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 .
This action is in response to the filing of 7/5/2023. Claims 1-11 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-11 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "an application…" in line 22; however, claim 1 is a system claim that comprises the structural components including, ‘a sensor assembly’ ‘a processor’ ‘a communication module’ ‘a power supply’; but it is not clear how a system comprises an application that is a software as an independent component? without reciting any structure/supporting element in the claim where the application is stored, and how is it executed to perform any function? [as shown in present invention, figure 4 the application 432 on mobile device; and corresponding para 34]. Thus, claim should be amended to recite the supporting structure for the application and its execution details [and tie the user interface in lines 32-33 with the supporting structure/device]. [dependent claim 2-4, 6-11 are rejected for the reasons as discussed above]
Claim 1 recites in line 29-30 “a baseline PHI”, it is unclear whether this is the same “baseline hydration level” recited in line 14 of claim 1. [from para 8-11,27,35; fig 7 of the present disclosure; this appear to be the same, and should be addressed]
Claim 4 recites in line 1 “a communication module”, it is unclear whether this is the same “communication module” recited in line 17 of claim 1.
Claim 5 recites in line 1 “an application”, it is unclear whether this is the same “application” recited in line 22 of claim 1. [from the disclosure, this appear to be the same application; and claim 1 should be amended to include the recited mobile device [as in claim 5] where the application is installed and executed]
Claim 11 depends on claim 1, and recites a method; in lines 2-3 of claim 11 “disposing a housing containing the sensor assembly of claim 1…” it is not clear whether this is same housing as in claim 1. [from disclosure this appear to be the same housing and should be amended accordingly]
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the user’s skin" in 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “a period of time” in line 5; it is not clear whether this is same ‘period of time’ as in line 10 of claim 1? This should be addressed accordingly.
Claim 11 recites in line 7 “a baseline hydration level”; it is not clear whether this is same ‘baseline hydration level’ as in line 14 of claim 1? This should be addressed accordingly.
Claim 11 recites in line 8 “a relative hydration level”; it is not clear whether this is same ‘relative hydration level’ as in line 15 of claim 1? This should be addressed accordingly.
Claim 11 recites in line 10 “an output”; it is not clear whether this is same ‘output’ as in line 16 of claim 1? This should be addressed accordingly.
Note: Present application claims appear to be similar to for instance, US Patent 11,690,567 claims, and with US Patent 10,966,655 claims. But there is no Double patenting rejection given as the Patent 11,690,567, claims are missing the following “a processor/controller module configured for receiving signals from the sensor assembly, executing an algorithm for generating a baseline hydration level based on the received signals, calculating a relative hydration level at time points within the period of time, and generating an output indicative of relative hydration at the time points;”. [This claimed subject matter is described in para 30 of PGpub]. Similarly, no double patenting rejection with US Patent 10,966,655, as the system claim 1 is missing elements, “an application configured to receive the signals and determine a personal hydration index (PHI) for the wearer at the time points by: calculating average hydrated intensity values for the plurality of LEDs over an initial calibration period after wearer hydration; collecting intensity values over a full calibration period; normalizing the collected intensity values using the average hydrated intensity values; and calculating average normalized collected intensity values to establish a baseline PHI for the wearer; wherein the PHI at the time points is determined relative to the baseline PHI, and wherein the application is further configured to display the PHI at a user interface associated with the application.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miller et al. (US 20190246977) discloses a system and method for hydration monitoring with optical sensor for wearable devices.
Gulati et al. (US 20160249836) discloses a system and method for sample optical pathlength control using a noninvasive analyzer.
Mathew et al. (US 20160120468) discloses a non-invasive dehydration monitoring system and method.
Benaron (US 20150148632) discloses a calorie monitoring sensor and method for cell phones, smart watches, occupancy sensors, and wearables.
Podhajsky et al. (US 20150088002) discloses a system and method for hydration monitoring.
Mayer (US 8320981) discloses a system and method for an enhanced optical sensor module.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIRDEPAL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-1688. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Hannah S Wang can be reached on (571) 272-9018. 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.
/HIRDEPAL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631