DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-15 are pending.
This action is Final.
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 3-4, 8, 10 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.
Regarding claims 3-4, each claim depends on claim 1 which was amended to claim an insulating part, so the inclusion of another insulating part claimed in the same way renders the claims indefinite. As set forth, it is not clear if these structures are the same or different which makes the metes and bounds of the claim unclear which renders the claims indefinite. For examination purpose, these parts are considered to be referring to the same features.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations “the calculated blood pressure information” lacks proper antecedent basis. Applicant amended claim 8 to attempt to overcome a prior rejection, but claim 8 (and claim 7 and claim 6 and claim 1) do not have any structures configured to calculate such information and do not further limit any structures of the device, so claim 8 is also rejected for being indefinite still. As claim 8 states “The detection device according to claim 7, wherein blood pressure information is given by a predetermined proportional coefficient times the pulse wave velocity” renders the claim indefinite. The claim does not further limit any structure of the claimed device and claims an intended result/use of the pulse wave velocity. This amounts to unlimited functional limitation, however, there is no clear-cut indication of how such functions are achieved. How is the device structured to allow for such functions? See MPEP 2173.05(g) Notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail “to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim” and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that the Supreme Court explained that a vice of functional claiming occurs “when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty”) (quoting General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371 (1938)); see also United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 234 (1942) (holding indefinite claims that recited substantially pure carbon black “in the form of commercially uniform, comparatively small, rounded smooth aggregates having a spongy or porous exterior”). Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). See also Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software Inc., 75 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2005) where a claim directed to a software based system for creating a customized computer interface screen recited that the screen be "aesthetically pleasing," which is an intended result and does not provide a clear cut indication of scope because it imposed no structural limits on the screen. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear which renders the claim indefinite. Likely claim 8 should be amended to further limit the control circuit to be further configured to calcite blood pressure information by the features set forth in claim 8. Such would likely overcome both claims 8 and 10 rejections.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badinski et al. (von Badinski, US 2015/0220109) in view of Seko (US 2018/0103868).
Regarding claim 1, von Badinski teaches a detection device that is wearable on one finger, the detection device comprising:
a first electrode having an inner surface adapted to be in contact with a finger wearing the detection device (see at least Figures 3B, 7, 15A 22A-C, inside surface of the ring [0163], [0171], [0250], [0252]-[0253], [0258]);
a second electrode provided outside relative to the first electrode when the detection device is worn and electrically insulated from the first electrode (see at least Figures 3B, 15A, 22A-C, outside surface of the ring or a conductive pad on the outside of the ring [0163], [0171], [0250], [0252]-[0253], [0258]);
a light source provided outside relative to the first electrode and inside relative to the second electrode and adapted to irradiate the finger with light (see at least Figures 2, 3B, 15A, [0163], [0171], [0258]);
a light sensor provided outside relative to the first electrode and inside relative to the second electrode and configured adapted to receive light from the finger (see at least Figures 2, 3B, 15A, [0163], [0171], [0258]);
a control circuit provided outside relative to the first electrode and inside relative to the second electrode and configured to measure biological information based on an output from the light sensor, wherein the light source includes at least one of a red light source, an infrared light source, a near-infrared light source, and a green light source (see at least Figures 2, 3B, [0166], [0169], [0163], [0171], [0258]),
As discussed in paragraphs [0163], [0171], [0258] the various embodiments are disclosed/taught as being combinable, but in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine light sensors and ECG sensors into a single embodiment in order to allow for oximetry and ECG measurements by the same device to determine physiological status of a user.
Where it is reasonably taught that the electrodes are insulated from one another to teach an insulating part provided on part of an outer surface of the second electrode, and part of the second electrode not covered by the insulating part is exposed and part of the second electrode covered by the insulating part is not exposed (see at least Figures 3B, 7, 15A 22A-C, [0249]-[0250] with 2260 conductive section, outer housing is electrically isolated implies insulation sections to allow the circuit to run through the person as seen in Figure 22B)
However, for compact prosecution purposes, the insulation as claimed including an insulating part provided on part of an outer surface of the second electrode, and part of the second electrode not covered by the insulating part is exposed and part of the second electrode covered by the insulating part is not exposed are alternatively being considered not directly taught for each of the embodiments of Figures 3B, 7, 15A.
Seko teaches a related device for a wearable device on a finger, with different arrangements of a first and second electrode electrically isolated/insulated from one another, and teaches the insulation as claimed including an insulating part provided on part of an outer surface of the second electrode, and part of the second electrode not covered by the insulating part is exposed and part of the second electrode covered by the insulating part is not exposed (see at least Figures 4H, 6B-6D, [0120], [0144]-[0148]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of coating part of a ring surface with insulating material while leaving portions uncovered in order to allow for adjacent fingers to not interfere with the electrical recording of desired portions of the body.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations are met by von Badinski in view of Seko, where von Badinski teaches wherein the first electrode includes a first opening provided at a position corresponding to the light source, and a second opening provided at a position corresponding to the light sensor, light from the light source is adapted to be irradiated through the first opening to the finger, and the light sensor is adapted to receive light through the second opening from the finger (see at least Figure 15A, [0210]).
Regarding claim 3, the limitations are met by von Badinski in view of Seko, where the combination teaches further comprising an insulating part provided on an outer surface of the second electrode, wherein on the outer surface of the second electrode, the insulating part is provided at a part configured to contact another finger adjacent to the finger (see at least von Badinski Figures 3B, 7, 15A 22A-C, [0249]-[0250] with 2260 conductive section, outer housing is electrically isolated implies insulation sections to allow the circuit to run through the person as seen in Figure 22B; see at least Seko Figures 4H, 6B-6D, [0120], [0144]-[0148]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of coating part of a ring surface with insulating material while leaving portions uncovered in order to allow for adjacent fingers to not interfere with the electrical recording of desired portions of the body.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations are met by von Badinski in view of Seko, where the combination teaches further comprising an insulating part provided on an outer surface of the second electrode, wherein on the outer surface of the second electrode, the insulating part is not provided at a part configured to not contact another finger adjacent to the finger (see at least von Badinski Figures 3B, 7, 15A 22A-C, [0249]-[0250] with 2260 conductive section, outer housing is electrically isolated implies insulation sections to allow the circuit to run through the person as seen in Figure 22B; see at least Seko Figures 4H, 6B-6D, [0120], [0144]-[0148]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of coating part of a ring surface with insulating material while leaving portions uncovered in order to allow for adjacent fingers to not interfere with the electrical recording of desired portions of the body.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations are met by von Badinski in view of Seko, where the combination teaches wherein the second electrode is provided at a part where another finger adjacent to the finger is configured to not contact, and the second electrode is not provided at a part where another finger adjacent to the finger is configured to contact (see at least von Badinski Figures 3B, 7, 15A 22A-C, [0249]-[0250] with 2260 conductive section, outer housing is electrically isolated implies insulation sections to allow the circuit to run through the person as seen in Figure 22B; see at least Seko Figures 4H, 6B-6D, [0120], [0144]-[0148]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of coating part of a ring surface with insulating material while leaving portions uncovered in order to allow for adjacent fingers to not interfere with the electrical recording of desired portions of the body.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations are met by von Badinski in view of Seko, where von Badinski teaches further comprising a temperature sensor configured to detect temperature of the first electrode (see at least Figure 2, 3B), wherein the control circuit is configured to calculate a pulse frequency based on an output waveform from the light sensor, transmit data of the pulse frequency to another device when a difference between a change frequency of the temperature detected by the temperature sensor and a variation value of the pulse frequency is in a predetermined range, and not transmit data of the pulse frequency to the other device when the difference is not in the predetermined range (see at least Figure 2, [0172], [0252]-[0253]).
Regarding claim 12, the limitations are met by von Badinski in view of Seko, where von Badinski teaches further comprising a heat insulating member provided outside relative to the first electrode and inside relative to the second electrode and having a heat insulating property, wherein the heat insulating member covers the first electrode and the temperature sensor (see at least Figures 2, 3B, 4-6, 8, 15B flex circuitry/substrate [0199], [0258]).
Regarding claim 13, the limitations are met by von Badinski in view of Seko, where von Badinski teaches further comprising an acceleration sensor configured to detect acceleration applied to the detection device (see at least Figure 2, [0167]), wherein the control circuit is configured to calculate a pulse frequency based on an output waveform from the light sensor, not transmit data of the pulse frequency to another device when a difference between a frequency of change in the acceleration detected by the acceleration sensor and a variation value of the pulse frequency is in a predetermined range, and transmit data of the pulse frequency to the other device when the difference is not in the predetermined range (see at least Figure 2, [0167], [0169]-[0172] “More specifically, some embodiments of the WCD 110 can include a phase-locked loop or logic to predict the pulse width by determining lower and upper ranges in which the heart rate is predicted to be, thus only powering up the sensor modules 220 at the time of the predicted heartbeats. For one example, if the WCD 110 determines that the user is at sleep (e.g., based on the heart rate, the body temperature, together with the movements detected by the accelerometer and/or the vibration detector), the WCD 110 can slow down its heart rate detection frequency (e.g., from 1 measurement per second to 1 measurement per 10 seconds) and skip the measurement of several heartbeats because it is unlikely that the heart rate will change drastically during that period. Conversely, if the WCD 110 determines that the user is performing a high intensity physical exercise, the WCD 110 can increase the frequency of monitoring and recording of the sensor modules 220.”, [0173], [0252]-[0253]).
Regarding claim 14, the limitations are met by von Badinski in view of Seko, where von Badinski teaches further comprising: a battery configured to supply electric power to each component in the detection device; and a coil for charging the battery based on an applied magnetic field, wherein the coil includes a winding wire wound around an outer periphery of the first electrode outside relative the first electrode and inside relative to the second electrode (see at least Figures 2, 6, [0179]).
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over von Badinski et al. (von Badinski, US 2015/0220109) in view of Seko (US 2018/0103868) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (Cho, US 2017/0049340).
Regarding claim 6, the limitations are met by von Badinski in view of Seko, where Badinski teaches a potential difference measurement circuit configured to measure a potential difference between the first electrode and the second electrode (see at least Figure 22a-c, interpreted as the circuitry for ECG measurement); a controller (see Figure 2 processor) and a storage unit (see at least Figure 2), but does not directly teach the features the storage configured to store a distance between a wearing position of the second electrode and a predetermined position of a living body; a controller configured to calculate a pulse wave velocity based on the potential difference measured by the potential difference measurement circuit and the distance stored in the storage.
Cho teaches a related system which measures ECG by measuring signals between two fingers (see Figure 4), and teaches a process to estimate and store distance information for calculating PWV based on the stored data, which reasonably teaches the features the storage configured to store a distance between a wearing position of the second electrode and a predetermined position of a living body; a controller configured to calculate a pulse wave velocity based on the potential difference measured by the potential difference measurement circuit and the distance stored in the storage (see at least [0101]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of calculating PWV based on stored data in order to allow for analysis of cardiovascular heath with accurate information for the individual user.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations are met by von Badinski in view of Seko and Cho, where the combination teaches wherein the control circuit calculates the pulse wave velocity by dividing the distance stored in the storage by a time that is a difference between a time point corresponding to a feature point of an electrocardiogram that is a waveform of the potential difference between the first electrode and the second electrode and a time point corresponding to a feature point of a pulse wave that is biological information measured based on an output from the light sensor (see Figure 2 of von Badinski, see Cho [0101], Figure 5; the limitations contain known calculation of PWV (distance/time) using the structures of von Badinski where the oximetry sensors are known to be able to measure blood flow, with the stored distance and suggestions of PWV calculation of Cho between ECG finger electrodes and blood flow signal generated by oximetry sensors). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of calculating PWV based on stored data in order to allow for analysis of cardiovascular heath with accurate information for the individual user.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations are met by von Badinski in view of Seko and Cho, where the combination teaches wherein blood pressure information is given by a predetermined proportional coefficient times the pulse wave velocity (this limitation is an intended use of pulse wave velocity for an intended result that does not further limit any structure for performing the intended result. As such, the combination as presented prior is capable of the intended use/results claimed).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations are met by von Badinski in view of Seko and Cho, where von Badinski teaches further comprising a communication circuit for transmitting data of the calculated pulse wave velocity to another device (see at least Figure 2 250 capable of the intended use claimed of transmitting data calculated by the combination).
Regarding claim 10, the limitations are met by von Badinski in view of Seko and Cho, where von Badinski teaches further comprising a communication circuit for transmitting data of the calculated blood pressure information to another device (see at least Figure 2 250 capable of the intended use/result claimed of transmitting data calculated).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over von Badinski et al. (von Badinski, US 2015/0220109) in view of Seko (US 2018/0103868) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kahlman (US 2018/0241250).
Regarding claim 15, the limitations are met by von Badinski in view of Seko, where von Badinski teaches a battery driver located within the ring adjacent a coil (claimed in inference, but interpreted to read on power management circuitry located on flex circuitry with battery connections next to coil, see at least Figures 2, 6, [0179]), except the limitations of wherein the coil includes a first coil and a second coil, and the first coil and the second coil are provided on opposite sides in a direction in which the finger is inserted into the detection device, and the first coil and the second coil are coupled in parallel to a battery driver that is disposed between the first coil and the second coil are not directly taught.
Kahlman teaches a related system for wireless communication and wireless charging (see at least abstract), and teaches ring shaped coils separated from one another for inductive power transmission designs which reasonably teaches the claimed features wherein the coil includes a first coil and a second coil, and the first coil and the second coil are provided on opposite sides in a direction in which the finger is inserted into the detection device, and the first coil and the second coil are coupled in parallel to a battery driver that is disposed between the first coil and the second coil (see at least Figure 17C, [0133]-[0135]; such modifications to von Badinski would include a second coil opposite the first and hence the circuitry would be located between and reasonably teaches the claimed structures). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable result of including a second coil spaced from the first coil to perform inductive power transmission as taught by Kahlman in order to charge a battery of the Badinski device using a known arrangement of coils known for such purpose.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s submission of amendments to the claims filed 12/22/2025; and IDS filed 11/19/2025.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive due to the amendments to the claims; however, the amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejections.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claims in view of prior art have been fully considered but are not persuasive and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2023/0095971 teaches “Control logic and memory 117 may gather and timestamp the various vital sign readings into a log 116 for short term storage prior to periodic uploads to reader 135 or cloud-based services. Control logic and memory 117 may further apply various analysis or thresholds to provide real-time feedback or issue real-time alarms to the user should any individual vital sign measurement (or combination of vital sign measurements) deviate outside of acceptable boundaries or ranges. The feedback/alarms may be audible and/or visual via user interface(s) 127. In one embodiment, vital signs monitor 100 may include an accelerometer so that control logic and memory 117 can reject certain readings acquired during high user motion events. Vital sign measurements obtained during high user motions may not be reliable. If accelerometer data shows that the body part was moving more than permissible during a blood pressure reading, control logic and memory 117 may reject that reading as unreliable.” US 2022/0320899 teaches energy harvesting ring with multiple coils.
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 MICHAEL R BLOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3252. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 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 (Tse) 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.
/MICHAEL R BLOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791