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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. There is hyperlink on instant specification p. 3 paragraph 1.
This application does not contain an abstract of the disclosure as required by 37 CFR 1.72(b). An abstract on a separate sheet is required. It is noted that there is an English Abstract for the WIPO Publication, WO 2022179660 A1, which is filed within application file and is non-English of which the instant application is a 371; however, there does not seem to be an abstract filed for the instant application.
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
means of neural networks in claim 4; structure found in e.g. instant specification p. 7 last paragraph; instant Fig. 1-3;
means for detecting the time in claim 10; structure found in e.g. instant specification p. 11 last paragraph; instant Fig. 1-3.
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:
evaluation unit in claim 1, 7 and dependents; structure found in e.g. Fig. 1-3;
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.
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 § 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) 1-8, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Selvaraj (US 20200323435 A1; 10/15/2020; cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Selvaraj teaches method for detecting the state of health of a person ([0023]), comprising the steps of
- detecting the body temperature of the person, wherein two or more temperature sensors are used in parallel and at least one temperature sensor is a skin sensor ([0020]-[0021]),
- transmission (2.1, 2.2) of the detected body temperature values to an evaluation unit (5) (Fig. 3; Fig. 6; [0021]), and
- evaluation (6) of the body temperature values by the evaluation unit (5) (Fig. 3; Fig. 6; [0021]),
wherein the detection of the body temperature takes place with a frequency of at least one measurement every 10 minutes (Fig. 5a-5b; [0027]; [0029]; [0040]) and wherein for the evaluation (6) of the body temperature values a comparison of the detected body temperature values with previously determined standard values of the body temperature of the person is carried out (Fig. 3; [0023] “observe improvement or degradation of patient’s body temperature on a real-time basis”; [0029]; [0031] “relative changes…how much…change in the temperature the patient or user is experiencing from time-to-time”; [0044]-[0045]).
Regarding claim 2, Selvaraj teaches the detection of the body temperature is carried out with a frequency of at least one measurement per minute ([0040] “1 min”).
Regarding claim 3, Selvaraj teaches the evaluation (6) of the body temperature values takes place on a server (Fig. 3; Fig. 6; [0021] “server…for processing, analysis, and storage.”; [0023] “Secure Server”; [0024]).
Regarding claim 4, Selvaraj teaches the evaluation (6) of the body temperature values is carried out by means of neural networks ([0032]).
Regarding claim 5, Selvaraj teaches in that for the evaluation (6) of the body temperature values an evaluation algorithm is used, which is an analytical algorithm or a self-learning algorithm ([0032]).
Regarding claim 6, Selvaraj teaches in addition to the body temperature, the pulse of the person and/or the oxygen content of the blood of the person and/or a movement pattern of the person and/or the blood pressure of the person and/or the breathing rate of the person and/or the skin resistance of the person and/or the time (Fig. 5a-5b; [0023]; [0029]; [0039]-[0040]) and/or duration of sleep phases of the person are detected.
Regarding claim 7, Selvaraj teaches system for detecting the state of health of a person ([0023]), which is designed as a system to be worn on the wrist of a person ([0027] “wrist”), comprising
- two or more temperature sensors for parallel detection of body temperature, wherein at least one temperature sensor is a skin sensor ([0020]-[0021]),
- at least one evaluation unit (5) to which the data detected by the sensors are transmitted for evaluation (6) of the body temperature values by comparison of the detected body temperature values with previously determined standard values of the body temperature of the person (Fig. 3; Fig. 6; [0021]; [0023] “observe improvement or degradation of patient’s body temperature on a real-time basis”; [0029]; [0031] “relative changes…how much…change in the temperature the patient or user is experiencing form time-to-time”; [0044]-[0045]);
wherein the sensors are suitable for detecting the body temperature at least once every 10 minutes (Fig. 5a-5b; [0027]; [0029]; [0040]) and transmitting it to the evaluation unit (5) (Fig. 3; Fig. 6; [0021]).
Regarding claim 8, Selvaraj teaches the sensor is suitable for detecting the body temperature at least once per minute and transmitting it to the evaluation unit (5) (Fig. 5a-5b; [0027]; [0029]; [0040] “1 min”).
Regarding claim 10, Selvaraj teaches further comprising a heart rate monitor and/or an oxygen sensor and/or a blood pressure monitor and/or a respiratory rate monitor and/or a skin resistance monitor and/or a means for detecting the time (Fig. 5a-5b; [0023]; [0029]; [0039]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 11, Selvaraj teaches further comprising a Bluetooth transmitter and/or a Bluetooth receiver ([0021] “Bluetooth”).
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selvaraj as applied to claim 7 above, in view of Pardey (US 20190110692 A1; 4/18/2019).
Regarding claim 9, Selvaraj does not teach further comprising an accelerometer for detecting a movement pattern and/or sleep phases of the person. However, Pardey teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; [0021]; [0083]-[0095]) further comprising an accelerometer for detecting a movement pattern and/or sleep phases of the person (Fig. 9a; [0429]; [0460] “one or more accelerometers—these may be used to measure movement of the user, which can enable the body temperature reading to be adjusted for the user's activity level”). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Selvaraj to include these features as taught by Pardey because this enables adjusting for activity level ([0460]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan T Kuo whose telephone number is (408)918-7534. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. PT.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
/JONATHAN T KUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792