DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The action is in response to the application filed on 01/24/2024.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/08/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-10, 14-20) in the reply filed on 01/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10, 14-20 are pending and examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Human Organism
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 1, and claims dependent thereof, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “one or more first electrodes disposed on a first surface of the electronic device and in contact with a first part of a user;
one or more second electrodes disposed on a second surface of the electronic device and in contact with a second part of the user” should be changed to “one or more first electrodes disposed on a first surface of the electronic device and configured to be in contact with a first part of a user;
one or more second electrodes disposed on a second surface of the electronic device and configured to be in contact with a second part of the user”.
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.
Regarding claims 1-10, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to receiving and manipulating data without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “An electronic device that is wearable, comprising: one or more first electrodes disposed on a first surface of the electronic device and in contact with a first part of a user; one or more second electrodes disposed on a second surface of the electronic device and in contact with a second part of the user; and a processor configured to: measure a body impedance of the user using the one or more first electrodes and the one or more second electrodes, and determine a degree of movement of the user during the body impedance measurement based on a deviation in the body impedance.”
This falls into a mental process grouping of abstract ideas. These limitations are either capable of being performed mentally by looking at measurements and making mental assessments thereafter or considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
The step of measuring a body impedance of the user using the one or more first electrodes and the one or more second electrodes is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind or by a pencil and paper by a skilled clinician.
The step of determining a degree of movement of the user during the body impedance measurement based on a deviation in the body impedance is a mental process that can be performed in a human mind.
Additionally the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of a processor for performing the steps is, at its broadest reasonable interpretation, a generic computer structure for performing the generic computer function of data processing, which does not qualify as an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Likewise, the inclusion of a generic electrodes for measuring data is merely insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, which also does not qualify as an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Finally, the claims analyzed as a whole do not provides any element, or combination of elements, sufficient to amount to significantly more than the mental process as only a processor and generic electrode for data collection are claimed. As noted previously, the addition of a generic computer structure for performing the generic computer function of data processing and the inclusion of a generic electrode for gathering data (merely insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering), does not qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Additionally, the claimed sensors are well-understood, routine and conventional activity and thus do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The following examples show that the generic electrode is well understood, routine, and conventional activity: US 20140343392 A1 (paragraph [0208]); US 20160113578 A1 (paragraph [0048])
Regarding dependent claims 2-6, 10 the claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea or provide insignificant extra solution activity.
Regarding dependent claims 7-9, the claim recite subject matter, that if included with the limitations of claim 1, would integrate the subject matter into a practical application.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is a parallel method claim to that of claim 1, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claims 15-19, the claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea or provide insignificant extra solution activity.
Regarding dependent claim 20, the claim recite subject matter, that if included with the limitations of claim 14, would integrate the subject matter into a practical application.
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 (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 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, 6, 10, 14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being rejected by US 20140343392 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Yang”).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches an electronic device that is wearable (abstract; electrodes are attached to fabric which can be adhered to a user; paragraphs [0172]-[0173]), comprising:
one or more first electrodes disposed on a first surface of the electronic device and in contact with a first part of a user (paragraph [0194]; Figures 10a-c);
one or more second electrodes disposed on a second surface of the electronic device and in contact with a second part of the user (paragraph [0194]; Figures 10a-c); and
a processor (has a processor; claim 16) configured to:
measure a body impedance of the user using the one or more first electrodes and the one or more second electrodes (paragraph [0286]), and
determine a degree of movement of the user during the body impedance measurement based on a deviation in the body impedance (“… the invention discloses the method for estimating the body movement by noise, similarly, the embodiment can adopt the method for estimating the body movement by detecting the impedance of the electrodes…”; paragraph [0286]).
Regarding claim 6, Yang teaches wherein
the processor is further configured to:
determine whether a first reference electrode having a first contact impedance exceeding a first threshold impedance is present among the one or more first electrodes, and provide the user with feedback inducing moisturization of the first part of the user in response to the first reference electrode having the first contact impedance exceeding the first threshold impedance being present (paragraph [0208]), and
determine whether a second reference electrode having a second contact impedance exceeding a second threshold impedance is present among the one or more second electrodes, and provide the user with feedback inducing moisturization of the second part of the user in response to the second reference electrode having the second contact impedance exceeding the second threshold impedance being present (paragraph [0208]),
wherein the first threshold impedance is less than the second threshold impedance (paragraph [0208]).
Regarding claim 10, Yang teaches wherein
the processor is further configured to:
measure the body impedance by measuring a voltage from another one of the one or more first electrodes to another one of the one or more second electrodes when a current is applied from the one of the one or more first electrodes to the one of the one or more second electrodes and measuring a voltage from the one of the one or more first electrodes to the one of the one or more second electrodes when a current is applied from the another one of the first electrodes to the another one of the second electrodes (paragraph [0208]).
Regarding claim 14, Yang teaches an operation method of an electronic device that is wearable (abstract; electrodes are attached to fabric which can be adhered to a user; paragraphs [0172]-[0173]), the operation method comprising:
measuring a body impedance of a user using one or more first electrodes and one or more second electrodes (paragraph [0194]; Figures 10a-c); and
determining a degree of movement of the user during the body impedance measurement based on a deviation in the body impedance (“… the invention discloses the method for estimating the body movement by noise, similarly, the embodiment can adopt the method for estimating the body movement by detecting the impedance of the electrodes…”; paragraph [0286]),
wherein the one or more first electrodes are disposed on a first surface of the electronic device so as to be in contact with a first part of the user (paragraph [0194]; Figures 10a-c), and
wherein the one or more second electrodes are disposed on a second surface of the electronic device so as to be in contact with a second part of the user (paragraph [0194]; Figures 10a-c).
Regarding claim 20, Yang teaches further comprising:
determining whether a third reference electrode having a first contact impedance exceeding a third threshold impedance is present among the one or more first electrodes and the one or more second electrodes (paragraph [0208], [0253]. [0286]), and
providing the user with feedback inducing the touch of the third reference electrode with a body of the user in response to the third reference electrode having the second contact impedance exceeding the third threshold impedance being present (paragraph [0208], [0253]. [0286]).
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) 2-4, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20210217533 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Heimerl”).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Yang teaches wherein
the processor is further configured to:
determine the degree of movement of the user based on the deviation in body impedance from a first threshold value (paragraph [0208]), but does not explicitly teach
provide the user with feedback determined according to the degree of movement.
However, Heimerl teaches provide the user with feedback determined according to the degree of movement (paragraph [0064]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yang, to provide the user with feedback, as taught by Heimerl, because doing so alerts the user to the sensors condition.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Yang, in view of Heimerl, teaches wherein
the processor is further configured to:
provide the user with first visual feedback when a first time for which the deviation in body impedance exceeds the first threshold value is less than or equal to a first threshold time (paragraph [0208]; as taught by Yang; paragraph [0064]; as taught by Heimerl), and
provide the user with the first visual feedback and first vibration feedback when the first time for which the deviation in body impedance exceeds the first threshold value is greater than the first threshold time (paragraph [0208]; as taught by Yang; paragraph [0064]; as taught by Heimerl).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Yang, in view of Heimerl, teaches wherein
the processor is further configured to:
provide the user with the first visual feedback and second vibration feedback stronger than the first vibration feedback when a second time for which the deviation in body impedance exceeds a second threshold value greater than the first threshold value is less than or equal to a second threshold time (paragraph [0208]; as taught by Yang; paragraph [0064]; as taught by Heimerl), and
suspend measuring the body impedance and provide the user with third visual feedback and third vibration feedback stronger than the second vibration feedback when the second time for which the deviation in body impedance exceeds the second threshold value is greater than the second threshold time (paragraph [0208]; as taught by Yang; paragraph [0064]; as taught by Heimerl).
Conclusion
Claims 5, 6, 7, 18, and 19, and claims dependent thereof, are rejected under 35 USC 101, but provide subject matter not found in the prior art search.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABID A MUSTANSIR whose telephone number is (408)918-7647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 am to 6 pm Pacific Time.
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 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.
/ABID A MUSTANSIR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights