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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/26/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “first connexion mean” in line 8. This should read “first connection means” in order to consistent with the future recitation in claim 6.
Claim 3 recites “by means of an attachment points” in line 3. This should read “by means of an attachment point”.
Claim 4 recites “at least on of said” in line 4. This should read “at least one of said”.
Claim 5 recites “combined to said first stretchable band” in lines 2-3. This should read “combined with said first stretchable band”.
Claim 14 recites “Method according to claim 14” in line 1. This should read “Method according to claim 13”.
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. Such claim limitations are:
• “first connection means” first recited in claim 1.
Because this claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, tit are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure for “first connection means” is identified as connecting member 100, as described in par. [0021]. Connecting member 100 is described as an element that allows clipping the two extremities of a stretchable band so as to maintain it on the body of a patient, for example slots with clamping members as described in par. [0040].
All cited paragraph numbers of the instant application in this Office action are in reference to the published application.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations 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.
It is noted that sufficient structure is recited in claim 6 such that the claim limitation of “first connection means” is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in claim 6 and all claims that depend therefrom. Therefore, the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is made for claims 1-5 and 13-16.
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 1-8 and 13-19 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 “said central unit” in line 22. It is unclear which of the at least one central units this recitation refers to. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, the “said central unit” is interpreted as “one of said at least one central unit”.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “at least one of said predetermined positions corresponds to a dorsal position of the patient” in lines 1-2. It is unclear what is meant by “a dorsal position of the patient”. The dorsal position of a patient may be considered to be the supine position, where the patient lays on their back. It is unclear how this position may correspond to one of said predetermined positions on the at least on first stretchable bands. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, any predetermined position is considered as “at least one of said predetermined positions corresponds to a position on the dorsal side of the patient”.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “cross the at least one first wire at said predetermined position” in line 4. It is unclear which of the predetermined positions as recited in line 20 of claim 1 that “said predetermined position” refers to. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as “cross the at least one first wire at one of said predetermined positions”.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “at least one first stretchable band” in line 4, “at least one folded wire” in line 5, “a first oscillator” in line 5, “a first frequency” in line 5, “a first stretch direction” in line 6, “at least a second folded electrically conductive wire” in line 8, “a second stretch direction” in line 9, “a second oscillator” in line 10, “a second frequency” in line 10, and “a predetermined position” in line 12. Claim 13 depends from claim 1, therefore each of the elements listed above have antecedent basis in claim 1. All of the elements above are recited as if they are new claim elements, and therefore it is unclear whether they correspond to the similarly claimed elements of claim 1, or if they are different, distinct elements. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, each of the claimed elements are considered to be the same as their corresponding claim elements in claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “said central unit is programmable with algorithm allowing to associate a position of the patient to an apnea event” in lines 1-2. It is unclear how the an algorithm programmed to the central unit can allow an association of the position of the patient to an apnea event. It is unclear what structure or limitation is preventing the association, and therefore it is unclear the limitation that “allow” imparts on the claim. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, “said central unit is programmable with algorithm allowing to associate a position of the patient to an apnea event” is interpreted as “said central unit is programmable with an algorithm configured to associate a position of the patient to an apnea event”.
Regarding claims 13 and 15, claim 13 recites “associate a position of the patient” in line 16. It is unclear whether this is the same position determined by the second electrically conductive wire as claimed in claim 1, or a different position. A similar recitation is present in line 2 of claim 15. Clarification is requested.
For the purposes of examination, any detected position of the patient will read on the limitations of claims 13 and 15.
All claims not explicitly addressed above are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are rejected by virtue of their dependency on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-5, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication 2011/0087115 by Sackner et al. – cited by Applicant, hereinafter “Sackner”.
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 2 and 6 of Sackner teaches a wearable device adapted to be worn by a patient (Fig. 2, non-invasive physiologic monitoring garment 30), comprising at least one first stretchable band ([0116]; rib cage plethysmographic sensor 21) comprising at least one folded first electrically conductive wire having a first end and a second end, both of its first end and second end being connected to a first oscillator working at a first frequency ([0063, 0141]; “Varying loop inductance may be measured by techniques known in the art, such as, e.g., by connecting the loop as the inductance in a variable frequency LC oscillator”. Thereby each band must be connected to an oscillator. [0079]; Further, for each wire to be connected to an oscillator, both ends must be connected in order to create a conductor loop.), wherein said at least one first stretchable band is stretchable in a first stretch direction ([0063]; The band 21 is configured to be positioned around the circumference of the torso. The first stretch direction can be considered to be the expansion in this direction), at least a second folded electrically conductive wire (hemithoracic inductive plethysmographic sensor 23) having a first end and a second end, both of its first end and second end being connected to a second oscillator working at a second frequency, different from the first frequency ([0109]; microprocessor unit 33 has separate oscillator models tuned to different frequencies for each sensor), wherein said second folded wire is adapted to be extended in a second stretch direction different from the first stretch direction (the hemithoracic sensors are orthogonal to the sensor 21, defining a second stretch direction), wherein said at least one first electrically conductive wire and said at least second electrically conductive wire are connected to at least one central unit adapted to determine the corresponding inductance and/or variation of inductance ([0109, 0179]; “Microprocessor unit 33 comprises, in one embodiment, an oscillator-demodulator (see below) unit for the inductive plethysmographic sensors 20-25, and either has multiplex capabilities or takes the form of a similarity of separate oscillator modules tuned to respectively different frequencies for eliminating cross-talk between the various sensors 20-25”. Further, the respiratory data is based on the measured inductance), wherein said at least one first stretchable band comprises predetermined positions along its length, and wherein said at least second conductive wire crosses said first stretchable band at said predetermined positions (Any location of interest can be considered a predetermined position, such as where the band of sensor 21 overlaps with the band of sensor 23) and wherein said central unit comprises computing means adapted to identify an apnea event out of the inductance variations of said at least one folded first electrically conductive wire ([0137]; physiologic parameters that relate to apnea events may be programmed based on sensor 21 in order to control CPAP or BiPAP ventilators) and to determine a position of the patient out of the inductance variation of said at least a second folded electrically conductive wire ([0118, 0181]; The hemithoracic sensors are arranged to measure motion (i.e., a difference in positions) between the hemithoraces of the patient).
Figs. 2 and 6 of Sackner does not teach both extremities of said at least one stretchable band are joined together by means of a first connection means.
Fig. 5 of Sackner teaches an embodiment of garment 30 wherein each of the sensors comprises a connector for closing and bridging the conductive loops. Allowing each sensor to separately close via connectors helps facilitate dressing with the sensors ([0085, 0140]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the system taught by Figs. 2 and 6 of Sackner to include the connection means to join together both extremities of at least one stretchable band, in order to help facilitate dressing with the sensors, as taught by Sackner ([0140]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Sackner teaches the wearable device according to claim 1, wherein at least one of said predetermined positions corresponds to a dorsal position of the patient. As seen in Fig. 2, the sensor 23 crosses sensor 21 on the anterior (i.e. ventral) side of the patient. The sensor 23 must also cross the sensor 21 on the posterior (i.e., dorsal) side of the patient as well. This would define a predetermined position on the dorsal side of the patient.
Regarding claim 3, modified Sackner teaches the wearable device according to claim 1, wherein said at least one second wire, or some of said at least one second wire, are independent from said first stretchable band and combined to at least one second stretchable band stretchable in said second stretch direction (See the rejection of claim 1 the second wire and second stretchable band correspond to sensor 23 which stretches in a different direction than that of sensor 21), wherein said at least one second stretchable band crosses said at least first stretchable band at one of said predetermined position by means of an attachment points ([0100]; Sackner teaches that the sensors can be embroidered, sewn, embedded, woven, printed onto or otherwise affixed to or carried on a garment 31. This would comprise all points along the sensor being attachment points, and therefore where sensors 21 and 23 cross would also be attachment points).
Regarding claim 4, modified Sackner teaches the wearable device according to claim 1, comprising two first stretchable bands arranged parallel to each other (Sensor 21 as applied to claim 1 and sensor 22 are parallel) and one or more second stretchable bands being arranged orthogonally to said first stretchable band (The sensors 23 are arranged in a perpendicular (i.e., orthogonal) direction relative to sensors 21 and 22), wherein at least one of said second stretchable bands is arranged with regards to said first stretchable bands at a position corresponding to the dorsal side of the patient (See the rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 5, modified Sackner teaches the wearable device according to claim 1, wherein said at least one second wire, or some of said at least one second wire, are combined to said first stretchable band extending within the width of said first stretchable band so as to cross the at least one first wire at said predetermined position (See the rejection of claims 1 and 3; The sensors may be attached to the garment. The points where the sensors are both attached, they can be considered to be combined with each other within the width of the first stretchable band (the bands cross at this point and the second band traverses the width of the first band).).
Regarding claim 16, modified Sackner teaches the wearable device according to claim 1, wherein said central unit is programmable with specific predetermined positions of said at least second conductive wire, so that any position of the patient can be determined when an apnea event is detected. The unit is configured to determine the positions of the hemithoraces and measure the motion between them based on the sensors being operatively arranged for this purpose. The calculations based on the operative arrangement can be considered the “central unit is programmable with specific predetermined positions of said at least second conductive wire”. Further, they are configured to measure the motion in any position that the patient may be in, thereby determining the position of the hemithoraces in any position of the patient ([0118, 0181]). Further, the system is configured to measure data from all sensors, therefore the data from sensor 23 is capable of being measured when an apnea event is detected.
Claims 6-8 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sackner in view of US Patent Publication 2018/0070865 by Balko et al. – cited by Applicant, hereinafter “Balko”.
Regarding claims 6-7, modified Sackner teaches the wearable device according to claim 1, wherein said first connection means joining both extremities of said first stretchable band is a connecting member (connector as described in claim 1). Modified Sackner does not teach said first connection means comprising a casing having a first pair of two opposite slots adapted to receive said first stretchable band and at least one clamping member adapted to maintain said first stretchable band; or comprising an electrical connector adapted to contact said at least one folded first electrically conductive wire once the corresponding stretchable band is clamped, and wherein said central unit is included in said connecting member.
Balko teaches a respiratory effort sensing apparatus (2) comprising a connector (6 and 12A-B) for connecting each side of each inductance loop. The connector includes a clamping part (cover portion 18) configured to secure the band within a slot (28) on either end of the connector. The connector comprises a casing (housing portion 14) with electrical connectors (44A-B) and houses a microprocessor configured to detect the coupling of the ends of the sensors with the electrical connectors ([0025-0026]). The system is configured to remain in “sleep” mode until the buckles are fastened, thereby saving power while the system is not in use ([0015]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the connectors taught by modified Sackner, such that said first connection means comprising a casing having a first pair of two opposite slots adapted to receive said first stretchable band and at least one clamping member adapted to maintain said first stretchable band; and comprising an electrical connector adapted to contact said at least one folded first electrically conductive wire once the corresponding stretchable band is clamped, and wherein said central unit is included in said connecting member, in order to enable a sleep mode that can save power while the system is not in use, as taught by Balko ([0015]).
It is noted that the monitoring recording device (RMRD) 6 as taught by Balko is a device configured to output an oscillatory signal, record data, and process data similarly to microprocessor unit 33 of Sackner. Therefore, in the combination of Sackner and Balko, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have integrated the capabilities of the microprocessor unit 33 into the connector (i.e., monitoring recording device (RMRD) 6 of Balko). It is further noted that a connecting member would also be provided for each of the inductive plethysmographic sensors, in order to save power related to each sensor.
Regarding claim 8, Sackner in view of Balko teaches the wearable device according to claim 6, but does not teach wherein said connecting member further comprises a second pair of slots arranged orthogonal to the first pair of slots so as to receive a second stretchable band orthogonal to the first stretchable band, wherein said connecting member corresponds to an attachment point at said predetermined positions.
Sackner teaches that sensors 21 and 23 cross over each other on the dorsal side in an orthogonal manner (See the rejection of claim 2). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the device taught by Sackner in view of Balko such that the sensors 21 and 23 connect in the same place and into the same device. This combination would reduce the number of devices necessary by allowing sensors 21 and 23 to share a device and would still be capable of performing all of the functions of Sackner in view of Balko, thereby reducing the cost of the wearable device. It is noted that the device taught by Sackner comprises a number of sensors are connected to (i.e., share) microprocessor unit 33, therefore it would be obvious to share a processing unit between sensors. In this combination, the connector would comprise a pair of slots orthogonal to the first pair of slots for receiving the second band, which is disposed in an orthogonal manner to the first band. The position where the sensors cross can be considered a predetermined position.
Regarding claim 17, Sackner in view of Balko teaches the wearable device according to claim 6, wherein said connecting member corresponds to one of said at least one central unit (Balko, Fig. 6, [0021, 0025-0026]; The connectors as taught by Balko include processing units (processing apparatus 34 within PCB assembly 32) to determine the connection to the extremities of the belts (sensors)).
Regarding claim 18, Sackner in view of Balko teaches the wearable device according to claim 6, wherein said connecting member further comprises recording means and/or communication means adapted to record and/or communicate sensed data (Sackner, [0109]; microprocessor unit 33 can provide data logging functions).
Regarding claim 19, Sackner in view of Balko teaches the wearable device according to claim 6, wherein said connecting member comprises a first connecting member maintaining a first stretchable band (as applied to claim 6) and a second connecting member maintaining a second stretchable band (As applied in claim 6, each of the bands comprises a connector. The band 22 can be considered a second band), said first and second connecting members being associated to a support (Sackner, Fig. 2, [0084]; The underlying garment can be considered a support as both bonds contact it and can be supported by the subject via the garment), so as to maintain the first and second stretchable bands at a predetermined distance from each other (Sackner, [0084]; The garment is sized such that the stretchable bands do not move relative to each other, thereby maintaining a predetermined distance).
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sackner, as applied to claim 1, in view of US Patent Publication 2015/0141762 by Heinrich et al., hereinafter “Heinrich”.
Regarding claim 13, modified Sackner teaches a method of determining the position of a patient while monitoring the breath of the patient by means of the wearable device according to claim 1, comprising:
a step a) of monitoring the breath of a patient by respiratory inductance plethysmography, using at least one first stretchable band combined to at least one first folded wire and a first oscillator working at a first frequency (See the rejection of claim 1), said first stretchable band being stretched in a first stretch direction (See the rejection of claim 1);
a step b) of determining the position of the patient by respiratory inductance plethysmography, using at least a second folded electrically conductive wire, arranged in a second stretch direction crossing the first direction (See the rejection of claim 1, the hemithoracic sensors determine the position of the hemithoraces relative to each other and cross the first direction) and connected to a second oscillator working at a second frequency, different from said first frequency (See the rejection of claim 1), wherein said at least one second folded electrically conductive wire is placed at a predetermined position along the first stretchable band (See the rejection of claim 1),
a step c) of computing the data related to said at least one first wire and the data related to said at least one second wire for a given period of time ([0065]; data from the first sensor (21) relating to apneas and data from the second sensor (23) relating to individual lung function can be determined. It is noted that data related to the separate hemithoraces are indicative of individual lung function).
Sackner does not teach a step d) of determining a position of a patient during an apnea event, based on the computed data.
Heinrich teaches a method of using body position information to enable more robust sleep apnea detection. In some patients with obstructive sleep apnea, sleeping on one’s back (i.e., supine position), the severity of the apnea and sleep disturbance can be twice as high in patients with Positional Sleep Apnea (PSA). Conversely, a patient with little or no change in the severity of their sleep apnea based on their position can be categorized as having Nonpositional Sleep Apnea (NSA) ([0003]). Determining whether a patient has PSA or OSA can be done by using software/algorithms for associating the number of sleep apnea events in supine and non-supine positions ([0076-0082]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the method of modified Sackner to include a step d) of determining a position of a patient during an apnea event, based on the computed data, in order to determine whether a patient has Positional or Nonpositional Sleep Apnea, as taught by Heinrich ([0003, 0076-0082]). Determining whether a patient has PSA or NSA would be beneficial as it would inform the patient and their doctor of details about their sleep apnea and a diagnosis of PSA would allow for suggestions and interventions to be made to mitigate the number and severity of sleep apnea events. It is noted that the device of Sackner is configured to obtain a body position of the patient ([0122]; a body position sensor such as an accelerometer can be used to indicate an individual’s posture), and therefore a position relating to the type of sleep apnea is determined by Sackner, and the modification in view of Heinrich simply associating data already collected by Sackner.
Regarding claim 15, modified Sackner teaches the wearable device according to claim 1, wherein the device is configured to obtain a body position of the patient ([0122]; a body position sensor such as an accelerometer can be used to indicate an individual’s posture). Modified Sackner does not teach wherein said central unit is programmable with an algorithm allowing to associate a position of the patient to an apnea event.
Heinrich teaches a method of using body position information to enable more robust sleep apnea detection. In some patients with obstructive sleep apnea, sleeping on one’s back (i.e., supine position), the severity of the apnea and sleep disturbance can be twice as high in patients with Positional Sleep Apnea (PSA). Conversely, a patient with little or no change in the severity of their sleep apnea based on their position can be categorized as having Nonpositional Sleep Apnea (NSA) ([0003]). Determining whether a patient has PSA or OSA can be done by using software/algorithms for associating the number of sleep apnea events in supine and non-supine positions ([0076-0082]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the wearable device of modified Sackner such that said central unit is programmable with an algorithm allowing to associate a position of the patient to an apnea event, in order to determine whether a patient has Positional or Nonpositional Sleep Apnea, as taught by Heinrich ([0003, 0076-0082]). Determining whether a patient has PSA or NSA would be beneficial as it would inform the patient and their doctor of details about their sleep apnea and a diagnosis of PSA would allow for suggestions and interventions to be made to mitigate the number and severity of sleep apnea events.
Claim 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sackner in view of Heinrich in view of Balko.
Regarding claim 14, Sackner in view of Heinrich teaches the method according to claim 14, but does not teach further comprising a step of checking the presence and the integrity of both the at least one first wire and the at least one second wire.
Balko teaches a respiratory effort sensing apparatus (2) comprising a connector (6 and 12A-B) for connecting each side of each inductance loop. The connector comprises a casing with electrical connectors (44A-B) and houses a microprocessor configured to detect the coupling of the ends of the sensors with the electrical connectors ([0025-0026]). The apparatus is configured to remain in “sleep” mode until the buckles are fastened, thereby saving power while the system is not in use ([0015]). This method of confirming electrical connections is analogous to checking the presence and integrity of the wires because the wires establish an electrical connection with electrical connectors (44A-B).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the method taught by Sackner in view of Heinrich to further comprise a step of checking the presence and the integrity of both the at least one first wire and the at least one second wire, in order to enable a sleep mode that can save power while the system is not in use, as taught by Balko ([0015]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication 2020/0383604 by Ruha teaches a method of determining the distance between respiratory inductance plethysmography RIP) by using the inductances of two parallel RIP bands.
US Patent Publication 2011/0009766 by McCool teaches a method of determining a sleeping position based on magnetometers positioned on the thorax.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NELSON A GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)270-0971. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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.
/NELSON ALEXANDER GLOVER/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791