Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/513,044

WEARABLE DEVICE FOR DETECTING SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND LOCATION

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Nov 17, 2023
Examiner
GRAVES, TIMOTHY P
Art Unit
2855
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
363 granted / 449 resolved
+12.8% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
469
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.9%
-36.1% vs TC avg
§103
40.2%
+0.2% vs TC avg
§102
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
§112
26.1%
-13.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 449 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
Wearable Device for Detecting Substance Abuse and Location 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 07/02/2024 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. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the processor does not activate the GNSS receiver when in sleep mode and reports a last determined GNSS location with the first substance level value” is unclear if the location and substance level value are reported when in sleep mode. 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 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. Claims 1, 5-7, 11, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nothacker (US 20210153784; “Nothacker”). Regarding claim 1, Nothacker discloses, in figures 1-29, a wearable device (100) for detecting an abused substance (ABSTRACT, Nothacker senses alcohol), comprising: a main body (110) forming an internal chamber (111) and having a first recessed area (120) and a second recessed area (113) on a skin-side of the main body (see fig. 3b), the main body forming a plurality of first apertures ((123), ¶ 0047, the inlet cooperates with apertures) between the first recessed area (120) and the internal chamber (111); a substance detection sensor (130) located within the internal chamber (111); a strap ((140), ¶ 0073, “the fastener includes a strap (or straps)”) attached to the main body (110) for securing the wearable device to a wrist or ankle of a test subject (see fig. 5A, ¶ 0073, Nothacker’s fastener can encircle a user’s wrist); and a control circuit (150) including a processor (151) and memory storing machine-readable instructions (¶ 0086) that, when executed by the processor (151), cause the control circuit (150) to: determine a first substance level value from an output of the substance detection sensor (130) indicative of a level of the abused substance (¶ 0062, examiner notes Nothacker’s processor determines blood alcohol based on signals received from the alcohol sensor) in air flowing (¶ 0044, examiner notes air circulates within the sampling volume) through the internal chamber (111); and send the first substance level value to an external server (¶ 0067-0068, examiner notes Nothacker’s communication module sends sensor measurements to external computing platforms). Regarding claim 5, Nothacker discloses, in figures 1-29, the main body (110) forming a second aperture (¶ 0044, examiner notes Nothacker’s gasket includes vents/outlets to enable air circulation with the sampling volume) between the second recessed area (113) and the internal chamber (111). Regarding claim 6, Nothacker discloses, in figures 1-29, the second recessed area (113) being formed at an outer edge (see figs. 3A-3B) of the skin-side of the main body (110), wherein the second recessed area (113) is sized and shaped to allow the air to move from the internal chamber (111) into an external environment (¶ 0044, examiner notes Nothacker’s gasket includes vents/outlets to enable air circulation with the sampling volume). Regarding claim 7, Nothacker discloses, in figures 1-29, the first recessed area (120) and the second recessed area (113) are sized and shaped to reduce humidity (¶ 0044, Nothacker’s gasket vents/outlets function to “reduce moisture retention/condensation”) at the skin-side of the main body (110). Regarding claim 11, Nothacker discloses, in figures 1-19, a strap connector (¶ 0072, Nothacker’s fastener includes a fastening mechanism) that is over-molded onto a mechanically keyed end (¶ 0072, examiner notes Nothacker’s fastener is keyed) of the strap (140) and a top portion of the main body is over-molded onto a keyed portion of the strap connector (see at least fig. 13). Regarding claim 13, Nothacker discloses, in figures 1-29, a method for detecting substance compliance (TITLE, “method for monitoring intoxication”) using a wearable device (100) positioned on a wrist or ankle of a test subject (see fig. 5A, ¶ 0073, Nothacker’s fastener can encircle a user’s wrist), comprising: continuously detecting (¶ 0039, Nothacker’s system continuously measures a user’s blood alcohol content), by a substance detection sensor (130) located in an internal chamber (111) of the wearable device (100), a substance within air from a first recessed area (¶ 0044, examiner notes air circulates within the sampling volume), located between a skin-side (121) of the wearable device (100) and skin of the test subject (¶ 0039, “near a user’s skin”), via a first aperture ((123), ¶ 0047, the inlet cooperates with apertures) formed between the internal chamber (111) and the first recessed area (120); determining a substance level value from an output of the substance detection sensor (¶ 0062, examiner notes Nothacker’s processor determines blood alcohol based on signals received from the alcohol sensor); and sending the substance level value to an external server when the substance level value indicates a level of the substance that is not in compliance (¶ 0067-0068, examiner notes Nothacker’s communication module sends sensor measurements including intoxication notification to external computing platforms). Regarding claim 18, Nothacker discloses, in figures 1-29, sending a status message to the external server (¶ 0067, “remote computing system”) when the substance level value is in compliance (¶ 0068, sensor measurements, ¶ 0069, sensor measurements include “blood alcohol content”), the status message including a battery level of the wearable device to indicate operability of the wearable device (¶ 0068, “system status”, ¶ 0069, system status includes “low battery”). 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. Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nothacker (US 20210153784; “Nothacker”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bower (US 5032823; “Bower”). Regarding claims 2, Nothacker discloses the strap (140) includes a security element (¶ 0072). Nothacker fails to disclose the strap is electrically conductive and the control circuit monitors a current through the strap and sends a notification when the current changes. Bower teaches, in figures 4-7, the strap (32) is electrically conductive (84, 94), the control circuit (60) is configured to: apply a voltage across the strap (col. 4, lines 60-61, examiner notes Bower’s conductors are maintained at different potentials); monitor a current through the strap (col. 4, lines 61-62, examiner notes Bower’s detects momentary current flow in the conductors); and send a notification to a server (16) when changes in the current indicate tampering or removal of the wearable device (col. 11, lines 61-66, Bower’s sends a tamper-indicating signal when an attempt to sever the strap is made). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Bower’s scheme of determining and reporting tampering to teach Nothacker to produce code and hardware that monitors electric current of a strap as a security element since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable way of determining and reporting attempts to remove a monitoring device. Regarding claim 3, Nothacker and Bower disclose, in Bowers figures 4-7, the strap (Bower (32)) comprising a first strap portion (not enumerated, see Bower’s fig. 6, examiner notes Bower’s strap extends away from the object in two opposite directions) attached at one end to a first side of the main body (Bower (30)) and a second strap portion (see previous comment) attached at one end to a second side, opposite the first side of the main body (Bower (30)), wherein the voltage is applied at the main body ((30) col. 8, lines 20-21, examiner notes Bower’s detection circuit including voltage connected to the conductive traces is within the object) across the first strap portion and the second strap portion (see previous comment). Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nothacker (US 20210153784; “Nothacker”) as applied to claim 1 above. Regarding claim 8, Nothacker discloses, in figures 1-29, a fan located within the internal chamber (¶ 0043, examiner notes Nothacker’s fan drives the sample from the user’s skin toward the sensor), the memory (¶ 0086) further comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor (151), cause the control circuit (150) to operate (the examiner asserts the electronic subsystem controls the fan) the fan (see previous comment). Examiner notes that the limitation: “to move the air through the substance detection sensor to clear residual substance” is an intended use type statement. Applicant is reminded that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. Nothacker does not explicitly disclose the control circuit operates the fan. However, the Examiner takes official notice that a processor running code for controlling a sub-component such as a fan is well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the well-known technique of controlling a fan with a processor running code to operate Nothacker’s fan. Doing so provides for reducing power consumption by turning the fan off when it is not required. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nothacker (US 20210153784; “Nothacker”) as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Medelius (US 20170031334; “Medelius”). Regarding claim 12, Nothacker fails to disclose the strap connector includes nylon. Medelius teaches the strap connector (16, 18) has a material composition that includes nylon (¶ 0013, “nylon”). Examiner notes that the limitation: “to prevent ingress of water, humidity, and dust into the main body” is an intended use type statement. Applicant is reminded that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Medelius’s scheme of using a waterproof material such as nylon to fabricate a strap connector to teach Nothacker to use nylon to fabricate a fastener since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a durable, waterproof material to use as a strap connector. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nothacker (US 20210153784; “Nothacker”) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Bower (US 5032823; “Bower”). Regarding claim 15, Nothacker discloses, in figures 1-29, a strap (140) includes a security element (¶ 0072). Nothacker fails to disclose applying a voltage across the strap, monitoring a current through the strap and sending a notification when the current changes. Bower teaches, in figures 4-7, applying a voltage across two different ends of a strap (32) of the wearable device (col. 4, lines 60-61, examiner notes Bower’s conductors are maintained at different potentials); monitoring a current through the strap (col. 4, lines 61-62, examiner notes Bower’s detects momentary current flow in the conductors); detecting changes in the current indicative of tampering (see previous comment); and sending a notification (col. 11, lines 61-66, Bower’s sends a tamper-indicating signal when an attempt to sever the strap is made) indicative of the tampering to the external server (16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Bower’s scheme of determining and reporting tampering to teach Nothacker to produce code and hardware that monitors electric current of a strap as a security element since it is well known to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so provides a reliable way of determining and reporting attempts to remove a monitoring device. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4, 9, 14, 16-17 and 19-20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 4, the examiner notes a search has not revealed prior art teaching or suggesting, at least, the subject matter of claim 1 including a first pressure sensor located within the internal chamber; a second pressure sensor positioned within a sub-chamber formed by the main body and fluidly coupled with one of the first apertures and fluidically isolated from the internal chamber; and the memory further comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the control circuit to: determine a first pressure value from an output of the first pressure sensor; determine a second pressure value from an output of the second pressure sensor; and send a notification to a server indicating that at least one of the plurality of first apertures is blocked when the second pressure value is different from the first pressure value by at least a threshold amount. Examiner concludes prior existence of the combination, or a suggestion to combine all cited references, is improbable. Regarding claim 9, the examiner notes a search has not revealed prior art teaching or suggesting, at least, the subject matter combination of claims 1 and 8 including machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the control circuit to determine, at intervals, a second substance level value from the output of the substance detection sensor and stop operating the fan when the second substance level value falls below a threshold value. Examiner concludes prior existence of the combination, or a suggestion to combine all cited references, is improbable. Regarding claim 14, the examiner notes a search has not revealed prior art teaching or suggesting, at least, the subject matter of claim 13 including after a predefined period since determining the substance level value is not in compliance, activating a fan positioned within a chamber of a main body of the wearable device; determining, at intervals, a second substance level value from the output of the substance detection sensor; and deactivating the fan when the second substance level value is below a second predefined threshold value. Examiner concludes prior existence of the combination, or a suggestion to combine all cited references, is improbable. Regarding claim 16, the examiner notes a search has not revealed prior art teaching or suggesting, at least, the subject matter of claim 13 including determining a first pressure value from an output of a pressure sensor located in the internal chamber; and sending a notification to the external server indicating that the first aperture is blocked by a foreign substance when at least one subsequently read second pressure value differs from the first pressure value by less than at least a threshold amount. Examiner concludes prior existence of the combination, or a suggestion to combine all cited references, is improbable. Regarding claim 17, the examiner notes a search has not revealed prior art teaching or suggesting, at least, the subject matter of claim 13 including reading a first pressure value from a pressure sensor included in the internal chamber; reading a second pressure value from a second pressure sensor positioned within a sub-chamber fluidly coupled with one of the first aperture and not fluidly coupled to the internal chamber; and sending a notification to the external server indicating that the first aperture is blocked when the second pressure value differs from the first pressure value by at least a threshold amount. Examiner concludes prior existence of the combination, or a suggestion to combine all cited references, is improbable. Regarding claims 19-20, the examiner notes a search has not revealed prior art teaching or suggesting, at least, the subject matter of claim 13 including determining that the wearable device is stationary when global navigation satellite system (GNSS) locations read within a predefined period from a GNSS receiver of the wearable device are within a drift region; and transitioning the wearable device to a sleep mode in which a last read GNSS location is sent to the external server. Examiner concludes prior existence of the combination, or a suggestion to combine all cited references, is improbable. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY P GRAVES whose telephone number is (469)295-9072. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.. 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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. /TIMOTHY P GRAVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 17, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596057
ADAS Calibration System Including Motor Vehicle Centerline Alignment Element
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594923
VEHICLE HAVING A SENSOR ARRANGEMENT FOR MEASURING AN ACTUATING ANGLE OF THE ACTUATING ELEMENT, MEASURING ARRANGEMENT AND MEASUREMENT METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590938
NEW POLLUTANT DETECTION EQUIPMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584899
METHOD OF AND ANALYSER FOR THE OPTICAL ANALYSIS OF A LIQUID CONTAINING A DISSOLVED GAS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571720
APPARATUS FOR AND METHOD OF DETERMINING DRYNESS LEVEL OF STEAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+15.9%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 449 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month