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 .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 16 be found allowable, claim 15 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 – 22 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. With regard to claims 1 and 16, although the claims are drawn to methods of calibrating non-invasive measurement information, the body of the claim refers to “personalizing the continuous biometric information to the non-invasive biometric information” which generally implies (“personalizing… to…”) that the continuous data is being adjusted to better correspond with the non-invasive data, whereas the preamble (“calibrating the non-invasive biometric information”) would be based upon updating the mapping of the non-invasive data relative to the invasive value. As such, it is unclear whether the body of the claim properly aligns with the indication of the preamble.
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, 2, 6 – 8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (USPGPub 2019/0110751 – cited by Applicant). Lee discloses a method of calibrating non-invasive biometric information [0073], the method comprising:
measuring continuous biometric information of a user by a continuous biometric information measurement device in which a part of a sensor is inserted into a body of the user and measures biometric information of the user over a certain period of time ([0073]: a change amount of bio-information is obtained through blood collection over time);
measuring non-invasive biometric information of the user for the certain period of time using a non-invasive biometric information measurement device that measures the biometric information of the user at a distance away from or in contact with skin of the user ([0050]); and
learning by personalizing the continuous biometric information corresponding to the non-invasive biometric information to the user by comparing the continuous biometric information with the non-invasive biometric information measured for the certain period of time ([0073], [0110], [0111]).
Furthermore, Lee teaches details consistent with dependent claims 2 and 6 - 8, as disclosed by Figs. 1, 7 and 10 and paragraphs [0050]-[0084].
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.
Claim(s) 3 - 5, 9, 10 and 12 - 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, as applied to claims 1, 2, 6 – 8, and 11 above. Lee teaches a calibration method, as discussed. As such, Lee teaches all of the features of the claimed invention except for incorporating known pattern recognition and event detection analysis, as well as repeating/updating the calibration, as needed. However, it has generally been held to be within the skill level of the art to modify a method to incorporate known processing/calibration techniques associated with monitoring of physiological parameters, and thus, without a showing of unexpected results or criticality it would have been obvious to have modified Lee accordingly.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Lee teaches a method of calibration. Applicant cites several additional calibration arrangements and Heinonen et al. (USPN 5,840,020) teach an a further calibration updating process. However, the prior art does not teach or suggest a method of calibrating that includes comparing event information and increase/decrease patterns from both non-invasive and continuous biometric information for learning by personalizing the information, along with acquiring additional event and increase/decrease patterns for calibrating the additional information, in combination with the other claimed steps.
Claims 16 - 22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC FRANK WINAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4736. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 am - 6 pm.
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, Chuck Marmor, II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/ERIC F WINAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights