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 .
Status of Claims
The claims filed 06/14/2023 lack contrast making the amendments hard to read. A telephone call was made to Anne Pearlman on 09/12/2025 and a voicemail was left to communicate this issue and ask for a new set of claims to filed in black and white. No response has been received, and as such, claim amendments have been interpreted to the best of the Examiner’s ability.
Claims 1-7 are hereby under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 06/14/2023 has been considered except where lined through because the reference was not provided or the reference was a duplicate.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “14” has been used to designate both the evaporation control chamber and a vent of sorts of a microfluidic structure. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: "the second area is;" should read "the second area is:". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the second area (ii) is a second skin area” should read “the second area is a second skin area”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: condensation element in claims 1 and 7 and fluid transporter in claim 4.
Three Prong Analysis for Claims 1 and 7:
“element” has been interpreted as a generic placeholder for “means”
“configured to condensate vapors released by the device” has been interpreted as functional language
There is not sufficient structure recited in the claim to perform the aforementioned function. Therefore, condensation element is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Three Prong Analysis for Claim 4:
“transporter” has been interpreted as a generic placeholder for “means”
“configured to transport droplets of fluid from the second skin area to the second absorber” has been interpreted as functional language
There is not sufficient structure recited in the claim to perform the aforementioned function. Therefore, fluid transporter is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Fluid transporter is herein interpreted to be “a transporter moving discretized droplets based on passive chemical gradient or electrowetting” or any equivalents thereof (pg. 4).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-7 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 Claim 1, the claim recites "sweat from a first skin area" in line 4 and “sweat from the first skin area” in line 5. It is unclear if “sweat from the first skin area” is meant to refer to “sweat from a first skin area”. For the purposes of examination, “sweat from the first skin area” is herein interpreted to be the sweat from a first skin area. Examiner suggests amending the claim limitation to read “the sweat collected from the first skin area”. The claim also recites “vent out sweat”. It is unclear if the sweat that is vented out refers to the sweat collected from the first skin sensor or a different sweat. For the purposes of examination, the sweat that is vented out is herein interpreted to refer to the sweat collected from the first skin area. Claim limitation “condensation element” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification discloses “The device may further comprise passive cooling elements such as cooling blocks or active cooling elements, such as Peltier elements, to increase the cooling of the vent and the condensation element” (pg. 5). In one embodiment, the specification discloses “evaporation control chamber 14 is the condensation element 42” and “evaporation control chamber 14 evaporates fluid, namely sweat or TEW from a second skin area ii, and this local evaporation of fluid creates a humidity, which disperses in the microfluidic structure 10 and thereby minimizes evaporation within the microfluidic structure 10” (pg. 8). However, it is unclear how the condensation element itself, if it is the evaporation control chamber, would be configured to condensate vapors released by the device as claimed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 2-6 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites “the second area is a second skin area,
and wherein the sensor comprises an exhaust, configured to vent sweat out of the sensor”. It is unclear how claim 2 further limits claim 1. It is unclear “a second skin area” is the same as or different than “a second skin area” recited in claim 1. It is unclear if “an exhaust, configured to vent sweat out of the sensor” is the same as or different than “an exhaust configured to vent sweat out of the sensor” recited in claim 1. Furthermore, it is unclear if the sweat that is vented out refers to the sweat collected from the first skin sensor, the sweat vented out in claim 1, or a different sweat. For the purposes of examination, “a second skin area” is herein interpreted to be the same as “a second skin area” recited in claim 1, “an exhaust, configured to vent sweat out of the sensor” is herein interpreted to be the same as “an exhaust configured to vent sweat out of the sensor” recited in claim 1, and the sweat that is vented out is herein interpreted to be the same as the sweat vented out in claim 1. Due to the aforementioned reasons, claim 2 is rendered indefinite.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim recites “the exhaust of the sensor”. It is unclear if “the exhaust of the sensor” refers to an exhaust of the sensor of claim 1 or claim 2. For the purposes of examination, “the exhaust of the sensor” is herein interpreted to refer to an exhaust of the sensor recited in claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 is rendered indefinite.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites “the second area is a second skin area”. It is unclear “a second skin area” is the same as or different than “a second skin area” recited in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, “a second skin area” is herein interpreted to be the same as “a second skin area” recited in claim 1. The claim also recites “fluid collected from the second skin area”. It is unclear if “fluid collected from the second skin area” refers to “fluid collected at a second area” recited in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, “fluid collected from the second skin area” is herein interpreted to refer to “fluid collected at a second area” recited in claim 1. Examiner suggests amending the claim limitation to read “the fluid collected at the second area”. The claim further recites “droplets of fluid from the second skin area”. It is unclear if “droplets of fluid from the second skin area” are droplets made of “fluid collected from the second skin area”. For the purposes of examination, “droplets of fluid from the second skin area” are herein interpreted to be droplets made of “fluid collected from the second skin area”. Examiner suggests amending the claim limitation to read “droplets of the fluid collected at the second area”. Due to the aforementioned reasons, claim 4 is rendered indefinite.
Regarding Claim 5, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites “vapors” in lines 3, 5, and 11. It is unclear if “vapors” is the same as or different than the “vapors” recited in claim 1. Furthermore, it is unclear if all three recitations of “vapors” refer to the same vapors or different vapors. For the purposes of examination, all three recitations of “vapors” are herein interpreted to be the same as the “vapors” recited in claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 is rendered indefinite.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites “sweat originating from a first skin area” in line 3 and “sweat from a first skin area” in lines 6-7. It is unclear if “sweat from a first skin area” is meant to refer to “sweat originating from a first skin area”. It is also unclear if the two recitations of “a first skin area” refer to the same skin area. For the purposes of examination, “sweat from a first skin area” is herein interpreted to refer to “sweat originating from a first skin area” and the two recitations of “a first skin area” are herein interpreted to refer to the same skin area. Examiner suggests amending “sweat from a first skin area” to read “the sweat originating from the first skin area”. The claim also recites “sweat originating from the first skin area”. It is unclear if “sweat originating from the first skin area” refers to “sweat originating from a first skin area” in line 3 and “sweat from a first skin area” in lines 6-7. For the purposes of examination, “sweat originating from the first skin area” is herein interpreted to be the same as “sweat originating from a first skin area” in line 3 and “sweat from a first skin area” in lines 6-7. Examiner suggests amending this claim limitation to read “the sweat originating from the first skin area”. Claim limitation “condensation element” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification discloses “The device may further comprise passive cooling elements such as cooling blocks or active cooling elements, such as Peltier elements, to increase the cooling of the vent and the condensation element” (pg. 5). In one embodiment, the specification discloses “evaporation control chamber 14 is the condensation element 42” and “evaporation control chamber 14 evaporates fluid, namely sweat or TEW from a second skin area ii, and this local evaporation of fluid creates a humidity, which disperses in the microfluidic structure 10 and thereby minimizes evaporation within the microfluidic structure 10” (pg. 8). However, it is unclear how the condensation element itself, if it is the evaporation control chamber, would be configured to condensate vapors released by the device as claimed. Due to the aforementioned reasons, claim 7 is rendered indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20160256070) hereinafter Murphy in view of Wildhaber et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20200397352) hereinafter Wildhaber.
Regarding Claim 1, Murphy discloses device for determining sweat parameters of a user (the invention is described herein in the context of measuring perspiration [0028]), the device comprising:
a microfluidic structure comprising a collection chamber configured to collect sweat from a first skin area (allow the moisture (e.g., perspiration) to enter the central chamber 126 [0037]; fig 6A)
and a sensor configured to determine a sweat parameter from sweat from the first skin area (circuit traces that enable a sensing integrated circuit 140 to soldered in place and electrically connected to the first electrode 112 and second electrode 134… skin electrode 136 to adhere the perspiration sensor 100 to a surface such as a skin surface [0035]; the perspiration sensor can include a capacitive sensor signal measuring integrated circuit that accurately measures the capacitance or capacitive signal and converts it to a digital signal for transmission to a remote device [0042]; fig 4)
wherein the microfluidic structure comprises a first absorber (a central chamber 126 which encloses the dielectric material 124 (e.g., the moisture absorbent material) [0035]; fig 4),
wherein the first absorber is configured to receive sweat from the first skin area (the moisture (e.g., perspiration) to enter the central chamber 126 and become absorbed by the moisture absorbent dielectric material 124 [0037]), having passed the sensor (fig 6A),
and an evaporation control chamber (the central chamber 126 [0037]; fig 6A), in fluidic connection with the microfluidic structure (the central chamber 126 [0037]; fig 6A), configured to utilize fluid collected at a second area to moisten the microfluidic structure (The third layer 130 includes one or more inlets 132 that allow the moisture (e.g., perspiration) to enter the central chamber 126 [0037]; fig 6A; Examiner notes that each inlet collects fluid from a different skin area),
wherein the second area is:
a second skin area (The perspiration from skin 160 enters the inlets 132 [0037]; fig 6A; Examiner notes that each inlet collects fluid from a different skin area), and/or
a surface of a condensation element (The third layer 130 includes one or more inlets 132 that allow the moisture (e.g., perspiration) to enter the central chamber 126 [0037]; fig 6A; Examiner notes third layer 130 is a surface of a condensation element),
the surface having a vent connected to the microfluidic structure via the condensation element (the third or bottom layer 130...third layer 130 includes one or more inlets 132 [0035]; The bottom layer can also include one or more pores, inlets or vents that enable perspiration released from the skin to enter central chamber and be absorbed by the dielectric material in the dielectric space. [0009]; Examiner notes that inlets are vents),
and the sensor comprising an exhaust configured to vent sweat out of the sensor and into the microfluidic structure (The first layer 110 can also include circuit traces that enable a sensing integrated circuit 140 to soldered in place and electrically connected to the first electrode 112 and second electrode 134 and wires (not shown) that connect the perspiration sensor 100 to other devices. [0035]; an outlet can be provided through the middle layer 120 or the first layer 110 to enable air initially contained within the moisture absorbent dielectric material 124 to escape [0037]; fig 4 & 6A; Examiner notes the first layer is the sensor),
and wherein the evaporation control chamber is in direct connection with the first absorber and is configured to moisten the first absorber (When the three layers are bonded together, they form a central chamber 126 which encloses the dielectric material 124 (e.g., the moisture absorbent material). [0035]; The third layer 130 includes one or more inlets 132 that allow the moisture (e.g., perspiration) to enter the central chamber 126 and become absorbed by the moisture absorbent dielectric material 124 as well as to allow air initially contained within the moisture absorbent dielectric material 124 to escape. As shown in FIG. 6B, when the layers are bonded together, the moisture absorbent dielectric material 124 can become partially or fully extruded through the inlets 132 to facilitate moisture absorption. [0037]; fig 4 & 6A).
Murphy fails to disclose the microfluidic structure comprises a first absorber, connected via a microfluidic channel with the collection chamber and the sensor, wherein the second area is: a surface of a condensation element configured to condensate vapors released by the device.
However, Wildhaber teaches connecting a collection chamber and a sensor via a microfluidic channel (Fluid is collected in a collection zone 116 of the collection surface 118 (e.g., a region of skin addressed by the surface of the device) and directed through one or more fluidic channels 114 (e.g., a fluidic channel network) towards main sensor module 120. [0090]; fig 3).
Murphy and Wildhaber are considered analogous art to the present invention because both inventions are directed towards the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the device of Murphy such that a first absorber is connected via a microfluidic channel with the collection chamber and the sensor, as taught by Wildhaber. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Murphy in view of Wildhaber fails to teach wherein the second area is: a surface of a condensation element configured to condensate vapors released by the device.
However, Wildhaber teaches a device for determining sweat parameters of a user having a module used to wet sensing modules included in the device (includes a wetting sensor module 150 based on conductivity measurements, which are used to determine whether some or all of the above-mentioned modules are wet (e.g., exposed to a liquid) [0087]).
As evidenced by Yoo (US Patent Pub. No. 20200155064 – cited by Applicant), the humidity levels inside a chamber impact the accuracy of measurements (When the humidity inside the first chamber 11 is too low, the electrical signal of the measurement sensor 30 may not be caused by acetone evaporated from the sweat 2. In addition, when the temperature inside the first chamber 11 is too low, the electrical signal of the measurement sensor 30 may be caused by the ambient air. [0038]). Since Wildhaber teaches maintaining wetness of sensor modules, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective date to have further modified the device of Murphy in view of Wildhaber such that a condensation element is configured to condensate vapors released by the device because it would maintain the humidity of the microfluidic structure allowing for accurate measurements. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 2, Murphy in view of Wildhaber teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Murphy teaches the second area is a second skin area (The perspiration from skin 160 enters the inlets 132 [0037]; fig 6A), and wherein the sensor comprises an exhaust, configured to vent sweat out of the sensor (The first layer 110 can also include circuit traces that enable a sensing integrated circuit 140 to soldered in place and electrically connected to the first electrode 112 and second electrode 134 and wires (not shown) that connect the perspiration sensor 100 to other devices. [0035]; an outlet can be provided through the middle layer 120 or the first layer 110 to enable air initially contained within the moisture absorbent dielectric material 124 to escape [0037]; fig 4 & 6A; Examiner notes the first layer is the sensor).
Regarding Claim 3, Murphy in view of Wildhaber teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 2. Murphy further teaches the evaporation control chamber is in direct connection with the exhaust of the sensor (fig 6A; Examiner notes the first layer 110 is in direct communication with the central chamber 126, and therefore, the central chamber 126 is in direct communication with the outlet of the first layer) and is configured to moisten the exhaust of the sensor (enabling the dielectric material 124 to be in intimate contact with the first electrode 112 and the second electrode 134 [0037]; Examiner notes first electrode 112 is part of first layer 110 which has the outlet, and the first electrode is in contact with the dielectric material 124 and would therefore, be moistened by central chamber 126 which contains the dielectric material 124).
Regarding Claim 4, Murphy in view of Wildhaber teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Murphy further teaches the second area is a second skin area (The perspiration from skin 160 enters the inlets 132 [0037]; fig 6A), and the evaporation control chamber comprises a second absorber (they form a central chamber 126 which encloses the dielectric material 124 [0035]; fig 4; Examiner notes dielectric material 124 is a second absorber), configured to receive fluid collected from the second skin area and configured to moisten the microfluidic structure (allow the moisture (e.g., perspiration) to enter the central chamber 126 and become absorbed by the moisture absorbent dielectric material 124 [0037]; fig 6A)
Murphy in view of Wildhaber fails to teach a fluid transporter, configured to transport droplets of fluid from the second skin area to the second absorber.
However, Wildhaber teaches a fluid transporter (An active flow regulation module may be based on an actuated fluidic valve such as a mechanical valve, a pneumatic valve, a hydraulic valve or an electrovalve (e.g., based on the control of the electrowetting of an interface or based on the control of electroosmotic flow). [0134]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have further modified the device of Murphy in view of Wildhaber such that a fluid transporter, as taught by Wildhaber, is configured to transport droplets of fluid from the second skin area to the second absorber. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding Claim 7, Murphy discloses a method for determining sweat parameters of a user (a method and system for obtaining a quantitative measurement of moisture, and more specifically, perspiration [0008]), the method comprising:
collecting sweat originating from a first skin area (allow the moisture (e.g., perspiration) to enter the central chamber 126… The perspiration from skin 160 enters the inlets 132 [0037]; fig 6A);
collecting fluid at a second area to moisten a microfluidic structure (The third layer 130 includes one or more inlets 132 that allow the moisture (e.g., perspiration) to enter the central chamber 126… The perspiration from skin 160 enters the inlets 132 [0037]; fig 6A; Examiner notes that each inlet collects fluid from a different skin area) of a device (perspiration sensor 100 [0033]) having
a sensor configured to determine a sweat parameter from sweat from a first skin area (circuit traces that enable a sensing integrated circuit 140 to soldered in place and electrically connected to the first electrode 112 and second electrode 134 [0035]; the perspiration sensor can include a capacitive sensor signal measuring integrated circuit that accurately measures the capacitance or capacitive signal and converts it to a digital signal for transmission to a remote device [0042]; fig 4),
and an evaporation control chamber (the central chamber 126 [0037]; fig 6A), in fluidic connection with the microfluidic structure (the central chamber 126 [0037]; fig 6A), configured to utilize fluid collected a second area to moisten the microfluidic structure (The third layer 130 includes one or more inlets 132 that allow the moisture (e.g., perspiration) to enter the central chamber 126 [0037]; fig 6A),
wherein the second area is:
a second skin area (The perspiration from skin 160 enters the inlets 132 [0037]; fig 6A; Examiner notes that each inlet collects fluid from a different skin area), and/or
a surface of a condensation element (The third layer 130 includes one or more inlets 132 that allow the moisture (e.g., perspiration) to enter the central chamber 126 [0037]; fig 6A),
and determining a sweat parameter from sweat originating from the first skin area using the sensor (The method includes providing a capacitor that includes an exposed dielectric material that can absorb moisture (e.g., perspiration) produced by the skin [0029]; the perspiration sensor can include a capacitive sensor signal measuring integrated circuit that accurately measures the capacitance or capacitive signal and converts it to a digital signal for transmission to a remote device [0042]).
Murphy fails to teach wherein the second area is: a surface of a condensation element configured to condensate vapors released by the device.
However, Wildhaber teaches a device for determining sweat parameters of a user having a module used to wet sensing modules included in the device (includes a wetting sensor module 150 based on conductivity measurements, which are used to determine whether some or all of the above-mentioned modules are wet (e.g., exposed to a liquid) [0087]).
As evidenced by Yoo (US Patent Pub. No. 20200155064 – cited by Applicant), the humidity levels inside a chamber impact the accuracy of measurements (When the humidity inside the first chamber 11 is too low, the electrical signal of the measurement sensor 30 may not be caused by acetone evaporated from the sweat 2. In addition, when the temperature inside the first chamber 11 is too low, the electrical signal of the measurement sensor 30 may be caused by the ambient air. [0038]). Since Wildhaber teaches maintaining wetness of sensor modules, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective date to have modified the method of Murphy such that a surface of a condensation element is configured to condensate vapors released by the device because it would maintain the humidity of the microfluidic structure allowing for accurate measurements. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy (US Patent Pub. No. 20160256070) in view of Wildhaber (US Patent Pub. No. 20200397352) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Van Ooy et al. (WO 2013064503 A1) hereinafter Van Ooy.
Regarding Claim 5, Murphy in view of Wildhaber teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Murphy in view of Wildhaber fails to teach the evaporation control chamber is configured to evaporate the fluid collected from the second skin area, optionally with the use of a heater.
However, Van Ooy teaches an evaporation control chamber configured to evaporate fluid (the means for humidity control is a fluid evaporator in the first chamber portion (pg. 2, lines 24-25)), optionally with the use of a heater (The temperature of the cooling or heating fluid is typically controlled by a heater (pg. 3, lines 44-45)).
Van Ooy is considered analogous art to the present invention because it is reasonably pertinent to a problem faced by the inventors.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have further modified the device of Murphy in view of Wildhaber such that the evaporation control chamber is configured to evaporate the fluid collected from the second skin area, optionally with the use of a heater, as taught by Van Ooy, because evaporating fluid would allow for humidity control of the microfluidic structure which, as evidenced by Yoo in claim 1 above, affects the accuracy of measurements. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy (US Patent Pub. No. 20160256070) in view of Wildhaber (US Patent Pub. No. 20200397352) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hsieh et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 20190035653) hereinafter Hsieh.
Regarding Claim 6, Murphy in view of Wildhaber teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Murphy teaches the device comprises:
the vent configured to release vapors out of the device (the third or bottom layer 130...third layer 130 includes one or more inlets 132 [0035]; The bottom layer can also include one or more pores, inlets or vents that enable perspiration released from the skin to enter central chamber and be absorbed by the dielectric material in the dielectric space. [0009]);
the condensation element in connection to the vent and the microfluidic structure and configured to condensate vapors (The third layer 130 includes one or more inlets 132 that allow the moisture (e.g., perspiration) to enter the central chamber 126 [0037]; fig 6A).
Murphy in view of Wildhaber fails to teach wherein the device is constructed with:
a first material at the collection chamber and the sensor, the first material having a first thermal resistance;
a second material at the vent and the condensation element, the second material having a second thermal resistance, and wherein:
the first thermal resistance is higher than the second thermal resistance to condensate vapors at the condensation element before being released out of the device through the vent.
However, Hsieh teaches a device constructed with a first material at a collection chamber, the first material having a first thermal resistance (Thermal chamber 110 is a structure configured to apply heat to a substrate, e.g., substrate 150, contained within thermal chamber 110. [0012]; the one or more gasses flowing out of thermal chamber 110 include one or more vapors emitted from a substrate, e.g., substrate 150, as a result of heating the substrate [0019]; Examiner notes that thermal chamber 110 is constructed a first material that has a first thermal resistance);
a second material at a vent, the second material having a second thermal resistance (Exhaust structure 130 includes one or more materials having a high thermal conductivity, and is thereby configured to provide a high thermal conductivity path from exhaust inlet 132 to exhaust outlet 134. [0029]), and wherein:
the first thermal resistance is higher than the second thermal resistance to condensate vapors before being released out of the device through the vent (table 1; By having a reduced temperature gradient, buildup of condensate material in exhaust structure 130 is reduced compared to approaches that do not include a high thermal conductivity path from a hot plate to an exhaust outlet, thereby reducing cleaning frequency and improving control of gas flow out of thermal chamber 110. [0036]; Examiner notes that the second material has a lower thermal resistance than the first material because there is a drop in temperature between the thermal chamber and the exhaust structure).
Hsieh is considered analogous art to the present invention because it is reasonably pertinent to a problem faced by the inventors.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have further modified the device of Murphy in view of Wildhaber such that the device is constructed with: a first material at the collection chamber and the sensor, the first material having a first thermal resistance; a second material at the vent and the condensation element, the second material having a second thermal resistance, and wherein: the first thermal resistance is higher than the second thermal resistance to condensate vapors at the condensation element before being released out of the device through the vent, as taught by Hsieh, because it would control the flow of vapors out of the collection chamber and reduce cleaning frequency of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANKI M BAVA whose telephone number is (571)272-0416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-6:00 ET.
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.
/JANKI M BAVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ETSUB D BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791