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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page , filed 24 March 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of Claim 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 24 March 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 1, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the sweat teaches that a user can input thresholds the controller (20010) can react to and attempt to change the users biological state based on whether it is above or below this threshold. Therefore Ly paragraph 30 teaches the present limitations as claimed.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4, 13, & 16 objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase "wherein the a plurality of sensors" should be "wherein a plurality of sensors". Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 11-13, & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0123570 hereinafter Ly in view of US 2016/016762 hereinafter Krueger in further view of US 2020/034971 hereinafter Schirm.
In regards to Claim 1: Ly teaches a wearable stress-reducing system (Ly, Paragraph 12), the system comprising:
a plurality of sensors (Ly, Paragraph 26);
a stimulating device configured to provide a stress-reducing stimulation to a portion of skin of the user (Ly, Paragraph 27; Figure 1 Item 10030); and
a control system comprising a controller (Ly, Paragraph 27; Figure 1 Item 10010), the controller comprising a logic processor that is configured to:
determine a stress indicator measurement sensor (Ly, Paragraph 36; Figure 5 Item 50010),
determine a modified stress-reducing stimulation when the stress indicator measurement is greater than a predetermined threshold (Ly, Paragraph 30; Figure 1 Item 20010; “The computing device 20010 may be programmed to respond to the individual's breathing rate or any other factors by controlling the heartbeat and/or breathing apparatus to slow down, speed up, increase or decrease intensity, or any other command; in response to a pre-programmed routine or in response to user input or configuration.”; Examiner interprets programmed routine as setting a threshold for device.), and
control the stimulating device to provide the modified stress-reducing stimulation to lower the stress indicator measurement below the predetermined threshold (Ly, Paragraph 30; “A user of the device may configure it to "Calm Mode" which would cause the device to monitor the user's breathing rate and control the breathing apparatus to breathe always slightly slower than the user, inducing the user to calm down.”).
Ly does not teach wherein; the plurality of sensors, including an electrochemical sensor; the stress indicator measurement being cortisol; and the stress reducing stimulation being a cooling stimulation.
Krueger teaches the plurality of sensors, including an electrochemical sensor (Krueger, Paragraph 59), and the stress indicator measurement being cortisol (Krueger, Paragraph 61).
The substitution of one known element (pressure sensor) as taught by Ly for another (galvanic skin response sensor) as taught by Krueger would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention since the substitution of a galvanic skin response sensor as shown in Krueger would have yielded predictable results, namely, a known way to accurately measure stress.
Schirm teaches of the stress reducing stimulation being a cooling stimulation (Schirm, Paragraph 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the cooling system taught in Schirm to the haptic communication system taught in a modified Ly, the motivation being to provide an appropriately composed tuning component such that it would improve the sound characteristics of the system.
In regards to Claim 2: A modified Ly teaches all of claim 1, and wherein thea plurality of sensors comprise a galvanic skin response (GSR) sensor (Krueger, Paragraph 86).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the galvanic skin response (GSR) sensor as taught by Kreuger to the haptic communication system taught by a modified Ly, the motivation being to provide another measurement of stress to double check the stress levels of the user.
In regards to Claim 3: A modified Ly teaches all of claim 1, and wherein the a plurality of sensors comprise an oxygenation sensor (Krueger, Paragraph 74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the oxygenation sensor as taught by Kreuger to the haptic communication system taught by a modified Ly, the motivation being to provide another measurement of stress to double check the stress levels of the user.
In regards to Claim 4: A modified Ly teaches all of claim 1, and wherein the a plurality of sensors comprise a temperature sensor (Krueger, Paragraph 53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the temperature as taught by Kreuger to the haptic communication system taught by a modified Ly, the motivation being to provide another measurement of stress to double check the stress levels of the user.
In regards to Claim 5: A modified Ly teaches all of claim 1 & 4, and wherein the temperature sensor comprises an infrared (IR) temperature sensor (Krueger, Paragraph 53).
In regards to Claim 6: A modified Ly teaches all of claim 1, and wherein the a plurality of sensors are configured to each measure a same at least one indicator of stress from the sweat (Krueger, Paragraph 86; “Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) sensors could be referred to as stress sensors but also could measure, how much you sweat, which can be correlated with hydration or dehydration states and with calculation of exertion levels of a human to provide information of an unhealthy status.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the sensors measuring stress based on sweat as taught by Kreuger to the haptic communication system taught by a modified Ly, the motivation being to provide another measurement of stress to double check the stress levels of the user.
In regards to Claim 11: A modified Ly teaches all of claim 1, and wherein the stimulating device is further configured to provide stress-reducing warming stimulation (Schirm, Paragraph 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the cooling system taught in Schirm to the haptic communication system taught in Ly, the motivation being to provide an appropriately composed tuning component such that it would improve the sound characteristics of the system.
In regards to Claim 12: A modified Ly teaches all of claim 1, and wherein the stimulating device is further configured to provide stress-reducing mechanical stimulation (Ly, Paragraph 10).
In regards to Claim 13: A modified Ly teaches all of claim 1, and wherein the a plurality of sensors, the stimulating device, and the control system are included in a single, wearable device (Ly, Paragraph 10).
In regards to Claim 16: A modified Ly teaches all of claim 1, and wherein the one or more a plurality of sensors comprise two or more sensors, wherein the two or more sensors comprise a same type of sensor (Krueger, Paragraph 149; “There can be one or more human response sensors 132 and 134, and example of which was also shown at 132 in Fig. 1”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the multiple sensors of the same type taught in Krueger to the haptic communication device taught in a modified Ly, the motivation being to provide an amount of redundancy to ensure all sensor readings are accurate.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0123570 hereinafter Ly in view of US 2016/016762 hereinafter Krueger in further view of US 2020/034971 hereinafter Schirm in furthest view of US 2016/0015299 hereinafter Chan.
In regards to Claim 14: A modified Ly teaches all of claims 1 & 13, but does not teach wherein the wearable device is configured to be worn on an upper arm of the user.
Chan teaches wherein the wearable device is configured to be worn on an upper arm of the user (Chan, Paragraph 70; Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the placement of the device taught in Chan to the haptic communication system taught in a modified Ly, the motivation being to provide an easily accessible place for the device to attach to the user.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0123570 hereinafter Ly in view of US 2016/016762 hereinafter Krueger in further view of US 2020/034971 hereinafter Schirm in furthest view of US 2016/0346530 hereinafter Jeffery.
In regards to Claim 15: A modified Ly teaches all of claim 1 & 13, but does not teach wherein the wearable device is configured to be worn behind an ear of the user.
Jeffery teaches wherein the wearable device is configured to be worn behind an ear of the user (Jeffery, Paragraph 94; Figure 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the placement of the device taught in Jeffery to the haptic communication device of a modified Ly, the motivation being to provide an easily accessible place for the device to attach to the user.
Claim(s) 17, 19, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0123570 hereinafter Ly in view of US 2016/016762 hereinafter Krueger in further view of US 2020/034971 hereinafter Schirm in furthest view of US 2015/0090270 hereinafter Bowers.
In regards to Claim 17: A modified Ly teaches all of claim 1 & 16, but does not teach the system comprising a degradable layer disposed adjacent at least one of the two or more sensors such that the degradable layer is configured to be disposed between at least one of the two or more sensors and the user.
Bowers teaches comprising a degradable layer disposed adjacent at least one of the two or more sensors such that the degradable layer is configured to be disposed between at least one of the two or more sensors and the user (Bowers, Paragraph 54, 88, & 103; The sensor (160) is placed in the cuff (140) and the cuff is in contact with the device surface (110)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the biodegradable layer taught in Bowers to the haptic communication device taught in Ly, the motivation being to limit the user’s exposure to harmful materials.
In regards to Claim 19: A modified Ly teaches all of claims 1, 16, & 17, and wherein the degradable layer is degradable by heat (Bowers, Paragraph 88).
In regards to Claim 20: A modified Ly teaches all of claims 1, 16, 17, & 19, but does not teach wherein the degradable layer is not disposed adjacent an active sensor of the two or more sensors such that the degradable layer is configured not to be disposed between the active sensor and the user,
wherein the logic processor is further configured to:
determine whether the active sensor exceeds a sensor degradation threshold; and
if the active sensor exceeds the sensor degradation threshold, transmit an overpotential instruction to an inactive sensor of the two or more sensors to cause the inactive sensor to produce enough heat to cause degradation of the degradable layer adjacent the inactive sensor.
Bowers teaches wherein the degradable layer is not disposed adjacent an active sensor of the two or more sensors such that the degradable layer is configured not to be disposed between the active sensor and the user (Bowers, Paragraphs 88; “Alternatively, the switching temperature T may be slightly above body temperature 37 °C for on demand activation by a sensor and controller function of the implanted device.”),
wherein the logic processor (Bowers, Paragraphs 88; “Alternatively, the switching temperature T may be slightly above body temperature 37 °C for on demand activation by a sensor and controller function of the implanted device.”) is further configured to:
determine whether the active sensor exceeds a sensor degradation threshold (Bowers, Paragraphs 88; “Alternatively, the switching temperature T may be slightly above body temperature 37 °C for on demand activation by a sensor and controller function of the implanted device.”); and
if the active sensor exceeds the sensor degradation threshold, transmit an overpotential instruction to an inactive sensor of the two or more sensors to cause the inactive sensor to produce enough heat to cause degradation of the degradable layer adjacent the inactive sensor (Bowers, Paragraphs 88; “Alternatively, the switching temperature T may be slightly above body temperature 37 °C for on demand activation by a sensor and controller function of the implanted device.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOE R DIETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1135. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 5pm.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571)-272-4233. 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.
/N.R.D./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights