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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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) 1-10 and 12, 14-16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thors (US 20220007972 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Thors teaches a monitoring device for measuring organic compounds (Thors; Abstract), the monitoring device comprising:
a housing of the monitoring device (Thors; Fig. 1; para [82]; housing 10), the housing defined by an outer peripheral wall (Thors; Fig. 1; para [83]; exterior of the housing), wherein the outer peripheral wall comprises at least a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface (Thors; Fig. 1; examiner interprets the top surface and side walls of the housing/device as the first surface of the outer peripheral wall and the bottom surface of the housing/device as the second surface of the outer peripheral wall; examiner notes that the part of the first surface, specifically the top surface, is opposite of the second surface, interpreted as the bottom surface);
an interior cavity disposed within the housing (Thors; Fig. 3; para [82]; a chamber 30 in the interior of the housing);
a fan disposed within the interior cavity (Thors; Fig. 2; para [98, 109]; The pump assembly may be an electric fan…pump assembly 90);
a plurality of slots in the first surface (Thors; Fig. 1, 4; para [111]; four inlet ports 20a to 20d), the plurality of slots disposed directly above the fan (Thor; para [109]; the pump assembly 90 is located opposite the inlet port 20) and configured to allow the fan to pull ambient air from an environment outside of the housing into the interior cavity (Thor; para [98]; The pump assembly functions to assist in drawing a sample (such as ambient air) through the inlet port to the chamber where the sample contacts the sensor system);
a visual indicator disposed on the first surface (Thors; para [101]; the notification module may be a visual display; examiner notes that the notification module 102 is seen on the first surface from a birds eye view in Figs. 3 and 4, but shown on the side as seen in Fig. 1. Thus, the limitation is met based on the interpretation of the first surface recited above); and
one or more buttons disposed on the first surface (Thors; Fig. 2; para [100]; The user input 100 is in communication with at least the controller and may be in the form of a push button or the like; examiner notes the user input is seen in Fig. 2 from a bird’s eye perspective, thus would be on the top surface interpreted as part of the first surface).
Regarding claim 2, Thors teaches the one or more buttons are configurable according to a user of the monitoring device (Thors; para [100]; The user input may be used when the user desires to initiate a reading other than one that is programmed by the controller. The user input is in communication with at least the controller and may be in the form of a push button or the like).
Regarding claim 3, Thors teaches a sensor disposed within the interior cavity (Thors; Fig. 2; para [83]; The housing defines an interior portion, at least a portion of which is hollow to allow the additional components to be contained within the housing). As seen in Fig. 2, the sensor system is in the interior chamber.
Regarding claim 4, Thors teaches the sensor comprises a film comprising a metal oxide layer (Thors; para [59]; the sensor is a semi-conductor metal oxide sensor).
Regarding claim 5, Thors teaches the metal oxide layer comprises a semiconductive material, and wherein the semiconductive material is configured to change a resistance of the sensor when exposed to the ambient air (Thors; para [59, 61, 67]; the sensor is a semi-conductor metal oxide sensor...the signal is directly correlated to the presence, amount, or concentration of the analyte in the sample… resistance of the metal oxide sensing layer is altered when target analytes are present).
Regarding claim 6, Thors teaches a resistance gauge configured to measure the change of the resistance of the sensor as the semiconductive material is exposed to the ambient air (Thors; para [61]; the signal is a change in an electrical property…signal is analyzed by the controller to produce a result for a given analyte… the signal is a change in an electrical property, such as, but not limited to, a change in conductivity (resistance)).
Regarding claim 7, Thors teaches the sensor comprises a printed circuit board (PCB), the PCB comprising a communications terminal, the communications terminal configured to communicate with a downstream entity via an electronic network (Thors; para [89, 93]; the sensor system and the controller are placed on a printed circuit board and interconnected).
Regarding claim 8, Thors teaches a user interface configured to receive biometric data of a user to assign to the one or more buttons (Thors; para [100]; The user input may be used when the user desires to initiate a reading other than one that is programmed by the controller. The user input is in communication with at least the controller and may be in the form of a push button or the like).
Regarding claim 9, Thors teaches a monitoring device for measuring organic compounds (Thors; Abstract; A wearable device for non-invasive monitoring of the presence, amount, and/or concentration of an analyte in a sample), the monitoring device comprising:
a housing of the monitoring device (Thors; Fig. 1; para [82]; housing 10), the housing defined by an outer peripheral wall (Thors; Fig. 1; para [83]; exterior of the housing), wherein the outer peripheral wall comprises at least a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface (Thors; Fig. 1; examiner interprets the top surface and side walls of the housing/device as the first surface of the outer peripheral wall and the bottom surface of the housing/device as the second surface of the outer peripheral wall; examiner notes that the part of the first surface, specifically the top surface, is opposite of the second surface, interpreted as the bottom surface);
an interior cavity disposed within the housing (Thors; Fig. 3; para [82]; a chamber 30 in the interior of the housing);
a fan disposed within the interior cavity (Thors; Fig. 2; para [98, 109]; The pump assembly may be an electric fan…pump assembly 90);
a plurality of slots in the first surface (Thors; Fig. 1, 4; para [111]; four inlet ports 20a to 20d), the plurality of slots disposed directly above the fan (Thor; para [109]; the pump assembly 90 is located opposite the inlet port 20) and configured to allow the fan to pull ambient air from an environment outside of the housing into the interior cavity (Thor; para [98]; The pump assembly functions to assist in drawing a sample (such as ambient air) through the inlet port to the chamber where the sample contacts the sensor system);
a sensor configured to receive the ambient air (Thors; para [84]; the inlet port allows the sample (for example, ambient air) to enter the wearable device and contact the sensor system); and
a visual indicator disposed on the first surface (Thors; para [101]; the notification module may be a visual display; examiner notes that the notification module 102 is seen on the first surface from a birds eye view in Figs. 3 and 4, but shown on the side as seen in Fig. 1. Thus, the limitation is met based on the interpretation of the first surface recited above).
Regarding claim 10, Thors teaches the sensor further comprising: a film comprising a metal oxide layer (Thors; Fig. 2; para [59, 83]; the sensor is a semi-conductor metal oxide sensor…The housing defines an interior portion, at least a portion of which is hollow to allow the additional components to be contained within the housing; examiner interprets the film as the interior walls of the housing), wherein the film is configured to be exposed to the ambient air (Thors; para [85]; The inlet channel serves to deliver the sample (for example, ambient air) to the sensor system); and a resistance gauge configured to measure a change in a resistance of the film as the film is exposed to the ambient air (Thors; para [61]; the signal is a change in an electrical property…signal is analyzed by the controller to produce a result for a given analyte…the signal is a change in an electrical property, such as, but not limited to, a change in conductivity (resistance)).
Regarding claim 12, Thors teaches the metal oxide layer is comprised of a semiconductive material configured to alter a resistance of gas molecules in the ambient air (Thors; para [59, 67]; the sensor is a semi-conductor metal oxide sensor...a sensor as described in the present application is a metal oxide sensor. Resistance of the metal oxide sensing layer is altered when target analytes are present).
Regarding claim 14, Thors teaches the organic compounds comprise volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (Thors; para [67]; For VOC detection, metal oxide sensors that show the highest sensitivity to reducing gasses are preferred).
Regarding claim 15, Thors teaches a method for measuring organic compounds (Para. 0002, 0039: VOCs), the method comprising: receiving, by a monitoring device, user data associated with a user of the monitoring device (Thors; Fig. 1; para [82]; housing 10); receiving, by the monitoring device, environmental data associated with the organic compounds of an environment (para. 0039-0043); measuring, by a sensor of the monitoring device, a change in a level of resistance of the sensor based on the environmental data (Para. 0061: change in resistance); comparing, by one or more processors, the change in the level of the resistance of the sensor to the user data; and transmitting, by a communications terminal of the monitoring device, the change in the level of the resistance of the sensor to a downstream entity (Para. 0065: data module smartphone to separate computing device).
Regarding claim 16, Thors teaches determining, by the one or more processors, a resistance average using the change in the level of the resistance of the sensor and the user data. (Para. 0067-0068: change in resistance to detect the presence or concentration of the analyte)
Regarding claim 20, Thors teach the user data comprises a desired level of yeast fermentation (Para. 0054: yeast fermentation).
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 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.
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.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thors in view of Park et al (US 20200182843 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Thors teaches the sensor further comprising: a printed circuit board (PCB) disposed in a first plane that is vertically offset from a second plane of the film (Thors; Fig. 2). Examiner notes that the film is interpreted as the interior walls of the device, thus as seen in Fig. 2 the PCB is placed horizontally in the chamber which is offset from the vertical plane, because the PCB is not integrated or a part of the interior walls.
Thors does not teach a support plate, wherein the support plate is affixed to the film such that a space is formed between the film and the PCB.
However, Park teaches an analogous of an air-quality detection apparatus (Park; Abstract) comprising a printed circuit board (Park; Fig. 1; para [26]; two or more printed circuit boards (PCBs)) and support plate (Park; Fig. 11; para [37]; support posts 11a), wherein the support plate is affixed to a film (Park; Fig. 11; para [37]; A support post 11a may protrude from the bottom 11; examiner notes that the film is interpreted as the interior walls of the housing/casing of the device) such that a space is formed between the film and the PCB (Park; Fig. 10, 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date to have modified the device of Thors to comprise the support as taught by Park, because Park teaches that the PCBs are supported and mounted on the posts to be secured in the device (Park; para [36, 37]).
Regarding claim 13, Thors teaches the PCB comprises a communications terminal configured to communicate with a downstream entity via an electronic network (Thors; para [89, 93]; the sensor system and the controller are placed on a printed circuit board and interconnected).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thors in view of Rajendran et al (US 20160350514).
Regarding claims 17-18, Thors teach dietary factors as parameters (Para. 0114), but is silent to generating, by the one or more processors, a dietary recommendation based on comparing the change in the level of the resistance of the sensor to the user data; generating the dietary recommendation is automatically generated based on one or more protocols.
Rajendran et al teach generating dietary recommendation to the user related to detecting volatile organic compounds (Para. 0074). It is advantageous to provide dietary recommendations related to VOCs to ensure the food consumed reduces the generation of the VOCs and provides healthy eating. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is known. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the generating dietary recommendations of Rajendran to provide the above advantage of ensuring the food consumed reduces the generation of the VOCs and provide healthy eating.
Claims 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thors in view of Neyrinck et al, "Noninvasive monitoring of fibre fermentation in healthy volunteers by analyzing breath volatile metabolites: lessons from the FiberTAG intervention study" Gut Microbes, 13(1) pp. 1-16.
Regarding claim 19, Thors is silent to the user data comprises a total fiber intake. Neyrinck et al teach identification of bioactive metabolites produced upon fermentation of DF in the gut is important to afford the biological events involved in health improvement, and to propose biomarkers of nutrient intake. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the exhaled breath have been proposed as potential surrogate markers of gut dysbiosis in gastrointestinal diseases and diabetes mellitus.9,10 Bacteria being a major source of volatile metabolites, it was suggested that breath volatile metabolites (BVM) such as H2, SCFA or alkanes may be indicators of host health. (Neyrinck: p. 2 col. 1 para. 2). It is advantageous to provide the user data comprises a total fiber intake to ensure the user is increasing healthy eating correlated to high fiber intake. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the total fiber intake of Neyrinck to provide the above advantage of ensuring the food consumed ensures the user increases healthy eating correlated to high fiber intake.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS MICHAEL WHITE whose telephone number is (571)270-3747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-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, Maris R. Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/Dennis White/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758