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 August 3, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 12-13 contain(s) the trademark/trade name BluetoothTM. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a transmitter and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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) 14-15 & 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hancock (US 2008/0319285) in view of Huang et al. (US 2016/0011091) (“Huang” hereinafter).
In regards to claim 14, Hancock discloses a system for monitoring glucose concentration, the system comprising:
a radio frequency generator 10 (see at least figs. 1 & 7);
a first antenna 70 configured to transmit microwave radiation through a sample 80 (see at least fig. 7 and par 0080);
a second antenna 71 configured to receive microwave radiation transmitted by the first antenna 70 and convert the microwave radiation into an analog signal (see at least fig. 7 and par 0080);
a digital signal processing circuit 110 configured to:
determine the glucose concentration of the sample 80 from the digital signal (see at least abstract & par 0008 & 0057).
Hancock discloses a system, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach a system comprising an analog readout circuit configured to receive the analog signal and process the analog signal into a modified analog signal; wherein the digital signal processing circuit thereof configured to receive the modified analog signal; convert the modified analog signal into a digital signal.
However, Huang teaches that it is known to provide a system comprising an analog readout circuit 90 configured to receive the analog signal and process the analog signal into a modified analog signal; wherein the digital signal
PNG
media_image1.png
468
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
processing circuit 90 thereof configured to receive the modified analog signal; convert the modified analog signal into a digital signal (for signal processor 96) (see at least figs. 9A-B and par 0111 & 0113-0114).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the system of Hancock comprising an analog readout circuit configured to receive the analog signal and process the analog signal into a modified analog signal; wherein the digital signal processing circuit thereof configured to receive the modified analog signal; convert the modified analog signal into a digital signal as taught by Huang since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Huang) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Hancock) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as recovering the modulation signal of said microwave radiation after removing the high frequency component using a low pass filter (see at least par 0110-0111 & 0127 of Huang)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 15, Hancock discloses the system of Claim 14, wherein the first and second antennas (70, 71) are microstrip antennas, the microstrip antennas comprising:
a ground plate 76/79;
a dielectric substrate 75/78 disposed on the ground plate 76/79; and
a conductive pattern (74, 77, 128, 129) disposed on the dielectric substrate 75/78 (see at least fig. 8 and par 0080).
In regards to claim 17, Hancock as modified by Aikawa discloses the system of Claim 16, that fails to explicitly teach a system wherein the analog readout circuit comprises: a low noise amplifier; a band-pass filter; and a radio frequency detector. However, Huang discloses a system wherein the analog readout circuit comprises: a low noise amplifier (LNA); a band-pass filter (BPF#1, BPF#2); and a radio frequency (power) detector (see at least figs. 9A-B and par 0111 & 0114). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the system of Hancock wherein the analog readout circuit comprises: a low noise amplifier; a band-pass filter; and a radio frequency detector as taught by Huang since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Huang) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Hancock) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as recovering the modulation signal of said microwave radiation after removing the high frequency component using a low pass filter (see at least par 0110-0111 & 0127 of Huang)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 18, Hancock discloses a method for monitoring glucose concentration, the method comprising:
generating microwave radiation (see at least abstract);
transmitting the microwave radiation from a first antenna 70, through a sample 80 (see at least fig. 7 and par 0051-0052, 0059, 0075 & 0080);
receiving the microwave radiation from the first antenna 70 with a second antenna 71 (see at least fig. 7 and par 0051-0052, 0059, 0075 & 0080);
determining the glucose concentration of the sample 80 from the digital signal;
transmitting the glucose concentration to a display device 120 (see at least abstract, fig. 1 & par 0008 & 0057); and
outputting the glucose concentration on the display device 120 (see at least abstract, fig. 1 & par 0008 & 0057).
Hancock discloses a method, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach a method comprising converting the microwave radiation received by the second antenna into an analog signal; processing the analog signal into a modified analog signal; converting the modified analog signal into a digital signal.
However, Huang teaches that it is known to provide a method comprising converting the microwave radiation received by the second antenna 92 into an analog signal; processing the analog signal into a modified analog signal;
PNG
media_image1.png
468
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
converting the modified analog signal into a digital signal (for signal processor 96) (see at least figs. 9A-B and par 0111 & 0113-0114).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the method of Hancock comprising converting the microwave radiation received by the second antenna into an analog signal; processing the analog signal into a modified analog signal; converting the modified analog signal into a digital signal as taught by Huang since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Huang) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Hancock) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as recovering the modulation signal of said microwave radiation after removing the high frequency component using a low pass filter (see at least par 0110-0111 & 0127 of Huang)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 19, Hancock discloses the method of Claim 18, wherein the first and second antennas (70, 71) are microstrip antennas, the microstrip antennas comprising:
a ground plate 76/79;
a dielectric substrate 75/78 disposed on the ground plate 76/79; and
a conductive pattern (74, 77, 128, 129) disposed on the dielectric substrate 75/78 (see at least fig. 8 and par 0080).
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 16 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hancock (US 2008/0319285) in view of Huang et al. (US 2016/0011091) (“Huang” hereinafter) further in view of Aikawa et al. (US 2003/0201944) (“Aikawa” hereinafter).
In regards to claim 1, Hancock discloses a system for monitoring glucose concentration, the system comprising:
a sample holder 90 configured to contain a sample 80 (see fig. 7 and par 0051-0052);
a radio frequency transmitter configured to emit microwave radiation through the sample 80, the radio frequency transmitter comprising a radio frequency generator 10 and a first antenna 70 (see at least fig. 7 and par 0051-0052, 0059, 0075 & 0080);
PNG
media_image2.png
402
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a radio frequency receiver configured to receive microwave radiation transmitted from the radio frequency transmitter and passed through the sample 80, and convert the microwave radiation passed through the sample 80 to an analog signal, the radio frequency receiver comprising a second antenna 71 (see at least fig. 7 and par 0051-0052, 0059, 0075 & 0080);
wherein, the first and second antennas (70, 71) are microstrip antennas having a sample side and an outward side (see at least fig. 8 and par 0080 & 0082), the microstrip antennas further comprising:
a ground plate 76/79 (see fig. 8 and par 0080);
a dielectric substrate 75/78 disposed on the ground plate 76/79 (see fig. 8 and par 0080); and
a conductive pattern (74, 77, 128, 129) disposed on the dielectric substrate 75/78 (see fig. 8 and par 0080),
wherein:
the conductive pattern (74, 77, 128, 129) on the sample side of the microstrip antenna comprises a rectangular patch 74/77 (see at least fig. 8 and par 0080) with a slot (e.g., annular slot) (see at least par 0016, 0079, 0082 & 0084); and
a digital signal processing circuit 110 (see at least fig. 1) configured to:
determine the glucose concentration of the sample 80 from the digital signal (see at least abstract & par 0008 & 0057).
Hancock discloses a system, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach a system comprising an analog readout circuit configured to receive the analog signal and process the analog signal into a modified analog signal, wherein the digital signal processing circuit thereof is configured to: receive the modified analog signal and convert the modified analog signal into a digital signal.
However, Huang teaches that it is known to provide a system comprising an analog readout circuit 90 configured to receive the analog signal and process
PNG
media_image1.png
468
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the analog signal into a modified analog signal, wherein the digital signal processing circuit 90 thereof is configured to: receive the modified analog signal and convert the modified analog signal into a digital signal (for signal processor 96) (see at least figs. 9A-B and par 0111 & 0113-0114).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the system of Hancock comprising an analog readout circuit configured to receive the analog signal and process the analog signal into a modified analog signal, wherein the digital signal processing circuit thereof is configured to: receive the modified analog signal and convert the modified analog signal into a digital signal as taught by Huang since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Huang) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Hancock) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as recovering the modulation signal of said microwave radiation after removing the high frequency component using a low pass filter (see at least par 0110-0111 & 0127 of Huang)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Hancock as modified by Huang discloses a system, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach a system comprising a plurality of slots disposed on the patch and being configured to expose regions of the dielectric substrate; and
the rectangular patch is symmetrical about a long axis, the long axis defining first and second sides of the sample side of the rectangular patch, wherein the sample side of the rectangular patch comprises a plurality of slots including:
two horizontal slots symmetrically oriented at a top half of the rectangular patch; two horizontal slots symmetrically oriented at a bottom half of the rectangular patch; and a vertically oriented slot disposed on the long axis.
However, Aikawa teaches that it is known to provide a system comprising a plurality of slots (3a, 3b, 5a1) disposed on the patch and being configured to expose regions of the dielectric substrate 1 (see at least par 0066); and the rectangular patch is symmetrical about a long axis, the long axis defining first and second sides of the sample side of the rectangular patch, wherein the sample side of the rectangular patch comprises a plurality of slots including: two horizontal slots (3a, 3b) symmetrically oriented at a top half of the rectangular patch; two horizontal slots (3a, 3b) symmetrically oriented at a bottom half of the rectangular patch; and a vertically oriented slot (5a1, 6b1) disposed on the long axis (see at least figs. 7 & 12 and par 0071 & 0073).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the system of Hancock as modified by Huang comprising a plurality of slots disposed on the patch and being configured to expose regions of the dielectric substrate; and the rectangular patch is symmetrical about a long axis, the long axis defining first and second sides of the sample side of the rectangular patch, wherein the sample side of the rectangular patch comprises a plurality of slots including: two horizontal slots symmetrically oriented at a top half of the rectangular patch; two horizontal slots symmetrically oriented at a bottom half of the rectangular patch; and a vertically oriented slot disposed on the long axis as taught by Aikawa since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Aikawa) to a known device (i.e. , as taught by Hancock) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as providing an antenna that exhibits a good directivity (see at least par 0019-0020 of Aikawa)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 2, Hancock discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the conductive pattern (74, 77, 128, 129) on the outward side of the microstrip antenna (70, 71) comprises a rectangular patch 74/77 with a single slot (e.g., annular slot) (see at least par 0016, 0079, 0082 & 0084) disposed on the patch, the slot being configured to expose a region of the dielectric substrate 75/78 (see at least par 0016, 0082 & 0084).
In regards to claim 3, Hancock discloses the system of Claim 2, wherein the rectangular patch 74/77 is symmetrical about a long axis, the long axis defining first and second sides of the outward side of the rectangular patch 74/77, wherein the slot is positioned across the first side and the second side of the rectangular patch 74/77 (see at least fig. 8 and par 0016, 0082 & 0084).
In regards to claim 4, Hancock as modified by Huang discloses the system of Claim 1, that fails to explicitly teach a system wherein: the two horizontal slots symmetrically oriented at the top half of the rectangular patch are the same size as one another; the two horizontal slots symmetrically oriented at a bottom half of the rectangular patch are the same size as one another; and the vertically oriented slot disposed on the long axis is larger than any of the horizontal slots on the rectangular patch. However, Aikawa teaches that it is known to provide a system wherein: the two horizontal slots (3a, 3b) symmetrically oriented at the top half of the rectangular patch are the same size as one another; the two horizontal slots (3a, 3b) symmetrically oriented at a bottom half of the rectangular patch are the same size as one another; and the vertically oriented slot disposed on the long axis is larger (e.g., having a larger length) than any of the horizontal slots (3a, 3b) on the rectangular patch (see at least figs. 7 & 12 and par 0071 & 0073). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the system of Hancock as modified by Huang wherein: the two horizontal slots symmetrically oriented at the top half of the rectangular patch are the same size as one another; the two horizontal slots symmetrically oriented at a bottom half of the rectangular patch are the same size as one another; and the vertically oriented slot disposed on the long axis is larger than any of the horizontal slots on the rectangular patch as taught by Aikawa since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Aikawa) to a known device (i.e. , as taught by Hancock) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as providing an antenna that exhibits a good directivity (see at least par 0019-0020 of Aikawa)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 5, while Hancock discloses a system wherein the microstrip antennas are configured to operate over the range of 1 GHz to 100 GHz or 4.45 GHz to 5 GHz (see at least par 0014 & 0044), Hancock as modified by Huang and Aikawa discloses the system of Claim 4, that fails to explicitly teach a system wherein the microstrip antennas are configured to operate at the resonant frequencies of 2.5 GHz and 5.7 GHz. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resonant frequencies of 2.5 GHz and 5.7 GHz as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see par 0034 of the instant disclosure indicating the radio frequency microstrip patch antennas’ resonant frequencies “may” be within the claimed range) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In regards to claim 6, Hancock as modified by Aikawa discloses the system of Claim 1, that fails to explicitly teach a system wherein the analog readout circuit comprises: a low noise amplifier; a band-pass filter; and a radio frequency detector. However, Huang teaches that it is known to provide a system wherein the analog readout circuit comprises: a low noise amplifier (LNA); a band-pass filter (BPF#1, BPF#2); and a radio frequency (power) detector (see at least figs. 9A-B and par 0111 & 0114). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the system of Hancock wherein the analog readout circuit comprises: a low noise amplifier; a band-pass filter; and a radio frequency detector as taught by Huang since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Huang) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Hancock) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as recovering the modulation signal of said microwave radiation after removing the high frequency component using a low pass filter (see at least par 0110-0111 & 0127 of Huang)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 7, while Hancock discloses a system wherein the microstrip antennas are configured to operate over the range of 1 GHz to 100 GHz (see at least par 0014 & 0044), Hancock as modified by Huang and Aikawa discloses the system of Claim 6, that fails to explicitly teach a system wherein the low noise amplifier is configured to operate between 0.4 GHz and 11 GHz. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the low noise amplifier configured to operate between 0.4 GHz and 11 GHz as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see par 0034 of the instant disclosure indicating the radio frequency microstrip patch antennas “may” be within the claimed range) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In regards to claim 8, while Hancock discloses a system wherein the microstrip antennas are configured to operate over the range of 1 GHz to 100 GHz (see at least par 0014 & 0044), Hancock as modified by Huang and Aikawa discloses the system of Claim 6, that fails to explicitly teach a system wherein the band-pass filter is configured to operate in the frequency range of 5.7 GHz to 6.0 GHz. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the band-pass filter configured to operate in the frequency range of 5.7 GHz to 6.0 GHz as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see par 0034 of the instant disclosure indicating the radio frequency microstrip patch antennas “may” be within the claimed range) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In regards to claim 10, while Hancock discloses a system wherein the microstrip antennas are configured to operate over the range of 1 GHz to 100 GHz (see at least par 0014 & 0044), Hancock as modified by Huang and Aikawa discloses the system of Claim 6, that fails to explicitly teach a system wherein the high precision wideband radio frequency power detector is configured to detect radio frequencies in the range of 0.3 GHz to 7 GHz. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the high precision wideband radio frequency power detector configured to detect radio frequencies in the range of 0.3 GHz to 7 GHz as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see par 0034 of the instant disclosure indicating the radio frequency microstrip patch antennas “may” be within the claimed range) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In regards to claim 16, Hancock as modified by Huang discloses the system of Claim 15, that fails to explicitly teach a system wherein the conductive pattern comprises a rectangular patch with a plurality of slots disposed on the patch, the plurality of slots comprising: two horizontally oriented slots disposed on a first side of the microstrip antenna; two horizontally oriented slots disposed on a second side of the microstrip antenna; and one vertically oriented slot disposed on the microstrip antenna between the first and second sides of the microstrip antenna.
However, Aikawa teaches that it is known to provide a system wherein the conductive pattern comprises a rectangular patch with a plurality of slots (3a, 3b, 5a1, 6a1) disposed on the patch, the plurality of slots (3a, 3b, 5a1, 6a1) comprising: two horizontally oriented slots (3a) disposed on a first side of the microstrip antenna; two horizontally oriented slots (3b) disposed on a second side of the microstrip antenna; and one vertically oriented slot (5a1, 6a1) disposed on the microstrip antenna between the first and second sides of the microstrip antenna (see at least figs. 7 & 12 and par 0071 & 0073).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the system of Hancock as modified by Huang wherein the conductive pattern comprises a rectangular patch with a plurality of slots disposed on the patch, the plurality of slots comprising: two horizontally oriented slots disposed on a first side of the microstrip antenna; two horizontally oriented slots disposed on a second side of the microstrip antenna; and one vertically oriented slot disposed on the microstrip antenna between the first and second sides of the microstrip antenna as taught by Aikawa since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Aikawa) to a known device (i.e. , as taught by Hancock) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as providing an antenna that exhibits a good directivity (see at least par 0019-0020 of Aikawa)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
While Hancock discloses a system wherein the microstrip antennas are configured to operate over the range of 1 GHz to 100 GHz (see at least par 0014 & 0044), Hancock as modified by Huang and Aikawa discloses the system, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach a system wherein the plurality of slots are configured to expose regions of the dielectric substrate such that the microstrip antennas operate at the resonant frequencies of 2.5 GHz and 5.7 Ghz. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the microstrip antennas operate at the resonant frequencies of 2.5 GHz and 5.7 Ghz as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see par 0034 of the instant disclosure indicating the radio frequency microstrip patch antennas “may” be within the claimed range) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In regards to claim 20, Hancock as modified by Huang discloses the method of Claim 19, that fails to explicitly teach a method wherein the conductive pattern comprises a rectangular patch with a plurality of slots disposed on the patch, the plurality of slots comprising: two horizontally oriented slots disposed on a first side of the antenna; two horizontally oriented slots disposed on a second side of the antenna; and one vertically oriented slot disposed on the antenna between the first and second sides of the antenna. However, Aikawa teaches that it is known to provide a method wherein the conductive pattern comprises a rectangular patch with a plurality of slots (3a, 3b, 5a1, 6a1) disposed on the patch, the plurality of slots (3a, 3b, 5a1, 6a1) comprising: two horizontally oriented slots (3a) disposed on a first side of the microstrip antenna; two horizontally oriented slots (3b) disposed on a second side of the microstrip antenna; and one vertically oriented slot (5a1, 6a1) disposed on the microstrip antenna between the first and second sides of the microstrip antenna (see at least figs. 7 & 12 and par 0071 & 0073). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the system of Hancock as modified by Huang wherein the conductive pattern comprises a rectangular patch with a plurality of slots disposed on the patch, the plurality of slots comprising: two horizontally oriented slots disposed on a first side of the antenna; two horizontally oriented slots disposed on a second side of the antenna; and one vertically oriented slot disposed on the antenna between the first and second sides of the antenna as taught by Aikawa since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Aikawa) to a known device (i.e. , as taught by Hancock) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as providing an antenna that exhibits a good directivity (see at least par 0019-0020 of Aikawa)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hancock (US 2008/0319285) further in view of Huang et al. (US 2016/0011091) (“Huang” hereinafter), Aikawa et al. (US 2003/0201944) (“Aikawa” hereinafter) further in view of Balmelli et al. (US 2020/0205078) (“Balmelli” hereinafter).
Hancock as modified by Huang and Aikawa discloses the system of Claim 6, that fails to explicitly teach a system wherein the radio frequency detector comprises a high precision wideband radio frequency power detector.
However, Balmelli teaches that it is known to provide a system wherein the radio frequency detector comprises a high precision wideband radio frequency power detector 107 (see at least fig. 1 and par 0027).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the system of Hancock as modified by Huang and Aikawa wherein the radio frequency detector comprises a high precision wideband radio frequency power detector as taught by Balmelli since such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., as taught by Hancock) for another (i.e., as taught by Balmelli) to obtain predictable results such as operating in a self-contained manner without support of any additional infrastructure circuits such as a voltage reference or a current reference supplied from other parts of the integrated circuit, thereby allowing the other parts of the integrated circuit to remain in a powered off state (see at least par 0027 of Balmelli)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hancock (US 2008/0319285) in view of Huang et al. (US 2016/0011091) (“Huang” hereinafter), Aikawa et al. (US 2003/0201944) (“Aikawa” hereinafter) further in view of Leabman (US 2020/0195293).
In regards to claim 11, while Hancock discloses a system wherein the signal processing circuit 110 comprises: a signal processing unit 110; a wireless communication unit (e.g., communication means by wired or wireless means, see par 0062); and a display device 120 (see at least fig. 1 and par 0009-0010, 0022, 0046-0047, 0057 & 0063), Hancock as modified by Huang and Aikawa discloses the system of Claim 1, that fails to explicitly teach a system wherein the digital signal processing circuit comprises: an analog to digital signal converter; and a digital signal processing unit. However, Leabman teaches that it is known to provide a system wherein the digital signal processing circuit 550 comprises: an analog to digital signal converter 562; a digital signal processing unit 562; a wireless communication unit 548; and a display device (see at least fig. 5 and par 0112, 0118, 0211 & 0222-0223). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the system of Hancock as modified by Huang and Aikawa wherein the digital signal processing circuit comprises: an analog to digital signal converter; and a digital signal processing unit as taught by Leabman since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Leabman) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Hancock) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as converting the signal into a format that is readable by a digital processor (see at least par 0118 of Leabman)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 12, Hancock as modified by Huang and Aikawa discloses the system of Claim 11, that fails to explicitly teach a system wherein the wireless communication unit comprises a Bluetooth transmitter. However, Leabman teaches that it is known to provide a system wherein the wireless communication unit comprises a Bluetooth transmitter (see at least par 0109 & 0232). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the system of Hancock as modified by Huang and Aikawa wherein the wireless communication unit comprises a Bluetooth transmitter as taught by Leabman since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Leabman) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Hancock) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as wirelessly communicating via a local data connection with a device such as a smartphone or smartwatch to implement health monitoring (see at least par 0109 of Leabman)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 13, although Hancock discloses a system wherein the display device 120 comprises a screen, the display device 120 being configured to visually output the glucose concentration (see at least par 0057 & 0063), Hancock as modified by Huang and Aikawa discloses the system of Claim 12, that fails to explicitly teach a system wherein the display device comprises a Bluetooth receiver. However, Leabman teaches that it is known to provide a system wherein the display device comprises a Bluetooth receiver (see at least par 0109 & 0232). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the system of Hancock as modified by Huang and Aikawa wherein the display device comprises a Bluetooth receiver as taught by Leabman since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Leabman) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Hancock) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as wirelessly communicating via a local data connection with a device such as a smartphone or smartwatch to implement health monitoring (see at least par 0109 of Leabman)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENE T TOWA whose telephone number is (313)446-6655. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 AM-5:00 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, Jason M. 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.
/RENE T TOWA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights