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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5 and 6, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-10, 12 and 14-22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a newly found prior art reference.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geva et al (US 2017/0079586) in view of Mao et al (US 2008/0319290).
Regarding claim 1, Geva discloses a system comprising:
a first module comprising a first sensor 106, capable of performing biometric sensing at a first location on a patient (see paragraph [0015]).
Earlobe attachment 106 is used for transmissive pulse oximetry, see paragraph [0062].
Mao teaches using at least two laser elements each configured to emit light at different frequencies with respect to each other for sensing pulse oximetry, see paragraphs [0339] and [0355].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the laser oximetry teaching of Mao with the earlobe oxygen saturation sensing in Geva to use at least two laser elements each configured to emit light at different frequencies with respect to each other because Geva suggests using a light source with two wavelengths of light through the earlobe to the photodetector for the same purpose as using the laser light in Mao, See paragraph [0065] and [0066] in Geva.
Geva discloses a second module comprising a second sensor, capable of performing biometric sensing at a second location on the patient, see paragraph [0102] and Fig. 13,
wherein the first module comprises a transmitter for transmitting first sensor data, the first sensor data comprising sensing information obtained by the first sensor (see paragraph [0102]).
Regarding claim 2, Geva discloses a third module comprising a receiver, the third module being configured to receive the first sensor data and to combine the first sensor data with other sensor data (see paragraph [0102]).
Regarding claim 3, Geva discloses the third module is the second module, and wherein the other sensor data comprises sensing information obtained by the second sensor, see paragraph [0102].
Regarding claim 4, Geva discloses the first module comprises a receiver for receiving a signal from the second module, see paragraph [0102].
Regarding claim 5, Geva discloses the third module is a mobile telephone, see paragraphs [0088], [0089] and [0102].
Regarding claim 6, Geva discloses the first module comprises a receiver for receiving a signal from the third module, see paragraph [0102].
Regarding claim 7, Geva discloses the other sensor data comprises sensing information obtained by the second sensor, see paragraph [0102].
Regarding claim 8, Geva discloses the transmitter is a wireless transmitter 508.
Regarding claim 9, Geva discloses the transmitter is a Bluetooth transmitter, see paragraph [0102].
Regarding claim 10, Geva discloses the transmitter is a WiFi transmitter, see paragraph [0056].
Regarding claim 12, Geva discloses the first sensor and/or the second sensor is capable of performing biometric sensing of a type SpO2, see paragraphs [0009], [0059], [0066], [0070] and [0071].
Regarding claim 13, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to not include a receiver in the first module because it is obvious to eliminate an element and its function if the element is not desired. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 14, Geva discloses the first sensor and the second sensor are configured to perform redundant measurements, see paragraph [0071].
Regarding claim 15, Geva discloses the first and second modules are located within a wearable device, see paragraph [0071].
Regarding claim 16, Geva discloses the wearable device includes a wristband, and the first and second modules are located at different circumferential positions around the wristband, see paragraph [0128] and FIG. 14A.
Regarding claim 17, Geva discloses including an indicator module 200, configured to provide feedback to a user as to the position of the wearable medical device on the user.
Regarding claim 18, Geva discloses including a connection adjustment mechanism, see FIG. 14A to vary a dimension of the wearable medical device.
Regarding claim 19, Geva discloses the wearable medical device is a wristband, including, or being connectable to, a watch module configured to display the time, the wristband being arranged such that the watch module is or would be disposed on a dorsal portion of a wristband and the first and second modules are disposed on a radial or ulnar portion of the wristband, see paragraph [0117] and FIG. 12A, FIG. 14A, FIG. 15.
Regarding claim 20, Geva discloses the first sensor and the second sensor are configured to perform biometric sensing of a same type on different locations of the patient, see paragraphs [0059] and [0110].
Regarding claim 21, Geva discloses one or both of the first module and the second module is configured to derive a biomarker value from sensor data from both the first sensor and the second sensor, see paragraphs [0059] and [0110].
Regarding claim 22, Geva discloses one or both of the first module and the second module is configured to receive sensor data from both the first sensor and the second sensor, and to derive a biomarker value from the sensor data from only one first and second sensor, see paragraphs [0059] and [0110].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geva et al (US 2017/0079586) in view of Mao et al (US 2008/0319290) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Muuranto et al (US 2016/0183836).
Geva in view of Mao meet all of the claimed limitations except for the transmitter is a near-field communication transmitter.
Muuranto teaches a near-field communication transmitter is a function Bluetooth equivalent for plural sensor communications, see paragraph [0020].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the Bluetooth transmitter of Geva (see paragraph [0094]) with a near-field transmitter because they are functional equivalents as taught by Muuranto and because they are being implemented for a similar function of biometric sensing and reducing energy consumption.
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 George Manuel whose telephone number is (571) 272-4952.
The examiner can normally be reached on regular business days.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached on (571) 270-5213. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/George Manuel/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit: 3792
1/8/2026