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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/29/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “can be close to outside skin of the user” in lines 2-3 should be amended to read –configured to be close to outside of skin of the user--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a mixed light enters inside skin” in line 7 should be amended to read –a mixed light configured to enter inside the skin--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “skin” in line 9 should be amended to read –the skin--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the plurality of spectrum frequency bands” in line 13 should be amended to read –the multiple spectrum frequency bands--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “against outside wrist skin” in lines 1-2 should be amended to read –configured to be against outside wrist skin--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “skin” in line 6 should be amended to read –the skin--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a signal quality” in line 3 should be amended to read –the signal quality--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “each the spectrum” in line 7 should be amended to read each of the spectrum--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “can estimate” in line 2 should be amended to read –configured to estimate--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “which can quickly” in line 5 should be amended to read –which is configured to quickly--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “can estimate” in line 2 should be amended to read –configured to estimate--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “which can quickly” in line 5 should be amended to read –which is configured to quickly--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the plurality of spectrum frequency bands” in line 3 should be amended to read –the multiple spectrum frequency bands--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the plurality of spectrum frequency bands” in line 3 should be amended to read –the multiple spectrum frequency bands--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a image” in line 6 should be amended to read –an image--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “can be close to outside skin of the user” in lines 2-3 should be amended to read –configured to be close to outside of skin of the user--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “enters inside skin” in line 7 should be amended to read –configured to enter inside the skin--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “used to sense” in line 8 should be amended to read –configured to sense--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “skin” in line 9 should be amended to read –the skin--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the mixed light enters inside skin” in line 6 should be amended to read –the mixed light configured to enter inside the skin--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “enters inside skin” in line 6 should be amended to read –configured to enter inside the skin--. Appropriate correction is required
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1: claims 1 and 14 recite a wearable device, and claims 15 and 16 recite a series of steps or acts. Thus, the claims are directed to a process and a product. which are ones of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: The claim(s) recite(s) specific limitations/method steps of: emitting a mixed light/different intensity light comprising multiple spectrum frequency bands, and the mixed light enters inside skin of the user through the sensing surface; sense an intensity of an outgoing light from inside skin of the user at a series of sampling time to generate a spectrum data set; selects at least one of a first group of frequency band-light intensity data values satisfying a signal quality index in the spectrum data set to perform a data interpretation at a first judgment time point, and selects at least one of a second group of frequency band-light intensity data values satisfying the signal quality index in the spectrum data set to perform the data interpretation at a second judgment time point. This limitation recites a mental process and mathematical concept because the claimed limitation describes a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) recite the combination of additional elements/method steps of: a main body, comprising a casing, light emitting unit and a spectrum sensing unit, and arithmetic unit. Accordingly, this additional element/step does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim limitations fail to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception
STEP 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional structural elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements, such as, a main body, comprising a casing, light emitting unit and a spectrum sensing unit, and arithmetic unit. but do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these structural elements are generically claimed to enable the collection of data by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and providing/displaying data, and (ii) automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized these functions to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner. Merely adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activities’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (In re TLI Communications LLC). As such, the recitation of these additional limitations in claims 2-13 does not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and represent insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as a sensor and use of a processor does not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)). Thus, the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more than the Abstract Idea.
When viewed alone or in combination, the limitations of claims 1-16 merely instruct the practitioner to implement the concept of collecting data with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. The inventive concept cannot be furnished by the abstract idea; instead, the application must provide something inventive, beyond mere “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” (Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial L.L.C.). The additional elements of independent claims when viewed alone or as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In other words, this claim merely applies an abstract idea to a computer and does not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
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 1-16 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.
Claims 1 and 14-16 recite the limitation “can be divided into a plurality of groups” this limitation is not defined by the claims which renders the claims indefinite. One with ordinary skill in the art would not be able to know how these groups are being created/divided, and based on which parameter they are being created/divided. The scope of the claim remains indeterminate because of the claimed “can be divided into a plurality of groups”.
Claims 1 and 14-16 recite the limitation “first group” and “second group” this limitation is not defined by the claims which renders the claims indefinite. One with ordinary skill in the art would not be able to know if the first and second groups are from the selected from the claimed “plurality of groups” or they are different groups. The scope of the claim remains indeterminate because of the claimed “first group” and “second group”.
Claim 3 is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. it appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For example, the claimed limitation “the signal quality the plurality of spectrum frequency band-intensity signal curves is its signal-to-noise ratio value” one with ordinary skill in the art would not be able to know what is meant by “the signal quality the plurality of spectrum frequency”, and what the term “its” refer to.
Claims 6 and 9 recite the limitation “p spectrum frequency” this limitation is not defined by the claims which renders the claims indefinite. One with ordinary skill in the art would not be able to know what the claimed “p” refers to. As broadly as claimed the scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to the claimed “p spectrum frequency”.
Claims 11 and 12 recite the limitation “object characteristics” this limitation is not defined by the claims which renders the claims indefinite. One with ordinary skill in the art would not be able to know the claimed “object” refers to. The scope of the claim remains indeterminate because of the claimed “object characteristics”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAY A ABOUELELA whose telephone number is (571)270-7917. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, JACQUELINE CHENG can be reached at 5712725596. 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.
/MAY A ABOUELELA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791