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 .
Response to Amendment
The action is in response to amendments filed on 02/02/2026. Claims 1, 10, 21, 38 have been amended. Claims 1-2, 4, 9-10, 13, 15-17, 21-24, 26, 28, 30-31, 37-38 and 43 are pending and examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 21-23, 28, 37, 38 is/are rejected under US 20200214604 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Nothacker”).
Regarding claim 21, Nothacker teaches a method for using a wearable device to monitor alcohol consumption by a human subject (paragraph [0039], [0070]-[0074]), the method comprising:
securing the wearable device against the human subject's skin (paragraphs [0070]-[0074]; Figure 1 and 4);
detecting the presence of a target analyte within perspiration from the human subject's skin passively diffuse into a gas headspace of the wearable device selectively closed by contact with the human subject's skin using an alcohol sensor focused to the gas headspace (paragraphs [0054], [0058], [0062]);
processing information from the alcohol sensor to make a determination of the human subject's condition related to alcohol consumption (paragraphs [0062], [0084]); and
reporting the human subject's condition related to alcohol consumption (paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claim 22, Nothacker teaches further comprising:
pairing the wearable device to a remote processing platform (paragraph [0033], [0067]-[0068]);
sending information from the alcohol sensor to the remote processing platform (paragraph [0033], [0067]-[0068]); and
performing one or more of the identifying, processing, and reporting operations using the remote processing platform (paragraph [0033], [0067]-[0068]).
Regarding claim 23, Nothacker teaches wherein the remote processing platform includes one or both of a mobile data device and a cloud-based processing platform (paragraph [0063]).
Regarding claim 28, Nothacker teaches further comprising:
sealing the wearable device against the human subject's skin using a sensor boot (paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 37, Nothacker teaches further comprising:
disabling equipment associated with the human subject in response to the report on the human subject's condition related to alcohol consumption (paragraph [0084]).
Regarding claim 38, Nothacker teaches A system for monitoring alcohol consumption by human subjects (paragraph [0039], [0070]-[0074]) comprising:
a remote processing platform (paragraph [0033], [0067]-[0068]); and
a wearable device for monitoring alcohol consumption by the human subject (paragraph [0039], [0070]-[0074]) comprising:
a band to secure the wearable device against the human subject's skin (140; paragraphs [0070]-[0074]; Figure 1 and 4);
a gas headspace selectively closed by contact with the human subject's skin (12, 13; paragraph [0043]-[0044]; Figure 2A; 3A);
an alcohol sensor focused to the gas headspace (130; paragraphs [0041]-[0042]; Figure 2A; 3A) to detect the presence of a target analyte within perspiration from the human subject's skin passively diffuse into the gas headspace (paragraphs [0039], [0043], [0054], [0059]), the target analyte used to detect alcohol consumption by the human subject (paragraphs [0054], [0058], [0062]); and
a processor (151; paragraphs [0061]-[0062]) to:
pair the wearable device to a remote processing platform (paragraph [0033], [0067]-[0068]),
detect alcohol consumption by the human subject (paragraphs [0062], [0084]);
communicate the detected alcohol consumption to the remote processing platform, wherein the remote processing platform is operative (paragraph [0068]) to:
process information from the alcohol sensor to make a determination of the human subject's condition related to alcohol consumption (paragraphs [0062], [0084]); and
report the human subject's condition related to alcohol consumption (paragraph [0069]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 10, 13, 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200214604 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Nothacker”) in view of US 20040236199 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Hawthorne”).
Regarding claim 1, Nothacker, an apparatus for blood alcohol monitoring, teaches a wearable device for monitoring alcohol consumption by a human subject (paragraph [0039], [0070]-[0074]) comprising:
a band to secure the wearable device against the human subject's skin (140; paragraphs [0070]-[0074]; Figure 1 and 4);
a gas headspace selectively closed by contact with the human subject's skin (12, 13; paragraph [0043]-[0044]; Figure 2A; 3A);
an alcohol sensor focused to the gas headspace (130; paragraphs [0041]-[0042]; Figure 2A; 3A) to detect the presence of a target analyte within perspiration from the human subject's skin passively diffuse into the gas headspace (paragraphs [0039], [0043], [0054], [0059]), the target analyte used to detect alcohol consumption by the human subject (paragraphs [0054], [0058], [0062]); and
a processor (151; paragraphs [0061]-[0062]) to:
pair the wearable device to a remote processing platform (paragraph [0033], [0067]-[0068]),
detect alcohol consumption by the human subject (paragraphs [0062], [0084]); and
communicate the detected alcohol consumption to the remote processing platform (paragraph [0068]); but does not explicitly teach one or both of the wearable device and the remote processing platform storing an identity of the human subject.
However, Hawthorne, a wearable apparatus for measuring blood alcohol, teaches one or both of the wearable device and the remote processing platform storing an identity of the human subject (paragraphs [0066]-[0068]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nothacker, to store the identify of a user, as taught by Hawthorne, because to ensure that alcohol consumption measurements transmitted are reliably associated with the correct monitored person as the processing platform.
Regarding claim 4, Nothacker, in view of Hawthorne, teaches wherein the alcohol sensor includes one or more of an electrochemical sensor, a fuel cell sensor, an electromagnetic sensor, an optical sensor, an electrochemical graphene sensor, or a semiconductor sensor (“The sensor 130 preferably includes a fuel cell configured to facilitate and/or quantify chemical reactions involving the analyte”; paragraph [0055]; as taught by Nothacker).
Regarding claim 10, Nothacker, in view of Hawthorne, teaches further comprising:
a case enclosing the alcohol sensor and the processor (110; paragraphs [0041], [0045], [0061]; as taught by Nothacker); and
a sensor boot serving as a compressible seal between the human subject's skin and the case to prevent ambient air from entering the gas headspace (paragraph [0043]-[0044]; as taught by Nothacker).
Regarding claim 13, Nothacker, in view of Hawthorne, teaches further comprising:
one or more of a temperature compensator, a humidity compensator, and a barometric pressure compensator (paragraph [0083]; as taught by Nothacker).
Regarding claim 15, Nothacker, in view of Hawthorne, teaches wherein the processor is further to generate a fail response responsive to detecting alcohol consumption by the human subject (paragraphs [0062], [0068]-[0069]; as taught by Nothacker).
Regarding claim 17, Nothacker, in view of Hawthorne, teaches a communication module to transmit information between the processor and the remote processing platform (153; paragraph [0061], [0067]-[0068]; as taught by Nothacker).
Claim(s) 2, 9, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nothacker, in view of Hawthorne, as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of US 20120253154 A1 (hereinafter referred to “Philips”).
Regarding claim 2, Nothacker, in view of Hawthorne, does not explicitly teach further comprising: a biometric identification scanner to identify the human subject using one or both of internal and external surface points on the human subject's body.
However, Philips, a biometric identification system, teaches further comprising: a biometric identification scanner to identify the human subject using one or both of internal and external surface points on the human subject's body (abstract; paragraph [0021]-[0022]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nothacker, in view of Hawthorne, to have a biometric identification system, as taught by Philips, because doing so ensures the right individual is being tested. Further adding the biometric identification system is contemplated by Philips (see Philips paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 9, Nothacker, in view of Hawthorne and Philips, teaches wherein the biometric identification scanner includes one or more of a radiant energy scanner, an optical scanner, a capacitive sensor, an electrocardiography (ECG) device, conductive electrodes, or a capacitive sensor (paragraph [0021]-[0022]; as taught by Philips).
Regarding claim 16, Nothacker, in view of Hawthorne and Philips, teaches wherein the biometric identification scanner identifies one or more of the human subject's fingerprint, facial features, heartbeat, or pulse pattern (paragraph [0021]-[0022]; as taught by Philips).
Claim(s) 24, 26, 30, 31 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nothacker as applied to claims 21 and 38 above, and further in view of US 20120253154 A1 (hereinafter referred to “Philips”).
Regarding claim 23, Nothacker does not explicitly teach identifying the human subject using a biometric identification scanner.
However, Philips, a biometric identification system, teaches identifying the human subject using a biometric identification scanner (abstract; paragraph [0021]-[0022]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nothacker, to have a biometric identification system, as taught by Philips, because doing so ensures the right individual is being tested. Further adding the biometric identification system is contemplated by Philips (see Philips paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 26, Nothacker, in view of Philips, teaches wherein the human subject's identity is based on one of a fingerprint, facial identification, heart activity, and a pulsatile waveform of the human subject (abstract; paragraph [0021]-[0022]; as taught by Philips).
Regarding claim 30; Nothacker does not explicitly teach further comprising: making a liveness determination of the human subject.
However, Philips teaches making a liveness determination of the human subject (abstract; paragraph [0021]-[0022]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nothacker, to have a biometric identification system, as taught by Philips, because doing so ensures the right individual is being tested. Further adding the biometric identification system is contemplated by Philips (see Philips paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 31, Nothacker, in view of Philips, teaches wherein the liveness determination is based on one or both of a body temperature reading and a pulsatile waveform of the human subject (abstract; paragraph [0021]-[0022]; as taught by Philips).
Regarding claim 43, Nothacker does not explicitly teach a biometric identification scanner to identify a human subject using one or both of internal and external surface points on the human subject's body.
However, Philips teaches a biometric identification scanner to identify a human subject using one or both of internal and external surface points on the human subject's body (abstract; paragraph [0021]-[0022]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nothacker, to have a biometric identification system, as taught by Philips, because doing so ensures the right individual is being tested. Further adding the biometric identification system is contemplated by Philips (see Philips paragraph [0049]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 21, 38 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made by Nothacker, in view of Hawthorne, for claim 1 and Nothacker for claim 21 and 38.
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 ABID A MUSTANSIR whose telephone number is (408)918-7647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 am to 6 pm Pacific Time.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/ABID A MUSTANSIR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights