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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending herein. Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 17, and 20 have been amended. No claims have been added or cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/09/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-8, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-20 as rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (US 2022/0265197) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amended claimed limitation is not taught by the current rejection of record. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kim (US Patent No. 10,022,064 B2).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving signals, determining data, comparing data, and displaying data without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed to an abstract idea with additionally generic elements (electrodes and graphic user interface) to gather and display data. The data gathering steps required to use the correlation (bioimpedance data) do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insiginificant extra-solution activity. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the use of an electrode to gather electrical signals are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP 2106.05(d). See the Two Prong analysis of the independent claims 1 and 17 below.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1: Is a Statutory Category Recited?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps within a system and is a method.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitations of “receiving the first electrical signal”, “determining first bioimpedance data… based on comparison of the first electrical signal…”, and “causing a graphical user interface of a user device to display a message”. These limitations, as drafted is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic electronic components (electrodes). That is, other than reciting “electrodes”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of an electrode does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Recited Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites an additional element of comparing first electrical signals generated by the first electrode and the first electrical signal received by the second electrode. The comparison step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering values to be used in a comparison step) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic electronic component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The comparison although for an output source (display a message) is not actually used for other activity. The claim is therefore directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere extra solution activity to apply the exception using a generic electronic component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic electronic component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Regarding claims 2-16, the limitations described do not overcome the deficiencies described above.
Regarding claim 17,
Step 1: Is a Statutory Category Recited?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps within a system and is a method.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitations of “receiving the first electrical signal”, “determining first bioimpedance data… based on comparison of the first electrical signal…”, and “causing a graphical user interface of a user device to display a message”. These limitations, as drafted is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic electronic components (electrodes) and a generic computer component (controller). That is, other than reciting “electrodes” and “a controller configured to:”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of an electrode does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Recited Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites additional elements of comparing first electrical signals generated by the first electrode and the first electrical signal received by the second electrode, and a controller. The comparison step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering values to be used in a comparison step) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic electronic/computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The comparison although for an output source (display a message) is not actually used for other activity. The claim is therefore directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere extra solution activity to apply the exception using a generic electronic component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic electronic component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Regarding claims 18-20, the limitations described do not overcome the deficiencies described above.
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.
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.
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 1-8, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (US 2022/0265197), herein after “Tan”, in view of Kim (US Patent No. 10,022,064 B2), herein after “Kim”.
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Tan teaches “generating a first electrical signal using a first electrode (105a) of a wearable ring device, wherein the first electrical signal is associated with a first frequency (p.[0061] " the wearable device 100 may obtain an ECG signal based on a first electrical signal detected by the first electrode", and p.[0077], " The filtering apparatus may filter, by using a specific frequency bandwidth, the electrical signals provided by the electrode 105A")”, “receiving the first electrical signal using a second electrode of the wearable ring device (p.[0079] "The first electrode and the second electrode may detect electrical signals of a human body"), wherein the first electrode, the second electrode, or both, are disposed within an inner surface of the wearable ring device (Fig. 6, electrode 616 on the inner surface of the watch)”. For clarity of examination on the record, the Examiner is interpreting a ring to be any form of circular enclosed object, including, but not limited to, a belt, watch, or cuff. Therefore, the watch of Tan, falls into a definition of a ring under broadest reasonable interpretation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the watch of Tan as functionally equivalent to the ring of the claimed invention. They both are worn on the extremities of the user for the purpose of gathering electrical signals from the body and is found to be obvious to substitute a watch for a ring.
Tan further teaches “determining first bioimpedance data associated with a user based at least in part on a comparison of the first electrical signal generated by the first electrode and the first electrical signal received by the second electrode (p.[0102], specifically but not limited to "For example, when the Bio-z sensor is disposed on the first electrode or the second electrode, when a body portion of the user is in contact with the first electrode or the second electrode, the Bio-z sensor may detect the skin (for example, skin in contact with the first electrode or the second electrode) status of the user.") Note that Tan compares values of bioimpedance to determine if the device is in contact with the skin. This is how contact is determined ([p.[0012-0013]). Further, Tan p.[0102] teaches that bioimpedance is determined by the Bio-Z sensor that reflects a skin’s status of a human body. As further explained in p.[0102], the Bio-Z sensor detects the status of the skin to determine the presence of moisture based on the impedance value in order to determine if noise would likely be present before an ECG is generated. This is done be establishing frequency domain bandwidths as further described in p.[0102]. The processor 614 compares the values between electrodes to determine the ideal frequency bandwidth to use if the skin has a water stain, therefore teaching that the sensor does compare signals between electrodes while determining a bioimpedance value in order to determine if noise is present.
Tan further teaches “causing a graphical user interface of a user device to display a message associated with the first bioimpedance data (Fig. 9(a)-(c))”.
Tan does not explicitly teach “… with a first frequency that is selected from a plurality of electrical signals that are usable for performing bioimpedance measurements;” and “… using the first frequency selected from the plurality of frequencies of electrical signals”, but Kim does in an analogous electrosurgical device. Kim teaches “… with a first frequency that is selected from a plurality of electrical signals that are usable for performing bioimpedance measurements (Abstract, Fig. 1, Fig. 13, col. 5, lines 1-65, col. 6, lines 1-65)” and “… using the first frequency selected from the plurality of frequencies of electrical signals (Abstract, Fig. 1, Fig. 13, col. 5, lines 1-65, col. 6, lines 1-65)”. 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 system of Kim in Tan. It is known in the art to use selective frequencies to measure bioimpedance values and produces predictable results of measuring the bioimpedance of the desired tissue (such as blood, fat, etc.) based on the suitable frequency chosen.
Regarding claim 2 and 18, the limitations of claims 1 and 17 are taught as described above. Tan teaches “wherein the wearable ring device comprises a plurality of electrodes including the first electrode, the second electrode, and a third electrode, and wherein the first bioimpedance data is associated with a first biological parameter of a plurality of biological parameters (p.[0061]), the method further comprising selectively activating the first electrode and the second electrode from the plurality of electrodes based at least in part on the first biological parameter, wherein generating the first electrical signal, receiving the first electrical signal, or both, are based at least in part on selectively activating the first electrode and the second electrode (p.[0133], "The interface 1206 includes a plurality of options, including an “Automatic ECG detection” option and a control 1207. After detecting an operation used to activate the control 1207, the mobile phone sends an instruction to the wristband. The instruction is used to instruct to enable an automatic ECG detection function", wherein the enablement of the ECG detection activates the electrodes to detect an ECG signal).”
Regarding claims 3 and 19, the limitations of claim 1 and 17 are taught as described above. Tan teaches “wherein the first bioimpedance data is associated with a first biological parameter, and wherein the first frequency is selected based at least in part on the first biological parameter, the method further comprising (p.[0100])”, “generating a second electrical signal using the first electrode, the second electrode, or both, wherein the second electrical signal is associated with a second frequency selected based at least in part on a second biological parameter (p.[0079, 0100])”, “receiving the second electrical signal using a third electrode that is disposed within an outer surface (p.[0079, p.[0083, Fig. 4]) of the wearable ring device”, “determining second bioimpedance data associated with the user associated based at least in part on a comparison of the second electrical signal generated by the first electrode, the second electrode, or both, and the first electrical signal received by the third electrode (p.[0068, 0101-0102, 0139, 0141, Table 1])”, “causing the graphical user interface of the user device to display a second message associated with the second biological parameter based at least in part on the second bioimpedance data (Fig. 9a-c)”.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of claim 3 are taught as described above. Tan teaches “wherein the first biological parameter and the second biological parameter comprise one of a blood content parameter, a body composition parameter, a blood pressure parameter, a glucose parameter, a hydration parameter, a heart rate parameter, a breathing rate parameter, or any combination thereof” in p.[0140, 0093]. The Examiner is interpreting an ECG to be a suitable example of a heart rate parameter, and therefore teaches the claimed limitation in p.[0140]. Taking a heart rate is also further taught in p.[0093].
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Tan teaches “further comprising: receiving, via the graphical user interface of the user device, a user input to perform a bioimpedance measurement, wherein generating the first electrical signal is based at least in part on the user input (p.[0133])”.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of claim 5 are taught as described above. Tan teaches “causing the graphical user interface of the user device to display, in response to the user input, a set of instructions that instruct the user to contact one of the first electrode or the second electrode with another portion of their body, wherein generating the first electrical signal, receiving the first electrical signal, determining the first bioimpedance data, or any combination thereof, is based at least in part on displaying the set of instructions (p.[0133-0134], Fig. 9a-c)”.
Regarding claims 7 and 20, the limitations of claim 1 and 17 are taught as described above. Tan teaches “generating, using the first electrode, a plurality of reference electrical signals associated with a plurality of frequencies including the first frequency (p.[0068-0069], Fig. 14)” , “receiving the plurality of reference electrical signals using the second electrode (p.[0097] "The first electrode 616 detects a first electrical signal. The second electrode 618 detects a second electrical signal. Both the first electrical signal and the second electrical signal have specific frequencies.")”, “comparing the plurality of reference electrical signals associated with the plurality of frequencies received at the second electrode, selecting the first frequency from the plurality of frequencies based at least in part on the comparison, wherein generating the first electrical signal is based at least in part on selecting the first frequency (p.[0100] "The watch 600 has different frequency bandwidths (for example, a filtering apparatus in the watch 600 uses different frequency bandwidths when filtering electrical signals collected by the first electrode and the second electrode) in different operating modes. The current status of the user may include a current movement status, skin status, or the like of the user. For example, the watch 600 may determine the current status of the user by using sensor data detected by the sensor subsystem 606, and then select an appropriate frequency bandwidth based on different sensor data. The following embodiment describes an example in which the processor 614 determines an appropriate frequency domain bandwidth based on sensor data.")”.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Tan teaches “acquiring biological data associated with the user using the wearable ring device; identifying a satisfaction of one or more trigger conditions for performing bioimpedance measurements based at least in part on the biological data, wherein generating the first electrical signal is based at least in part on the satisfaction of the one or more trigger conditions (Table 2, p.[0120])”.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Tan does not explicitly teach this limitation (baseline impedance data associated with the user based at least in part of electrical signals, comparing bioimpedance data with baseline data), however, Tan does describe a system that would accomplish the same task of determining a baseline data in order to make a comparison to current or future data in p.[0127] via the use of a machine learning model. The model can determine the accuracy of the output of the ECG, which can then be used to obtain a message about health status information. 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 machine learning system of Tan in arrive at the claimed invention. As stated in Tan, the use of the machine learning model improves the output and accuracy of the device and produces predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. The Examiner is interpreting the inner circumferential surface to be the inner wall between the top and bottom portion of the device, therefore, the electrode 105a and 105b are on the same inner circumferential surface at different (a first and second) radial position, teaching the limitation (“wherein the first electrode is disposed within the inner circumferential surface at a first radial position, and wherein the second electrode is disposed within the inner circumferential surface at a second radial position”) as described.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Tan teaches “wherein the first electrode is disposed within the inner circumferential surface of the wearable ring device (616, Fig. 6), and wherein the second electrode is disposed within an outer circumferential surface of the wearable ring device (618, Fig. 6)”.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Tan teaches “wherein the first electrode (105a) and the second electrode (105b) are disposed within a same surface of the wearable ring device, wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are parallel to one another and extend across a same angular distance around a circumference of the surface, wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are associated with a same height and a same length (Fig. 2-3a, 105a, 105b, p.[0079])”.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan and Kim in view of Vleugels (US 2022/0378659), herein after “Vleugels”.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of claim 8 are taught as described above. Tan teaches that acceleration data may be collected by the device (p.[0070]), but Tan/Kim does not teach that the biological data comprises at least motion data, wherein the motion data is based on in part one or more gestures, comprising a drinking or eating gesture, but Vleugels does in an analogous wearable technology device. Vleugels teaches identifying gestures using motion data in p.[0074], stating "Gesture-sensing technology can be used to automatically detect a gesture event without user prompting or interaction, such as gestures to indicate events when someone is eating or drinking from their hand gestures using motion sensors (accelerometer/gyroscope) in a wrist-worn wearable device or ring." It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use motion data to detect gestures such as eating in a wearable device, as taught in Vleugels, in Tan/Kim. As stated in Vleugels, "This detection can occur in real time to deduce key insights about the consumption activity such as, for example, a start time of a consumption event, an end time of the consumption event, a consumption method, metrics associated with pace of consumption, metrics associated with quantities consumed, and metrics associated with frequency of consumption, location of consumption, etc." and produces predictable results of detecting gestures of the user.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Tan/Kim does not teach of a relative timing associated with generating a first electrical signal based on a sleeping pattern, however, Vleugels does in an analogous medical device. Vleugels describes in p.[0117] a method for generating a first electrical signal (via the food detecting subsystem) based on sleeping patterns, and therefore teaches the limitation as described. 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 system of Vleugels in Tan/Kim to arrive at the claimed invention. As stated in Vleugels, monitoring the sleep of a user may provide valuable feedback related to other health parameters and produces predictable results (p.[0177]).
Claims 1-8, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan and Kim in view of Davis (U.S. Patent No. 11,701,023 B1), herein after “Davis”.
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Tan teaches “generating a first electrical signal using a first electrode (105a) of a wearable ring device, wherein the first electrical signal is associated with a first frequency (p.[0061] " the wearable device 100 may obtain an ECG signal based on a first electrical signal detected by the first electrode", and p.[0077], " The filtering apparatus may filter, by using a specific frequency bandwidth, the electrical signals provided by the electrode 105A")”, “receiving the first electrical signal using a second electrode of the wearable ring device (p.[0079] "The first electrode and the second electrode may detect electrical signals of a human body"), wherein the first electrode, the second electrode, or both, are disposed within an inner surface of the wearable ring device (Fig. 6, electrode 616 on the inner surface of the watch)”. For clarity of examination on the record, the Examiner is interpreting a ring to be any form of circular enclosed object, including, but not limited to, a belt, watch, or cuff. Therefore, the watch of Tan, falls into a definition of a ring under broadest reasonable interpretation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the watch of Tan as functionally equivalent to the ring of the claimed invention. They both are worn on the extremities of the user for the purpose of gathering electrical signals from the body and is found to be obvious to substitute a watch for a ring.
Tan further teaches “determining first bioimpedance data associated with a user based at least in part on a comparison of the first electrical signal generated by the first electrode and the first electrical signal received by the second electrode (p.[0102], specifically but not limited to "For example, when the Bio-z sensor is disposed on the first electrode or the second electrode, when a body portion of the user is in contact with the first electrode or the second electrode, the Bio-z sensor may detect the skin (for example, skin in contact with the first electrode or the second electrode) status of the user.") Note that Tan compares values of bioimpedance in order to determine if the device is in contact with the skin. This is how contact is determined ([p.[0012-0013]). Further, Tan p.[0102] teaches that bioimpedance is determined by the Bio-Z sensor that reflects a skin’s status of a human body. As further explained in p.[0102], the Bio-Z sensor detects the status of the skin to determine the presence of moisture based on the impedance value in order to determine if noise would likely be present before an ECG is generated. This is done be establishing frequency domain bandwidths as further described in p.[0102]. The processor 614 compares the values between electrodes to determine the ideal frequency bandwidth to use if the skin has a water stain, therefore teaching that the sensor does compare signals between electrodes while determining a bioimpedance value in order to determine if noise is present.
Tan further teaches “causing a graphical user interface of a user device to display a message associated with the first bioimpedance data (Fig. 9(a)-(c))”.
Tan does not explicitly teach “… with a first frequency that is selected from a plurality of electrical signals that are usable for performing bioimpedance measurements;” and “… using the first frequency selected from the plurality of frequencies of electrical signals”, but Kim does in an analogous electrosurgical device. Kim teaches “… with a first frequency that is selected from a plurality of electrical signals that are usable for performing bioimpedance measurements (Abstract, Fig. 1, Fig. 13, col. 5, lines 1-65, col. 6, lines 1-65)” and “… using the first frequency selected from the plurality of frequencies of electrical signals (Abstract, Fig. 1, Fig. 13, col. 5, lines 1-65, col. 6, lines 1-65)”. 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 system of Kim in Tan. It is known in the art to use selective frequencies to measure bioimpedance values and produces predictable results of measuring the bioimpedance of the desired tissue (such as blood, fat, etc.) based on the suitable frequency chosen.
However, for the sake of thorough examination, the Examiner now cites Davis, an analogous wearable device that determines impedance, for a more explicit teaching of comparing electrical values between at least two electrodes to determine a bioimpedance value. Davis teaches in col. 43, lines 42-64, that “In another example, the processing device may compare the impedance of the electronic signal to defined impedance values measured using different miniaturized electrodes 1514a-d.”, which teaches that the device can measure an electrical signal (the impedance value) between (at least) two electrodes to determine the impedance value, at least in part. 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 system of Davis in Tan/Kim. As stated in Davis, doing so allows for the device to determine where the device is placed on the human body, as a change of impedance (an electrical signal) may indicate a change of placement on another part of the body.
Regarding claim 2 and 18, the limitations of claims 1 and 17 are taught as described above. Tan teaches “wherein the wearable ring device comprises a plurality of electrodes including the first electrode, the second electrode, and a third electrode, and wherein the first bioimpedance data is associated with a first biological parameter of a plurality of biological parameters (p.[0061]), the method further comprising selectively activating the first electrode and the second electrode from the plurality of electrodes based at least in part on the first biological parameter, wherein generating the first electrical signal, receiving the first electrical signal, or both, are based at least in part on selectively activating the first electrode and the second electrode (p.[0133], "The interface 1206 includes a plurality of options, including an “Automatic ECG detection” option and a control 1207. After detecting an operation used to activate the control 1207, the mobile phone sends an instruction to the wristband. The instruction is used to instruct to enable an automatic ECG detection function", wherein the enablement of the ECG detection activates the electrodes to detect an ECG signal).”
Regarding claims 3 and 19, the limitations of claim 1 and 17 are taught as described above. Tan teaches “wherein the first bioimpedance data is associated with a first biological parameter, and wherein the first frequency is selected based at least in part on the first biological parameter, the method further comprising (p.[0100])”, “generating a second electrical signal using the first electrode, the second electrode, or both, wherein the second electrical signal is associated with a second frequency selected based at least in part on a second biological parameter (p.[0079, 0100])”, “receiving the second electrical signal using a third electrode that is disposed within an outer surface (p.[0079, p.[0083, Fig. 4]) of the wearable ring device”, “determining second bioimpedance data associated with the user associated based at least in part on a comparison of the second electrical signal generated by the first electrode, the second electrode, or both, and the first electrical signal received by the third electrode (p.[0068, 0101-0102, 0139, 0141, Table 1])”, “causing the graphical user interface of the user device to display a second message associated with the second biological parameter based at least in part on the second bioimpedance data (Fig. 9a-c)”.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of claim 3 are taught as described above. Tan teaches “wherein the first biological parameter and the second biological parameter comprise one of a blood content parameter, a body composition parameter, a blood pressure parameter, a glucose parameter, a hydration parameter, a heart rate parameter, a breathing rate parameter, or any combination thereof” in p.[0140, 0093]. The Examiner is interpreting an ECG to be a suitable example of a heart rate parameter, and therefore teaches the claimed limitation in p.[0140]. Taking a heart rate is also further taught in p.[0093].
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Tan teaches “further comprising: receiving, via the graphical user interface of the user device, a user input to perform a bioimpedance measurement, wherein generating the first electrical signal is based at least in part on the user input (p.[0133])”.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of claim 5 are taught as described above. Tan teaches “causing the graphical user interface of the user device to display, in response to the user input, a set of instructions that instruct the user to contact one of the first electrode or the second electrode with another portion of their body, wherein generating the first electrical signal, receiving the first electrical signal, determining the first bioimpedance data, or any combination thereof, is based at least in part on displaying the set of instructions (p.[0133-0134], Fig. 9a-c)”.
Regarding claims 7 and 20, the limitations of claim 1 and 17 are taught as described above. Tan teaches “generating, using the first electrode, a plurality of reference electrical signals associated with a plurality of frequencies including the first frequency (p.[0068-0069], Fig. 14)” , “receiving the plurality of reference electrical signals using the second electrode (p.[0097] "The first electrode 616 detects a first electrical signal. The second electrode 618 detects a second electrical signal. Both the first electrical signal and the second electrical signal have specific frequencies.")”, “comparing the plurality of reference electrical signals associated with the plurality of frequencies received at the second electrode, selecting the first frequency from the plurality of frequencies based at least in part on the comparison, wherein generating the first electrical signal is based at least in part on selecting the first frequency (p.[0100] "The watch 600 has different frequency bandwidths (for example, a filtering apparatus in the watch 600 uses different frequency bandwidths when filtering electrical signals collected by the first electrode and the second electrode) in different operating modes. The current status of the user may include a current movement status, skin status, or the like of the user. For example, the watch 600 may determine the current status of the user by using sensor data detected by the sensor subsystem 606, and then select an appropriate frequency bandwidth based on different sensor data. The following embodiment describes an example in which the processor 614 determines an appropriate frequency domain bandwidth based on sensor data.")”.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Tan teaches “acquiring biological data associated with the user using the wearable ring device; identifying a satisfaction of one or more trigger conditions for performing bioimpedance measurements based at least in part on the biological data, wherein generating the first electrical signal is based at least in part on the satisfaction of the one or more trigger conditions (Table 2, p.[0120])”.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Tan does not explicitly teach this limitation (baseline impedance data associated with the user based at least in part of electrical signals, comparing bioimpedance data with baseline data), however, Tan does describe a system that would accomplish the same task of determining a baseline data in order to make a comparison to current or future data in p.[0127] via the use of a machine learning model. The model can determine the accuracy of the output of the ECG, which can then be used to obtain a message about health status information. 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 machine learning system of Tan in arrive at the claimed invention. As stated in Tan, the use of the machine learning model improves the output and accuracy of the device and produces predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. The Examiner is interpreting the inner circumferential surface to be the inner wall between the top and bottom portion of the device, therefore, the electrode 105a and 105b are on the same inner circumferential surface at different (a first and second) radial position, teaching the limitation (“wherein the first electrode is disposed within the inner circumferential surface at a first radial position, and wherein the second electrode is disposed within the inner circumferential surface at a second radial position”) as described.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Tan teaches “wherein the first electrode is disposed within the inner circumferential surface of the wearable ring device (616, Fig. 6), and wherein the second electrode is disposed within an outer circumferential surface of the wearable ring device (618, Fig. 6)”.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Tan teaches “wherein the first electrode (105a) and the second electrode (105b) are disposed within a same surface of the wearable ring device, wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are parallel to one another and extend across a same angular distance around a circumference of the surface, wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are associated with a same height and a same length (Fig. 2-3a, 105a, 105b, p.[0079])”.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan and Kim in view of Davis and Vleugels.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of claim 8 are taught as described above. Tan teaches that acceleration data may be collected by the device (p.[0070]), but Tan/Kim nor Davis does not teach that the biological data comprises at least motion data, wherein the motion data is based on in part one or more gestures, comprising a drinking or eating gesture, but Vleugels does in an analogous wearable technology device. Vleugels teaches identifying gestures using motion data in p.[0074], stating "Gesture-sensing technology can be used to automatically detect a gesture event without user prompting or interaction, such as gestures to indicate events when someone is eating or drinking from their hand gestures using motion sensors (accelerometer/gyroscope) in a wrist-worn wearable device or ring." It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use motion data to detect gestures such as eating in a wearable device, as taught in Vleugels, in Tan/Davis. As stated in Vleugels, "This detection can occur in real time to deduce key insights about the consumption activity such as, for example, a start time of a consumption event, an end time of the consumption event, a consumption method, metrics associated with pace of consumption, metrics associated with quantities consumed, and metrics associated with frequency of consumption, location of consumption, etc." and produces obvious results.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations of claim 1 are taught as described above. Tan/Kim/Davis does not teach of a relative timing associated with generating a first electrical signal based on a sleeping pattern, however, Vleugels does. Vleugels describes in p.[0117] a method for generating a first electrical signal (via the food detecting subsystem) based on sleeping patterns, and therefore teaches the limitation as described. 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 system of Vleugels in Tan/Davis to arrive at the claimed invention. As stated in Vleugels, monitoring the sleep of a user may provide valuable feedback related to other health parameters and produces predictable results (p.[0177]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 16 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Abigail M Bock whose telephone number is (571)272-8856. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Joanne Rodden can be reached at (617) 320-2637. 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.
/ABIGAIL BOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights