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 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.
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: “user detection unit” in claim 5.
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 § 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 6, 7, 10, and 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. With regard to claims 6 and 7, the phrase “the user detection signal” lacks antecedent basis; Examiner notes that the term is introduced in claim 5, but both claims depend from claim 3. With regard to claim 10, is appears that Applicant intends to set forth a Markush-type limitation, but does not properly set forth the group; Examiner notes, by contrast, the Markush group is correctly set forth in claim 16. With regard to claim 19, the phrase “the optical sensor system” (line 5) lacks antecedent basis; an earlier recitation refers to “a sensor system” and a later recitation refers to “an optical sensor”.
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 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (USPGPub 2019/0282169 – cited by Applicant). Chen et al. teach an optical measurement device and method for measuring physiological information comprising a movable sensor including emitter and detector elements associated with a guiding rail (Figures 2 – 4 and the descriptions thereof) wherein the sensor is moved along the rail while collecting data to determine a measurement position and then measurements are performed at the designated position (Figure 13; paragraph [0062]).
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 – 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. as applied to claim 1 above. Chen et al. teaches an optical sensor system as described above. Further, Chen et al. disclose controlling the movements with a step motor (paragraphs [0027], [0028]), collection of PPG signals for computing oximetry information (paragraphs [0048], [0050], [0060]), which necessarily includes detection with emitters at plural wavelengths having controllable intensities, as well as other biological parameters. Chen et al. recognize the track may have a straight or curve orientation (paragraph [0031]). As such Chen et al. teach all of the features of the claimed invention except that data or alerts are transmitted (or wirelessly transmitted). However, the use of wireless telemetry in medical diagnostics, as well as issuing alerts when measured parameters meet threshold or other criteria, were well established at the time of the invention. As such, it would have been within the skill level of the art before the effective filing date to have modified Chen et al. to rely on known data transmission and alert schemes, absent a showing of unexpected results or criticality, since it has generally been held to be within the skill of the art to incorporate known elements for their intended purpose. Additionally, assessing a broadly defined user parameter and modifying operation of a device responsive thereto, to account for variations among people, was also well known at the time of the invention and absent a showing of unexpected results or criticality, it would have been within the skill level of the art to modify Chen et al. accordingly, to account for such information consistent with known practice.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morotomi (USPGPub 2022/0133238) in view of Chen et al. Morotomi teach a toilet seat that incorporates an optical biological sensor (Figures 2, 5, 6 and the descriptions thereof) having a transparent resin layer positioned to be between the user and the sensing elements during a measurement. While Morotomi recognize the usefulness of performing optical measurements on a person sitting on a toilet seat, they don’t particularly disclose that the sensing elements may move to find an appropriate measuring position. However, Chen et al. teach an optical physiological information sensor that relies on movable measurement components on a track/rail for determining correct target position, consistent with the details as discussed above. As such, it would have been within the skill level of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Morotomi to substitute the optical sensor of Chen et al., since this provides a manner to assess and target a measurement location, which one would recognize would account for variability in positioning between measurements of a toilet user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Griffith et al. (USPN 6,088,605 – Figure 3) and Cheng et al. (USPN 6,516,209 – Figure 5) teach optical sensing systems that include movable/scanning elements for collecting the measurement data.
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