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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “comprising :” (line 1) appears that it should be “comprising:”.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “individual ;” (line 2) appears that it should be “individual;”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/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.
For claim 1, the claim language “the pad being arranged on the inner face of the sensor close to a microneedle” is ambiguous. It is unclear what the maximum amount of space or distance is necessary for the pad to be considered “close” to the microneedle. The claim is examined as meaning that the pad is arranged on the inner face of the sensor with the needle.
For claim 9, the claim term “said at least one passage” lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as depending from claim 8.
Dependent claim(s) 2-16 fail to cure the ambiguity of independent claim 1, thus claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5, 7, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0004989 to Dhillon.
For claim 1, Dhillon discloses a sensor for a body monitoring device (Abstract) comprising:
an inner face (face of 10/12 and 50 that contact the skin, see Fig. 8 and para [0039]) designed to come into contact with the skin of an individual (Fig. 8 and para [0039]);
at least one microneedle (18) (Figs. 1 and 7A-B) (para [0024]) arranged on the inner face (as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 7A-B);
at least one pad (50) (Fig. 8) (para [0039]) of moisture-absorbing material (para [0040]), the pad being arranged on the inner face of the sensor (para [0039]) close to a microneedle (Fig. 8) (also see Figs. 7A-B) so as to absorb moisture when the sensor is on the skin (para [0039]).
For claim 5, Dhillon further discloses wherein the pad consists of at least one absorbent material (para [0040]).
For claim 7, Dhillon further discloses wherein the pad comprises one of the shapes selected from the following group: polygonal, rounded, parallelepiped, triangle, round (see Fig. 8).
For claim 10, Dhillon further discloses at least one housing (60), at least one deck supporting (12) at least one microneedle (as can be seen in Fig. 1), each deck being fixedly mounted in a housing (as can be seen in Fig. 8).
For claim 11, Dhillon further discloses a body monitoring device comprising a sensor (para [0001]) according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
For claim 12, Dhillon further discloses wherein the absorbent material is selected from the following group: fiber, foam, textile fiber or artificial fiber, hydrogel, silica gel, magnesium sulfate, calcium chloride, calcium sulfate, lithium chloride, zeolites; or a non-woven pad or a woven pad consisting of woven hydrophilic gauze (para [0040], which refers to U.S. Patent No. 4,077,407, and the relevant disclosure of that patent being col. 17, lines 42-51).
For claim 13, Dhillon further discloses wherein the non-woven pad consists of a mixture of viscose and polyester (Examiner’s Note: this claim further limiting an alternative limitation not previously relied upon for the teaching in Dhillon).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhillon in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0069482 to Ryu et al. (hereinafter “Ryu”).
For claim 4, Dhillon further discloses a plurality of microneedles distributed in a determined zone of the inner face (as can be seen in Fig. 2).
Dhillon does not expressly disclose at least two pads, each arranged at the ends of said zone.
However, Ryu teaches at least two pads (see Figs. 3A-B, the microneedles being arranged on the mesh layer between the two base layers shown in those figures) (also see para [0020], which teaches that the base layer is water-soluble), each arranged at the ends of a zone (see Figs. 3A-B).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Dhillon to include at least two pads, each arranged at the ends of said zone, in view of the teachings of Ryu, because such a modification would be the simple substitution of the arrangement of the microneedles to the pad(s) that would yield the predictable result of absorbing sweat from a person’s skin while the needles are puncturing the skin. Additionally, it has been held that the mere re-arrangement of parts is obvious to a skilled artisan. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
For claim 14, Dhillon does not expressly disclose wherein the pad has a thickness of between 0.1 and 2mm.
However, Ryu teaches wherein the pad has a thickness of between 0.1 and 2mm (para [0119]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Dhillon wherein the pad has a thickness of between 0.1 and 2mm, in view of the teachings of Ryu, for the obvious advantage of having the device stay sufficiently flexible so that it can be applied to a curved surface (see para [0119] of Ryu).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhillon in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0163656 to Velev et al. (hereinafter “Velev”).
For claim 6, Dhillon does not expressly disclose wherein the pad has a surface area of between 1 and 500 mm2.
However, Velev teaches wherein the pad has a surface area of between 1 and 500 mm2 (para [0060] and/or [0062]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Dhillon wherein the pad has a surface area of between 1 and 500 mm2, in view of the teachings of Velev, because such a dimension is a suitable dimension for the pad in Dhillon that would lead to the predictable result of absorbing sweat at the device is placed on a person’s skin.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhillon in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0330008 to Sjostedt.
For claim 8, Dhillon does not expressly disclose at least one passage formed in the thickness of the sensor and in communication with the outside, said passage being configured to supply air to at least one microneedle.
However, Sjostedt teaches at least one passage (6) formed in the thickness of the sensor (as can be seen in Figs. 4, 5, or 7) and in communication with the outside (para [0041], [0064], and [0067]), said passage being configured to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) supply air to at least one microneedle (para [0040]-[0041]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Dhillon to include at least one passage formed in the thickness of the sensor and in communication with the outside, said passage being configured to supply air to at least one microneedle, in view of the teachings of Sjostedt, for the obvious advantage of evaporating fluid that has been collected by the pad (see para [0041] of Sjostedt).
For claim 9, Dhillon, as modified, further discloses wherein said at least one passage is arranged between the microneedles (as can be seen in Figs. 4, 5, or 7 of Sjostedt).
For claim 16, Dhillon, as modified, further discloses wherein the passage is permeable to water (para [0043] of Sjostedt).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhillon in view of Velev and Ryu.
For claim 15, Dhillon does not expressly disclose wherein the pad has a surface area of between 1 and 500 mm2 and a thickness between 0.1 and 2mm.
However, Velev teaches wherein the pad has a surface area of between 1 and 500 mm2 (para [0060] and/or [0062]).
Additionally, Ryu teaches wherein the pad has a thickness of between 0.1 and 2mm (para [0119]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Dhillon wherein the pad has a surface area of between 1 and 500 mm2 and a thickness between 0.1 and 2mm, in view of the teachings of Velev and Ryu, because such a dimension is a suitable dimension for the pad in Dhillon that would lead to the predictable result of absorbing sweat at the device is placed on a person’s skin and for the obvious advantage of having the device stay sufficiently flexible so that it can be applied to a curved surface (see para [0119] of Ryu).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791