DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are hereby under examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/29/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 14, line 3 recites “5 and 15s”, however it appears it should read --5s and 15s-- (emphasis added) to maintain consistent claim language with other claims.
Regarding claim 19, line 4 recites “the user body”, however it appears it should read --the users body-- (emphasis added).
Regarding claim 19, lines 7-8 recite “the user body”, however it appears it should read --the users body-- (emphasis added).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites the limitation "wherein X is comprised between 7s and 12s" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In light of the specification, it is currently unclear what “X” is referring to in regards to claim 1. It appears that claim 15 is intended to depend from claim 14, further defining X seconds. For the purposes of examination, claim 15 is being interpreted as depending from claim 14. It is recommended to the Applicant to either amend claim 1 to recite what “X” is, or amend claim 15 to depend from claim 14.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the limitation "the plurality of different measurement voltages" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In light of the specification, it is currently unclear if “the plurality of different measurement voltages” are the same as, related to, or different from “at least one measurement voltage at the anode”. Further, it is currently unclear if claim 17 is further defining “at least one measurement voltage” to be a “plurality of different” measurement voltages. For the purposes of examination, “the plurality of different measurement voltages” is being interpreted as being the same as “at least one measurement voltage”, and further defining the measurement voltage as recited in the claim. It is recommended to the Applicant to amend the claim to clearly recite what “the plurality of different measurement voltages” is referring to and encompasses.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claim are rejected due to their dependency.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites the limitation "the anode" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In light of the specification, it is currently unclear what “the anode” is referring to. For the purposes of examination, “the anode” is being interpreted as either “a first electrode” or “a second electrode”. It is recommended to the Applicant to amend the claims to clearly recite what “the anode” is referring to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2, 8-10, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brunswick et al. (US 20100274113 A1), hereinafter referred to as Brunswick.
The claims are generally directed towards a method to evaluate an electrochemical skin conductance, ESC, of a user body using a measurement device, the measurement device including a pair of electrodes comprising an anode and a cathode configured each to be in contact with the user body, a direct voltage source configured to apply a direct voltage to the anode, wherein a value of the direct voltage is variable, a measurement resistor configured to determine a current value flowing through the used body, wherein an electrical resistance value of the measurement resistor is variable amongst a predetermined range, and control circuitry configured to set the electrical resistance value of the measurement resistor and to set the value of the direct voltage, the method comprising, by the control circuitry: pre-stabilizing during a pre-stabilizing period, the pre-stabilizing comprising: setting the electrical resistance value of the measurement resistor at a pre-stabilization value, applying a pre-stabilization voltage at the anode during the pre-stabilizing period, and measuring during a measurement period following the pre-stabilization period, the measuring comprising: applying at least one measurement voltage at the anode, and generating ESC values using at least one voltage measurement at the anode and/or the cathode obtained during the measurement period.
Regarding claim 1, Brunswick discloses a method to evaluate an electrochemical skin conductance, ESC, of a user body using a measurement device (Abstract, “electrophysiological analysis system … electrochemical phenomena”, Fig. 1, Fig. 2), the measurement device including
a pair of electrodes comprising an anode and a cathode configured each to be in contact with the user body (Fig. 2, element Ea, element Ec, para. [0053-0054], “a pair electrodes distance from one another (anode and cathode) …”, para. [0082], “pair of electrodes …”),
a direct voltage source configured to apply a direct voltage to the anode, wherein a value of the direct voltage is variable (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, element 21, para. [0065], “electrical voltage generator … adjustable voltage …”, para. [0076], “two electrodes an anode and a cathode, the first being connected to the voltage generator …”),
a measurement resistor configured to determine a current value flowing through the used body, wherein an electrical resistance value of the measurement resistor is variable amongst a predetermined range (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, element 22, para. [0066-0067], “measurement resistor … connected between an electrode and a reference voltage … proportional to the current passing through … adjusting the ohmic value of this resistor enables the voltage measurement to be optimized … variable measurement resistor”, para. [0076-0077], “determines the value of the current …”), and
control circuitry configured to set the electrical resistance value of the measurement resistor and to set the value of the direct voltage (Fig. 1, element 10, para. [0064-0066], “central processing unit … controls an electrical voltage generator … applies control signals to a control circuit forming a measurement resistor … adjusting the ohmic value of this resistor …”),
the method comprising, by the control circuitry:
pre-stabilizing during a pre-stabilizing period, the pre-stabilizing comprising: setting the electrical resistance value of the measurement resistor at a pre-stabilization value (para. [0064-0066], “central processing unit … applies control signals to a control circuit forming a measurement resistor … adjusting the ohmic value of this resistor …”, para. [0082], “adjusts the value of the resistor …”),
applying a pre-stabilization voltage at the anode during the pre-stabilizing period (para. [0082], “DC voltage … to be applied to the anode …”), and
measuring during a measurement period following the pre-stabilization period, the measuring comprising:
applying at least one measurement voltage at the anode, and generating ESC values using at least one voltage measurement at the anode and/or the cathode obtained during the measurement period (para. [0077], “measuring circuit … determines the value of the current flowing in the electrodes Ea and Ec …”, para. [0086-0090], “series of DC voltage waves of a sufficient duration are then applied … controls the measuring circuit so as to record the potential … directly proportional to the current … enables the same to be calculated …”).
Regarding claim 2, Brunswick discloses the method of claim 1, wherein applying at least one measurement voltage at the anode includes applying at least one voltage step, and wherein the pre-stabilizing period lasts longer than each voltage step (para. [0082], para. [0086-0090], “series of DC voltage waves … 0.5 to 5 seconds … starting with a high level of voltage … down to a low level of voltage …”).
Regarding claim 8, Brunswick discloses the method of any of claim 1, further comprising calibrating the measurement resistor, by the control circuitry during a calibration period, the calibrating comprising: varying the electrical resistance value of the measurement resistor, and setting the electrical resistance value at a calibration value based on a comparison between a voltage at the anode and a voltage at the cathode (para. [0081-0085], “automatic calibration … causes a DC voltage … to be applied to the anode, and adjusts the value of the resistor Rmes so as to obtain a stabilized cathode voltage … optimal Rmes values …” - the calibration period being the rest of the adjusted values of the resistor after the first initial value).
Regarding claim 9, Brunswick discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the electrical resistance value of the measurement resistor for the measuring is the calibration value (para. [0081-0085], “optimal Rmes values for each of the pairs will next e used for the actual measurements …”).
Regarding claim 10, Brunswick discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the calibration period follows the pre-stabilization period (para. [0081-0085], “automatic calibration … causes a DC voltage … to be applied to the anode, and adjusts the value of the resistor Rmes so as to obtain a stabilized cathode voltage … optimal Rmes values …” - the calibration period being the rest of the adjusted values of the resistor after the first initial value).
Regarding claim 17, Brunswick discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of different measurement voltages includes between 3 and 6 voltage steps and each step lasts between 100 ms and 700 ms (para. [0086], “series of DC voltage waves of a sufficient duration (of the order of 0.5 to 5 seconds) are then applied … starting with a high level of voltage (typically of 4 volts) … down to a low level of voltage (typically of the order of 1 to 2 volts), with a step of the order of 0.05 to 0.5 volt …”).
Regarding claim 18, Brunswick discloses the method of claim 17, wherein each step lasts between 200 ms and 500 ms (para. [0086], “series of DC voltage waves of a sufficient duration (of the order of 0.5 to 5 seconds) are then applied”).
Regarding claim 19, Brunswick discloses a measurement device to evaluate an electrochemical skin conductance (ESC) of the feet of a user (Abstract, “electrophysiological analysis system … electrochemical phenomena”, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, para. [0072], “both feet or ankles of a patient”, para. [0082], para. [0127], “electrochemical conductances”), comprising:
a pair of electrodes comprising a first electrode and a second electrode configured each to be in contact with the user body (Fig. 2, element Ea, element Ec, para. [0053-0054], “a pair electrodes distance from one another (anode and cathode) …”, para. [0082], “pair of electrodes …”),
a direct voltage source configured to apply a direct voltage to the anode, wherein a value of the direct voltage is variable (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, element 21, para. [0065], “electrical voltage generator … adjustable voltage …”, para. [0076], “two electrodes an anode and a cathode, the first being connected to the voltage generator …”),
a measurement resistor configured to determine a current value flowing through the user body, wherein an electrical resistance value of the measurement resistor is variable amongst a predetermined range (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, element 22, para. [0066-0067], “measurement resistor … connected between an electrode and a reference voltage … proportional to the current passing through … adjusting the ohmic value of this resistor enables the voltage measurement to be optimized … variable measurement resistor”, para. [0076-0077], “determines the value of the current …”),
control circuitry configured to set the electrical resistance value of the measurement resistor and to set the value of the direct voltage (Fig. 1, element 10, para. [0064-0066], “central processing unit … controls an electrical voltage generator … applies control signals to a control circuit forming a measurement resistor … adjusting the ohmic value of this resistor …”),
wherein the control circuitry is configured to perform the method of claim 1 (para. [0064-0066], para. [0077], para. [0082], para. [0090], Further, see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 20, Brunswick discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program comprising instructions that, when performed by a processor of a measurement device, perform the method of claim 1 (para. [0046], para. [0064-0066], para. [0077], para. [0082], para. [0090], Further, see the rejection of claim 1 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 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunswick et al. (US 20100274113 A1), hereinafter referred to as Brunswick.
Regarding claims 3-7, Brunswick discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Brunswick does not explicitly disclose wherein the control circuitry sets the pre-stabilization value of the electrical resistance value of the measurement resistor amongst the lower 50%, or the lower 25% of the predetermined range (claim 3), wherein the pre-stabilization value of the measurement resistor is chosen amongst the lower 10%, or is the lowest value, of the predetermined range (claim 4), wherein the pre-stabilization value of the measurement resistor is predetermined (claim 5), wherein the pre-stabilization value of the measurement resistor is set regardless of the user body (claim 6), and wherein the predetermined range is between 3kOhms and 500kOhms (claim 7).
Brunswick teaches that the measurement resistor is a variable measurement resistor (para. [0067]), and the value of the electrical resistance is adjusted so as to obtain a stabilized cathode voltage (para. [0082]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical resistance value of the measurement resistor to be amongst the lower 10%, or is the lowest value, of the predetermined range, have the pre-stabilization value predetermined and/or set regardless of the user body, and have the predetermined range between 3kOhms and 500kOhms, through routine experimentation and routine optimization, as suggested by Brunswick. This is because Brunswick teaches the electrical resistance must be adjusted in order to determine a stabilized cathode voltage. Through routine optimization and experimentation, the electrical resistance value of the measurement resistor to be amongst the lower 10%, or is the lowest value, of the predetermined range, have the pre-stabilization value predetermined and/or set regardless of the user body, and have the predetermined range between 3kOhms and 500kOhms, would have been selected in order to adjust the resistance values through the entire operable range to determine the stabilized cathode voltage, and obtain accurate electrochemical skin conductance values (see MPEP 2144.05, II, A).
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunswick et al. (US 20100274113 A1), hereinafter referred to as Brunswick as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bocquet et al. (US 20180085036 A1), hereinafter referred to as Bocquet.
Regarding claim 11, Brunswick discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising, by the control circuitry: measuring at least one voltage difference around the measurement resistor during the pre-stabilization period (para. [0082], “obtain a stabilized cathode voltage … approximately half of the anode voltage”).
However, Brunswick does not explicitly disclose determining a duration of the pre-stabilization period using at least the at least one voltage difference.
Bocquet teaches an analogous method and device for measuring electrochemical skin conductance (Abstract, para. [0004]). Bocquet further teaches determining a duration of a pre-stabilization period using a voltage difference measured (para. [0118]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Brunswick to additionally determine a duration of the pre-stabilization period using at least the at least one voltage difference, as taught by Bocquet. This is because Bocquet teaches a voltage difference around the measurement resistor allows for the circuitry to determine if an anode overpotential is stabilized (para. [0118]).
Regarding claim 12, Brunswick discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising, by the control circuitry: determining at least one current value flowing through the user body using at least one voltage difference around the measurement resistor and the pre-stabilization value (para. [0077], “determines the value of current flowing in the electrodes Ea and Ec …”, para. [0082], “obtain a stabilized cathode voltage … approximately half of the anode voltage”).
However, Brunswick does not explicitly disclose determining a duration of the pre-stabilization period using at least the current value.
Bocquet teaches an analogous method and device for measuring electrochemical skin conductance (Abstract, para. [0004]). Bocquet further determining a duration of the pre-stabilization period using at least the current value (para. [0062], para. [0086], para. [0118], para. [0120]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Brunswick to additionally determine a duration of the pre-stabilization period using at least the current value, as taught by Bocquet. This is because Bocquet teaches a current value determined using a measured voltage difference and a resistor value allows for the circuitry to determine if an anode overpotential is stabilized (para. [0118]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Brunswick discloses the method of claim 12.
However, modified Brunswick does not explicitly disclose computing an integral of the at least one current value since the beginning of the pre-stabilization period, and determining the duration of the pre-stabilization period using at least the integral.
Bocquet further teaches deducing the amount of current intensity using the voltage and the resistance, in order to determine a duration of the pre-stabilization period using the current intensity (para. [0118-0120]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by modified Brunswick to additionally compute an integral of the at least one current value since the beginning of the pre-stabilization period, and determine the duration of the pre-stabilization period using at least the integral, as taught and suggested by Bocquet. This is because Bocquet teaches determining an amount of current intensity over time allows for the circuitry to determine if an anode overpotential is stabilized (para. [0118]).
Regarding claim 14 and 15, modified Brunswick discloses the method of claim 13.
However, modified Brunswick does not explicitly disclose wherein the duration of the pre-stabilization period is the shortest between: X seconds, wherein X is comprised between 5 and 15s, a period of time for which the integral reaches a predetermined threshold (claim 14), and wherein X is comprised between 7s and 12s (claim 15 - Additionally, see the 112(b) rejection of claim 15 above regarding the claim interpretation).
Bocquet further teaches a duration of the pre-stabilization period is from 5 to 10 seconds, for example about 8 seconds (para. [0118]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the duration of the pre-stabilization period taught by modified Brunswick to explicitly be between 7s and 12s, as taught by Bocquet. This is because Bocquet teaches a longer pre-stabilization period of about 8 seconds allows for stabilization of the anode (para. [0118]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunswick et al. (US 20100274113 A1), hereinafter referred to as Brunswick as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Centen et al. (US 20190046064 A1), hereinafter referred to as Centen.
Regarding claim 16, Brunswick discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Brunswick does not explicitly disclose wherein the pair of electrodes is made of indium tin oxide.
Centen teaches of an analogous method for measuring body signal through electrodes, including skin conductance (Abstract, Fig. 2, para. [0054]). Centen further teaches the electrodes are made of indium tin oxide (para. [0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pair of electrodes disclosed by Brunswick to explicitly be made of indium tin oxide, as taught by Centen. This is because Centen teaches indium tin oxide is a suitable conductive material, specifically for interfacing with the feet of the user (para. [0039]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE W KRETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM.
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 M 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.
/K.W.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JASON M SIMS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791