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 § 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.
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 1, 2, 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US 8,647,283, hereinafter “Matsumoto”) in view of Davis et al. (US 11,771,334, hereinafter “Davis”).
In regards to claim 1, Matsumoto discloses a system (Fig. 1), comprising:
a dorsal module comprising a wireless transceiver (element 30, col. 7, lines 20-52);
a volar module comprising a biometric sensor configured to measure a physiological parameter (element 40; col. 4, lines 37-43);
an electrical connection between the dorsal module and the volar module (element 50; col. 4, line 34);
and a strap, sized and dimensioned to be disposed about a wrist (element 20; col. 4, lines 27-32),
the electrical connection configured to adjustably extend relative to the dorsal module (col. 5, lines 22-37) and being capable of:
connecting the dorsal module to the volar module when the volar module is at a first position on the strap relative to the dorsal module; and
connecting the dorsal module to the volar module when the volar module is at a second position on the strap relative to the dorsal module (col. 5, lines 22-29; col. 3, lines 5-10; “the pulse sensor is provided so as to be movable in the circumferential direction and axial direction of the band”),
wherein the wireless transceiver is configured to wirelessly communicate with an external device and transmit data from the volar module (col. 7, line 20 to col. 8, line 33).
Although the electronic device of Matsumoto appears to necessarily require a battery to operate the electronic device, Matsumoto does not expressly disclose that the dorsal module comprises a biometric sensor configured to measure a physiological parameter and a battery, nor that the electrical connection comprises a first conductor, configured to transmit power from the dorsal module to the volar module and a second conductor, configured to transmit data between the dorsal module and the volar module.
However, Davis in the same field of endeavor of wrist-worn physiological monitors teaches providing a dorsal module that comprises a biometric sensor configured to measure a physiological parameter (col. 7, lines 18-21) and a battery (col. 7, line 41 to col. 8, line 9), and an electrical connection that comprises a first conductor, configured to transmit power from the dorsal module to the volar module and a second conductor, configured to transmit data between the dorsal module and the volar module (col. 6, line 67 to col. 7, line 4; col. 29, lines 7-11) to provide the predictable results of a flexible monitor device that can utilize a variety of sensors (col. 6, lines 21-40; col. 7, lines 5-23) using known wiring strategies.
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 Matsumoto by providing a dorsal module that comprises a biometric sensor configured to measure a physiological parameter and a battery, and an electrical connection that comprises a first conductor, configured to transmit power from the dorsal module to the volar module and a second conductor, configured to transmit data between the dorsal module and the volar module to provide the predictable results of a flexible monitor device that can utilize a variety of sensors using known wiring strategies.
In regards to claim 2, the electrical connection comprises a cable (col. 4, lines 34-36; “a connection line 50 for establishing an electric connection between the main body 30 and a pulse sensor 43 of the sensor means 40”).
In regards to claim 8, the system is configured, when a separation between the dorsal module and the volar module is less than a length of the cable, to accommodate a surplus section of the cable on a roller (col. 5, lines 22-29; “[n]ote that the main body 30 may be provided with an extending/retracting means having, for example, a structure in which a rotation means of a retrieving roll for retrieving the connection line 50 is controlled by a switch, thereby allowing the connection line 50 to be extensible and retractable”).
In regards to claim 16, the volar module is configured, when a separation between the dorsal module and the volar module is less than a length of the cable, to connect to the cable at a point on the cable, the point on the cable being less distant from the dorsal module than the length of the cable (col. 5, lines 22-37).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of Baranski et al. (US 2016/0255944, hereinafter “Baranski”). Matsumoto discloses the essential features of the claimed invention, including that the system is configured, when a separation between the dorsal module and the volar module is less than a length of the cable, accommodating a surplus section of the cable on a roller (col. 5, lines 22-29), but does not expressly disclose that the adjustment is carried out by a loop or in an enclosure of the first wearable instrument; or further comprising a slider, in the enclosure of the first wearable instrument, for adjusting the size of the loop. However, Baranski in the same field of endeavor of wrist-wearable electronic devices teaches providing an adjustment system wherein adjustment is carried out by a loop in an enclosure of the first wearable instrument (par. 0225; “the housing of the wearable electronic device 1000 can be configured to insert through about an aperture within the housing through which the complaint [sic] loop-style band 1002 can be inserted, and folded back on itself”); and further comprising a slider, in the enclosure of the first wearable instrument, for adjusting the size of the loop (par. 0225; “the actuator may be a…linear actuator”; the examiner is considering a linear actuator to be a “slider” because it comprises two elements sliding with respect to each other to provide actuation) to provide the predictable results of automatic adjustment of fit with an electronic actuator (par. 0228). 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 Matsumoto by providing an adjustment system wherein adjustment is carried out by a loop in an enclosure of the first wearable instrument; and further comprising a slider, in the enclosure of the first wearable instrument, for adjusting the size of the loop to provide the predictable results of automatic adjustment of fit with an electronic actuator.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of Lee (US 2018/0279889, hereinafter “Lee”). Matsumoto discloses the essential features of the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing that the roller is in an enclosure of the dorsal module. However, Lee in same field of endeavor of wrist-wearable electronic devices teaches providing an adjustment roller that is in an enclosure of the dorsal module (Figs. 1 and 4, element 220) to provide the predictable results of being connected to a motor, which allows the battery within the housing to provide automatic actuation (par. 0115). 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 Matsumoto by providing an adjustment roller that is in an enclosure of the dorsal module to provide the predictable results of being connected to a motor, which allows the battery within the housing to provide automatic actuation.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of Bailey (US 2015/0065840, hereinafter “Bailey”). Matsumoto discloses the essential features of the claimed invention, including wherein the system is configured, when a separation between the dorsal module and the volar module is less than a length of the cable, to accommodate a surplus section of the cable in a loop or on a roller (col. 5, lines 22-29), but does not expressly disclose wherein the cable comprises a flexible printed circuit board, wherein a portion of the cable is covered by an overmold, or wherein the surplus section is not covered by the overmold. However, Bailey in the same field of endeavor of wrist-wearable electronic devices teaches providing a cable comprising a flexible printed circuit board (abstract, “[t]he improved stretchable printed circuit boards include a serpentine conductive trace”), wherein a portion of the cable is covered by an overmold (Fig. 7, pars. 0058, 0078; larger “pods” 701-708 and thinner communicative pathways (720) can be molded with a single piece construction, the larger “pod” molding being considered the “overmold”), and wherein the surplus section (720) is not covered by the overmold (Fig. 7) to provide the predictable results of providing all of the communicative pathways providing communicative coupling between modules and further providing the elastic/adaptive physical coupling between pod structures (par. 0078). 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 Matsumoto by providing a cable comprising a flexible printed circuit board, wherein a portion of the cable is covered by an overmold, and wherein the surplus section is not covered by the overmold to provide the predictable results of providing all of the communicative pathways providing communicative coupling between modules and further providing the elastic/adaptive physical coupling between pod structures.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 8, 9 and 12-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see the new grounds of rejection above, necessitated by amendment, in view of Davis.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W KAHELIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8688. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at (571)270-5213. 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.
/MICHAEL W KAHELIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights