DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 08/15/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because one or more of the prior arts do not include a date. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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 1-6 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claims 1, 6 recite the limitation “perform a determining and judgement action”. It is not clear what the “determining” and “judgement” actions are. The claim already has a limitation for determining the location of the sensor as “the location analysis module is configured to … generate location information of each of the plurality of sensors”. The location is claimed to be already determined. It is not clear what the “determining and judgement action” is supposed to “determine” and “judge”. The scope of the claim could not be determined and is considered indefinite.
Claims 1, 6 recite the limitation “perform comparison recording to generate a vital sign report”. It is not clear what the phrase represents. Is it claiming that module performs a comparison and records the result of the comparison as a vital sign report? Or does the phrase represent “comparison recording” has a separate meaning different form the individual meaning of the words? It is not clear what the scope of the phrase represents and the claim is considered indefinite.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “the client comprises … a specific application program stored therein”, and the claim also recites “wherein the client is configured to store each application programs” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 1, 6 recite the limitation “the camera is configured to … generate image”. Further, the claim recites the limitation “frame-by-frame extraction on the image”. An image is a single frame. The phrase “frame-by-frame extraction on the image” implies the image comprises a plurality of frames. It is not clear what the scope of the phrase represents and the claim is considered indefinite.
Claims 1, 6 recite the limitation “a conditioning scheme”. The Examiner is unable to determine what the phrase represents. The known meaning of the phrase in the medical art is a plan of physical training to improve individual’s physical fitness. However, the claim is directed towards detecting placement of sensors on a human body. It is not clear what the scope of the phrase represents and the claim is considered indefinite.
Claim 1 recite the limitations as claimed in page 19, line 3 – page 20, line 24. The Examiner is unable to determine the scope of what is claimed. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 6 recite the limitations as claimed in page 23, line 17 – page 24, line 21. The Examiner is unable to determine the scope of what is claimed. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claims 2-5 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim3 recites the limitation “the vital sign detection module … classifies the user vital sign information according to pulse rate, blood pressure, respiration, pupil, and corneal reflex”. The step implies that all vital signs have “pulse rate, blood pressure, respiration, pupil, and corneal reflex”. It is not clear what the scope of the phrase represents and the claim is considered indefinite.
Claim 4 recite the limitations as claimed in pages 21-22. The Examiner is unable to determine the scope of what is claimed. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 5 is rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688