumbe teaches interfacing the sensor device with a charging base via a physical connection/power port (¶¶s 0093, 0113, 0291 (e.g. via USB-C), 0355 (power port 2814), etc.), and also teaches using BLUETOOTH communication between a sensor and display device, including BLUETOOTH LOW ENERGY (¶¶s 0288, 0309, 0361, 0417, etc.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate charging pins in Thors as in Jumbe, for the purpose of enabling recharging of its power source (Jumbe: ¶ 0355). It would have been obvious to use BLUETOOTH LOW ENERGY communication in Thors as in Jumbe, as the simple substitution of one wireless communication means for another with predictable results (wireless communication between a sensor device and a receiving device).
Regarding claim 9, Thors-Jumbe teaches all the features with respect to claim 8, as outlined above. Thors-Jumbe further teaches wherein the analyte is selected from a group consisting of: glucose, acetone, and ketones (¶¶s 0056, 0057, etc.).
Regarding claim 10, Thors-Jumbe teaches all the features with respect to claim 8, as outlined above. Thors-Jumbe further teaches wherein the presence of analyte includes the presence of glucose, acetone, and ketones (¶¶s 0056, 0057, etc. – evaluating the presence of glucose (by evaluating hypoglycemia) via the presence of acetone, which is a ketone (¶ 0052)).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Thors-Jumbe teaches all the features with respect to claim 8, as outlined above. Thors-Jumbe further teaches wherein the analyte is ethanol and one or more of methyl nitrate or ethyl benzene, wherein the analyte comprises ethanol, methyl nitrate and ethyl benzene (¶¶s 0043-0047, 0057, 0130, etc., ethanol, methyl nitrate, and ethyl benzene – describing e.g. ethanol and “any combination of the foregoing”).
Regarding claim 21, Thors teaches [a] wearable device (Abstract, ¶¶s 0038, 0072, Fig. 1) for detecting volatile organic compounds in a sample of aerosolized gas from a user (¶ 0039), the device comprising: an outer casing (Fig. 1, housing 10) having a face (Fig. 1, the section with the openings, which can be considered a face at least because the user interacts with that section) that includes a detector threshold region comprising a plurality of openings and/or an enmeshed or micro-structured region (Fig. 3, inlet ports 20a and 20b, and Fig. 4, inlet ports 20a-20d); a volatile organic compound (VOC) sensor disposed within the outer casing and fluidly coupled to the detector threshold region (Figs. 3 and 4, sensor system 50, ¶ 0117), the VOC sensor comprising a nano gas sensor including a nano-structured sensing material configured to selectively bind an analyte and produce a signal in response to VOC concentration (¶¶s 0061, 0062, etc., a nanomaterial such as a nanotube, coated with sensor material that interacts/binds with the analyte, which may include a specific VOC (e.g. ¶ 0060)); an outlet port located on a forward face of the device and spaced from the detector threshold region, the outlet port being fluidly coupled to the VOC sensor (Figs. 3 and 4, exit port 80); …; a wireless communication module (Figs. 3 and 4, wireless module 70) comprising … a microcontroller (Figs. 3 and 4, controller 60. Although this is not explicitly described as a microcontroller, ¶ 0031 teaches that the processing device can be a microcontroller, and it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a microcontroller as a known alternative to achieve a desired and predictable result (¶ 0031, carrying out an algorithm or generally implementing various modules)); an alarm module comprising at least one of an LED indicator and an audio transducer configured to alert a user based on a signal from the VOC sensor (Figs. 3 and 4, notification module 102 can include LED indicators for alerting a user, as described in ¶ 0117 – also see ¶ 0072); wherein user breath is received through the detector threshold region, passes across the VOC sensor, and is discharged through the outlet port (¶¶s 0070, 0116, 0110, 0111, 0117, etc.).
Thors does not appear to explicitly teach an electrical charging interface comprising charging pins on an exterior surface of the device configured to mate with a charging cradle or charging port. Thors does not appear to explicitly teach the wireless communication module comprising a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) transceiver.
Jumbe teaches interfacing the sensor device with a charging base via a physical connection/power port (¶¶s 0093, 0113, 0291 (e.g. via USB-C), 0355 (power port 2814), etc.), and also teaches using BLUETOOTH communication between a sensor and display device, including BLUETOOTH LOW ENERGY (¶¶s 0288, 0309, 0361, 0417, etc.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate charging pins in Thors as in Jumbe, for the purpose of enabling recharging of its power source (Jumbe: ¶ 0355). It would have been obvious to use BLUETOOTH LOW ENERGY communication in Thors as in Jumbe, as the simple substitution of one wireless communication means for another with predictable results (wireless communication between a sensor device and a receiving device).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered.
In response to the arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103, they are persuasive to the extent that the previous rejections did not teach charging pins or a BLE transceiver. Therefore, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Jumbe, and all claims remain rejected in light of the prior art.
It is noted that a region comprising a plurality of openings is not different than e.g. the inlets 20a-20d of Thors. Regarding the outlet port, it is noted that a “forward face” only details a direction, and not anything related to a front, back, or main portion of the device. In any case, Applicant has not elected the “reversible core” embodiment. Further, Thors teaches an exit port 80 that functions as the claimed outlet port.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREY SHOSTAK whose telephone number is (408) 918-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm PT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Robertson, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-5001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ANDREY SHOSTAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791