DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication dated 14 September 2026 concerning Application No. 18/528,499 filed on 04 December 2023.
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending; claims 1-11 and 20 remain withdrawn; claims 12 and 18 have been amended; and claims 12-19 are currently under consideration for patentability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated 14 September 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive or moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant has amended independent claim 12 to recite “wherein the flexible wearable device comprises an adhesive form factor configured to be placed on skin of the individual,” arguing that the Martikka reference does not disclose or suggest such a limitation. The Examiner has addressed the amended limitations in the updated text of the rejection below.
Specifically regarding the Martikka reference, the Examiner respectfully directs Applicant to those sections of Martikka which describe that “a sensor may be fastened to the body by means of a rubber band, belt, strap, or some other suitable means” ([0058]) and that “a means for processing measuring results and for calculating one or several indexes may be placed on the body” ([0061]). When describing use of the acceleration sensors, Martikka further describes that “the most natural place for an acceleration sensor is the middle part of the body…when several acceleration sensors are used one sensor may be placed e.g. on the body and the others on different limbs” ([0064]). Martikka concludes that “things related to exercise capacity and fatigue may also be detected from motion sensors attached on the body” ([0083]). Therefore, based at least on the previous sections, as well as Martikka’s explicit disclosure of a “belt, strap, or some other suitable means,” the Examiner respectfully submits that Martikka, at the very least, suggests that the flexible wearable device may contain an adhesive form factor configured to be placed on the skin of the individual. The newly introduced secondary reference of Ishikawa explicitly discloses one such example of a flexible wearable device, and, as described below, an obvious combination of the Martikka and Ishikawa references obviates the amended claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martikka et al. (US 2006/0079800 A1) in view of Ishikawa et al. (US 2016/0120734 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Martikka describes a system, comprising
a memory that stores instructions ([0020])
a processor that executes the instructions to perform operations ([0020], [0058]), the operations comprising
receiving, from a flexible wearable device worn by an individual while participating in an activity, a first digital signal from a microcontroller of the flexible wearable device that includes a heart rate measured by a sensor of the flexible wearable device ([0058])
receiving, from the flexible wearable device, a second digital signal from the microcontroller that includes acceleration data corresponding to an acceleration of a body part of the individual while the individual participates in the activity ([0061], [0064])
analyzing the first and second digital signals ([0031])
determining a performance metric of the individual based on analyzing the first and second digital signals ([0031], [0049])
comparing the performance metric to baseline data for the individual to determine a fatigue level for the individual ([0049])
generating an alert based on the fatigue level ([0049], [0070])
Regarding claim 12, although Martikka describes that the flexible wearable device includes a sensor that “may be fastened to the body by means of a rubber band, belt, strap, or some other suitable means” ([0058]) and a processor that “may be placed on the body” ([0061]), Martikka does not explicitly disclose wherein the flexible wearable device comprises an adhesive form factor configured to be placed on skin of the individual. However, Ishikawa also describes a flexible wearable device configured to determine heart rate and acceleration data from an individual, including wherein the flexible wearable device comprises an adhesive form factor configured to be placed on skin of the individual ([0092]: “the wearable device 107′ can be configured as a patch, bandage, epidermal electronics, or the like, having an attachment device configured to connect to the subject 106…attachment device can include one or more of an adhesive, hook and loop material, clips, or other suitable means”). As Ishikawa is also directed towards flexible wearable devices and is in a similar field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate an adhesive similar to that described by Ishikawa when using the system described by Martikka, as doing so advantageously allows the resulting sensors to be secured to the individual in the scenario that the sensors and processing means are placed directly onto the individual’s body.
Regarding claim 13, Martikka describes visually rendering the performance metric and the base line data on a display ([0019], [0031]).
Regarding claim 14, Martikka describes receiving additional digital signals from the digital microcontroller including heart rate measurements over a period of time during the activity and determining a heart rate variability metric for the individual during the period of time ([0027], [0043]).
Regarding claim 15, Martikka describes determining a rate of perceived exertion experienced by the individual while participating in the activity ([0021], [0027] - [0028])
Regarding claim 16, Martikka describes determining a type of movement performed by the body part based on the second digital signal, wherein the type of movement comprises other movement ([0036] - [0037]).
Regarding claim 17, Martikka describes determining a manner in which the body part is to be moved to increase a performance of the individual during the activity ([0031], [0044], [0072]).
Regarding claim 18, Ishikawa describes determining an injury probability for the individual based on the sensed signals ([0065]), and Martikka describes using the first and second digital signals ([0031]).
Regarding claim 19, Martikka describes generating a report including the performance metric and the fatigue level of the individual ([0019], [0031]).
Statement on Communication via Internet
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant. Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. Where a written authorization is given by the applicant, communications via Internet e-mail, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used. USPTO employees are NOT permitted to initiate communications with applicants via Internet e-mail unless there is a written authorization of record in the patent application by the applicant. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please refer to MPEP 502.03 for guidance on Communications via Internet.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Mack (US 2014/0088454 A1), which describes an adhesive patch configured to sense physiological signals.
Berg et al. (US 2015/0230719 A1), which describes integrated sensors configured to monitor biometric signals for determining exercise performance and fatigue levels.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Ankit D. Tejani, whose telephone number is 571-272-5140. The Examiner may normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30AM through 5:00PM EST. 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, Niketa Patel, can be reached by telephone at 571-272-4156. 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 at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/Ankit D Tejani/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
